sharkfucker420

PETERS, JULIE STONE. “Staging the Last Judgment in the Trial of Charles I.” Representations, no. 143 (2018): 1–35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26504449.

This is the best I can find in regard to perspectives of King Charles I as an idolator. If there is an account of Cromwell directly accusing Charles I of Idolatry I couldn’t find it easily.

As for the rest I found this

His destruction of idols and statues largely happened in Ireland but also occurred in England source

As for closing bars, his administration did this but not all bars, just ones that were “unlicensed and disorderly” source

A Taghut is someone who worships a deity other than the Abrahamic god. Christians would use the term idolater. It IS a stretch but Cromwell considered High Anglicanism (as advocated by Charles I) to be too close to catholicism which protestants considered idolatry. This was made worse by Charles I marrying a catholic. I can’t find a source where Cromwell specifically calls Charles I an idolator but he headed a socio-political movement that did.

I’ll get back to you with better sourcss later if I can especially regarding the other details. My partner was not appreciating my casual historical research during our movie lol

Pointing to specific instances of scientific development and religious interference with scientific development does not create an argument. You have to add analysis that places these examples within their respective historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts. Then use that to support a defensible claim.

Regardless, none of your examples address the core of my argument which was, to clarify, that investment in abstract sciences originates from specific economic necessities rooted in the dominant mode of production rather than ideological dispositions. The existing ideological perspectives surrounding scientific development form as political and social justification for the meeting of those material economic needs. Not the other way around.

The UK did not “discover” science and the Islamic world didn’t “turn their backs” on their scientific methods out of an ideological disposition as you seem to be implying. The decline of material studies (golden age specifically) in that region coincide with the increase of social inequality and resulting concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a small elite who had little interest in funding these pursuits on account that they were not strictly/directly “productive”. This, followed by the decimation of scientific institutions, records, and the regional economy generally at the hands of Mongol invasion made this trend effectively irreversible.

Under the Ottoman empire there was a relative resurgence in scientific studies as was necessitated by industry and military parity which, again, declined as the empire declined. The dissolution of the Ottoman empire after WW1 and subsequent consumption of its parts for the satisfaction of British and French imperial desires once again cemented this decline. The colonizer has no need for domestic scientific inquiry, they need resources and labor.

The various cultures of West Asia and North Africa did not “abandon” abstract scientific inquiry because islam made them irrational and backwards. Oppressed people simply have more direct concerns preoccupying them. Should we leave them the fuck alone they would have the time and money to invest in such things.

I would also like to note that the U.K. and other European nations developed the scientific method as a result of their advancing economic needs in regards to industrialization (of course only made possible by plundering the world) not because they just decided to be “rational people”

Your knee-jerk reaction to my insult of Cromwell, and following denigration of the modern people of West Asia betrays your racist idealist conception of the world and its people’s histories.

Admittedly I thought the implication of Chad being the country was funny but I was referring to the Nile flood pattern being stabilized by its origin in lake victoria. I’ll fix the grammar to the best of my abilities lol

Huh, neat, I wonder why. I really gotta read more about Chinese “pre-history”

The Yangtze likely played a big role (In my poorly educated opinion). It’s far more reliable than the yellow river and likely provided a more stable ecosystem from which early people would learn to live with, and make use of, the yellow river despite its volitility.

Admittedly it is unlikely all of those people were eaten and none of the sources here are what we would call “good”.

Regardless I do think Zhang Xun was looking for a reason

I’m sure this will have 0 repercussions for the entire continent of Africa haha

I mean that entirely depends on when and where. Not every culture is guaranteed to have done this or something similar.

https://time.com/5562258/indigenous-environmental-justice/

Spence points out that the first so-called wilderness areas that had been deemed in need of preserving were not only and in actuality Indigenous-occupied landscapes when the first national parks were established, but also that an uninhabited wilderness had to first be created. He examines the creation of Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite National Parks in particular to illustrate the way the myth of uninhabited virgin wilderness has for more than a century obscured a history of Native land dispossession in the name of preservation and conservation and serves as the foundation of the environmental movement.

https://aicago.org/indigenous-stewardship-and-the-legacy-of-national-parks-on-tribal-lands/

The establishment of national parks often came at a significant cost to Indigenous communities. Parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon were created through the forced removal of Native peoples who had lived there for millennia. Treaties were ignored, sacred sites were taken, and traditional practices such as hunting, fishing, and ceremonies were outlawed. This exclusion set the stage for a century-long struggle for recognition and rights.

I hate being that guy who rains on every parade but I have VERY complicated feelings about the national parks

He also said that in the dark, it makes no difference how they look

Yeah some of them wrote and complained about it but they still didn’t do anything about it systemically. The wealthy few could somewhat avoid it if they were knowledgable enough but the workers in their slums couldn’t do jackshit about it. Nor could the slaves mining it (obviously)

Tbh it was more “that guy is definitely gonna invade me but totally not any time soon haha, we still have a few more years surely” up until the point of invasion. The soviets very much understood that the Nazis had every intention to invade them, you can tell by all the prep work they did and the many members of the politbureau who said as much. Stalin just thought they had more time.

I’ve been saying this for song long. Most of their history is written by their enemies and they still come of as pretty decent all things considered

Holy shit its finally here holyshit