|
Nenonen posted:Is there actual factual basis for this? Apparently according to Wikipedia it's factually dubious. The rest of his arguments check out at least.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Is there actual factual basis for this? From Wikipedia: Due to his supposedly Islamic name, some Muslim Americans have suggested that Peter Salem was a Muslim. Others have accused proponents of the theory of historical revisionism. The basis for the theory appears to be local legend rather than solid historical record. Blackpast.org: Some have attempted to link Peter’s last name with the Arabic “Saleem” (one who is peaceful); however there is no concrete evidence that this is the case. Jrank Encyclopedia: Little is known about his early life. He was originally owned by Captain Jeremiah Belknap. It is believed that Salem was named by Belknap for his own hometown of Salem, Massachusetts. An article on Telegram.com: And now Peter Salem is taking on a new historical role. Amir Mohammed, a researcher in the role of Muslims in early American history, has raised the possibility that Mr. Salem was a Muslim. When he was freed, he dropped the name of Buckminster, the name of his master, and took the name of Salem. Salem, sometimes spelled “Saleem,” is an Arabic word for peace. Several entries on Facebook and other Internet sites discuss Mr. Salem and his possible Muslim background. Although it is possible that he had Muslim roots, it will be hard to prove, given the lack of documentation. Arab slave traders were active in Africa in the 1700s, and some of their captives were exposed to Islamic teachings. Researchers have identified a number of slaves as Muslims. But whether Peter Salem was one of them is hard to say. The main histories of Leicester do not mention any Muslim connection. In other words: Inconclusive. Regardless: Miss Fats, that is a terrific breakdown 
Angry Avocado fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Feb 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
One thing I'd like to add to Miss Fats' great breakdown:crime fighting hog posted:Oh, I'm sorry, I I wonder what the founding fathers thought of this. Let's see what the 1797's Treaty of Tripoli says... quote:“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Is there actual factual basis for this? No. It's possible but not confirmed by any kind of historical document. Most of the rest of the response is solidly grounded in fact though. e: beatd hard
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
I'll take one dubious fact in response to a document of pure fabrication any day. Regardless, even had there been absolutely no muslims fighting in the revolutionary war, "heritage" doesn't mean literally built this country. We owe quite a bit to Muslim and Arab influence (and it's important not to conflate the two). Good luck landing on the moon without the Muslim renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
Miss Fats posted:I'll take one dubious fact in response to a document of pure fabrication any day. Regardless, even had there been absolutely no muslims fighting in the revolutionary war, "heritage" doesn't mean literally built this country. We owe quite a bit to Muslim and Arab influence (and it's important not to conflate the two). Just as an aside, it is best not to go with the dubious fact. Someone who would write a rebuttal to your rebuttal could easily seize upon one dubious fact and use it to (fallaciously) poison the well of all the other good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Salvor_Hardin posted:Just as an aside, it is best not to go with the dubious fact. Someone who would write a rebuttal to your rebuttal could easily seize upon one dubious fact and use it to (fallaciously) poison the well of all the other good stuff. These people aren't exactly into fact checking. I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out that these people don't fact check anything. They'll more likely just dismiss my entire post out of hand (without bothering to actually read it). Those sympathetic to my post may fact check (as we've proven) but you guys already agree with me anyway so who cares. ^_^ Anyway, regardless of Peter Salem's beliefs, there were plenty of American Muslims in the revolution or at least working (as slaves) on the side of the US. On top of that, Morocco was the first country in the entire world to recognize the USA as an independent nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:49
|
|
|
Miss Fats posted:These people aren't exactly into fact checking. I understand what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
Thomas Jefferson was literally Godquote:Thomas Jefferson http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/j/jefferson-quotes.htm
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
Jefferson also owned slaves and had several children with one of his slaves. That's it, time to bring back slavery, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
And as we all know he also owned a Koran and made his own Bible with the supernatural stuff cut out. But let's not get distracted from MAH RITE TO USE GUNS [on my own property].
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 03:55
|
|
|
Not to mention that Jefferson was a hardcore agrarian, so of course he wouldn't have a high opinion of cities. We're never going to get rid of this cult that's popped up around the founders of this country, are we?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
EnsGDT posted:Thomas Jefferson was literally God I thought the Texans recently stripped most of his history out of the high school curriculum. WHICH ONE IS IT CONSERVATIVES?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
The first three of those facts aren't even remotely impressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 05:14
|
|
|
the posted:The first three of those facts aren't even remotely impressive. But he studied ADDITIONAL LANGUAGES!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 08:31
|
|
|
the posted:The first three of those facts aren't even remotely impressive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 09:12
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:Not to mention that Jefferson was a hardcore agrarian, so of course he wouldn't have a high opinion of cities. It's pretty bizarre. I don't think there's any other developed countries that fetishes it's past to the same extend. Maybe there's chain mails about Napoleon in France and Canute the Great in Scandinavia but I never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Jefferson also owned slaves and had several children with one of his slaves. That's it, time to bring back slavery, right? That's not entirely fair he released them before his death didn't he? Not a saint I know but better than many at the time and I'd say he saw the error of his ways even if it was late. I wonder how whoever wrote that would feel about Jefferson's views on religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:That's not entirely fair he released them before his death didn't he? Not a saint I know but better than many at the time and I'd say he saw the error of his ways even if it was late. He released a few slaves when he died, likely his blood relatives. Even then, releasing slaves when you can no longer benefit from them is a rather empty gesture. It's like saying men like Robert E Lee were against slavery, because they gave meek disapproval of the institution but wouldn't do anything because only God could and should do away with slavery. That's more an apology for the inconsistencies of their humanistic ideals with their taste for slave labor than any disapproval.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:That's not entirely fair he released them before his death didn't he? Not a saint I know but better than many at the time and I'd say he saw the error of his ways even if it was late. No, that was Washington. Jefferson was too broke for that and released only a bare few, the rest went against his massive debts. He saw the error of slavery super early and made some tentative steps towards trying to abolish it in his early career, talked some extreme views for his time, but seems to have decided/realized that it was a political impossibility, accepted the status quo since he thought slavery would die out on its own within a few generations, and went on to other causes. You can call that political and moral cowardice, admirable realism, or whatever you want. People poo poo on the slave owning, Washington's fake teeth, and so forth too reflexively, though, as if doing evil but standard things immediately invalidates everything good they could do. It's itself a perpetuation of founder worship in a way, or at least its opposite (founder demonization?), in that it casts past actors as abstract beings of pure light or dark instead of humans. It also won't be entirely fair when people poo poo all over Clinton in 100 years for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because he didn't instead campaign for full allowance of open homosexual enrollment, gay marriage, and equal rights all around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:It's pretty bizarre. I don't think there's any other developed countries that fetishes it's past to the same extend. Maybe there's chain mails about Napoleon in France and Canute the Great in Scandinavia but I never heard of it. Need to think of a country that wasn't founded on religion and thus attempted to turn their founding figures into gods. Turkey and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk comes directly to mind. Also, many communist regimes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:I thought the Texans recently stripped most of his history out of the high school curriculum. Yeah, I wish they'd teach about Sam Houston, first President of Texas, slaveholder, member of the Cherokee Nation, Unionist, and anti-Confederate. It would blow their minds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
berzerker posted:No, that was Washington.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Not an email, but I'm a huge fan of this thread and need to share this sheer amount of crazy: Bryan Fischer: Native Americans morally disqualified themselves from the land Here's a taste (bolding mine, although I really almost bolded the whole thing): Bryan Fischer posted:The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Is he aware that most Indians alive today are Christians? Or are they just not Christian enough?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Logan 5 posted:Not an email, but I'm a huge fan of this thread and need to share this sheer amount of crazy: Bryan Fischer: Native Americans morally disqualified themselves from the land Christ, I'm a poor dumb Brit with limited knowledge of US history, but I thought the 6 nations(or whatever the Cherokee called themselves) were starting to try to adapt white style laws and institutions when they got kicked out on the trail of tears? And could you compare the outcry over mosques today with missionaries getting chopped up back then?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
DSPaul posted:Is he aware that most Indians alive today are Christians? Or are they just not Christian enough? To him, I'd imagine religions like the Native American Church (mnany sects of which syncretize Christian thoughts and practices with traditional belief systems) are inspired by Satan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Logan 5 posted:Not an email, but I'm a huge fan of this thread and need to share this sheer amount of crazy: Bryan Fischer: Native Americans morally disqualified themselves from the land Uh. Yeah. gently caress Bryan Fisher: Wikipedia posted:In response to the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, Fischer wrote that the government should "stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security."[2][3] Since then, he has advocated for the forced removal of all Muslims from the United States, writing that "simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S."[4] In August 2010, Fischer opposed the construction of the Muslim Park51 community center near the World Trade Center site, believing it to be a mosque and claiming that the building signified a "subversive ideology". He stated that "Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment."[5] On his radio program, Fischer called for a halt in the construction of all American mosques, saying, "Permits, in my judgment, should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America. Not one! We ought to be done with the building of mosques in the United States of America."[6] He also claimed that the Islamic religion is "racist" and compared it to the Ku Klux Klan.[ I don't know how some of these people manage to go to top universities and still turn out so stupid (and I don't think he was a legacy).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 22:36
|
|
|
I've gotten into a long back-and-forth today with one of my FB acquaintances. It invariably happens, because he posts some half-cocked bullshit that he believes is true, I comment on it, pointing out the error, and he launches into me being an Obama shill ("buttboy"), starts flinging around strawmen, and generally making an rear end of himself while throwing out unfounded idiocy and claiming that *I'm* full of poo poo (typically Rovian tactic). Anyway, the highlight of this is that he eventually came out claiming that Carter's administration caused the housing bubble that led to the current state of the economy, and that there are two congressional committee findings that support him.  Of course, he's yet to produce those findings - but he's now claiming that I said that Obama's past as a professor means he'll make a good president. For reference, he's extrapolating from the initial comment and response, which was in pertinent part: quote:This clown's [Obama] never hired or fired anybody, had to meet a weekly payroll, or even had a real private-sector job in his life. quote:Yeah, man, like, professors, senators and presidents totally don't have to worry about budgets constraints, staff turnover, owner/shareholder/voter/public opinion and pressure, funding, etc... This Clownbama guy is totally unqualified. Why, I bet he never even ran for president before 2008. Loooooooooseer. Habibi fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Feb 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Uh. Yeah. gently caress Bryan Fisher: He's also the guy that got angry someone won the Medal of Honor for saving lives instead of for killing people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Pfirti86 posted:Uh. Yeah. gently caress Bryan Fisher: So, looks like the SPLC's designation of the AFA as a hate group is getting more and more accurate every day. I mean, seriously, this is outright white supremacist rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
Re: Muslims Wait a loving minute. I know there are Muslim names listed among the troops who fought in the revolutionary war, and I'm pretty sure the captains of the Nina and Pinta were Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Re: Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_de_Triana The guy who first sighted land was a Muslim, although he later converted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_de_Triana Does that count? I haven't checked the score lately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Does that count? I haven't checked the score lately. Yeah it counts...score one for Christianity that is 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:
So, what you guys are saying is that when Colombus landed, if you count that as the start of the US that there were most likely more muslims as a percentage of the population then than now (obviously ignoring native population, aka considering Colombus the voyages as the seed)? Let's see, between 40 and 50 pepole on each boat, call it a good 150. According to Wikipedia, we're currently at 0.8% muslim. Which means that there were at least 3 times as many muslims then as a percentage. So, yea, Colombus's voyages had a higher percentage of Muslims aboard than modern day America....Interesting statistic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 03:28
|
|
|
berzerker posted:It also won't be entirely fair when people poo poo all over Clinton in 100 years for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because he didn't instead campaign for full allowance of open homosexual enrollment, gay marriage, and equal rights all around. It is entirely fair when I do it now, so i'm going to say that it will be fair then as well. "Well, most other people were pieces of poo poo at the time" does not, in fact, excuse lovely behavior towards other human beings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:It is entirely fair when I do it now, so i'm going to say that it will be fair then as well. "Well, most other people were pieces of poo poo at the time" does not, in fact, excuse lovely behavior towards other human beings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
T-1000 posted:The eventual conclusion of this is that all people ever were terrible because they didn't fight for abolitionism, womens' suffrage, workers' rights, civil rights, gay marriage, better treatment of indigenous peoples, abolishing the death penalty, animal rights, robot rights or whatever the future issue is. It's an ahistorical and not very productive line of reasoning. No, the end result is that people rightly condemn people for not doing good things/doing lovely things. Just because Jefferson was, among other things, a slave owning douche doesn't mean that he didn't also do some pretty cool things. Creating a false dichotomy is not very productive though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:No, the end result is that people rightly condemn people for not doing good things/doing lovely things. Just because Jefferson was, among other things, a slave owning douche doesn't mean that he didn't also do some pretty cool things. Creating a false dichotomy is not very productive though. berzerker posted:People poo poo on the slave owning, Washington's fake teeth, and so forth too reflexively, though, as if doing evil but standard things immediately invalidates everything good they could do. It's itself a perpetuation of founder worship in a way, or at least its opposite (founder demonization?), in that it casts past actors as abstract beings of pure light or dark instead of humans. It also won't be entirely fair when people poo poo all over Clinton in 100 years for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, because he didn't instead campaign for full allowance of open homosexual enrollment, gay marriage, and equal rights all around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2011 12:36
|
|