Attack in Nice on July 14th

[Valmy]

Was serfdom really that unique to Euroland? Didn't they have something similar in China/Japan/India?

[The Minsky Moment]

Was serfdom really that unique to Euroland? Didn't they have something similar in China/Japan/India?

Yes but various forms of slavery also existed in China and India. 

[Malthus]

It is also worth pointing out that "slavery" didn't necessarily have exactly the connotations in Islam as it does in modern times - being a Mamluk meant being a slave all right, but then, it also could mean being a member of the ruling military caste. Complaining that Muslim societies ran on "slavery" is like complaining that Japanese society abused the domestic help because Samurai means something like "servant". 

Not to say Islam didn't have "slaves" who were truly miserable, of course.

[Valmy]

It is also worth pointing out that "slavery" didn't necessarily have exactly the connotations in Islam as it does in modern times - being a Mamluk meant being a slave all right, but then, it also could mean being a member of the ruling military caste. Complaining that Muslim societies ran on "slavery" is like complaining that Japanese society abused the domestic help because Samurai means something like "servant". 

Not to say Islam didn't have "slaves" who were truly miserable, of course.

Well they had "slaves" and then they had slaves. The "slaves" existed because the Arabs made the spectacularly bad choice, for them anyway, of using slaves as soldiers.

Most civilians captured and sold in Muslim slave markets weren't headed to the ruling caste.

[Malthus]

It is also worth pointing out that "slavery" didn't necessarily have exactly the connotations in Islam as it does in modern times - being a Mamluk meant being a slave all right, but then, it also could mean being a member of the ruling military caste. Complaining that Muslim societies ran on "slavery" is like complaining that Japanese society abused the domestic help because Samurai means something like "servant". 

Not to say Islam didn't have "slaves" who were truly miserable, of course.

Well they had "slaves" and then they had slaves. The "slaves" existed because the Arabs made the spectacularly bad choice, for them anyway, of using slaves as soldiers.

Most civilians captured and sold in Muslim slave markets weren't headed to the ruling caste.

Of course. But then, people on both the Christian and Muslim sides of the Med. captured slaves from the other - in battles like Lepanto, each side's fleet was largely rowed by slaves at least in part taken from the other side!

It was the use of slave-soldiers that really set Islamic nations apart, not the use of slaves per se.

[alfred russel]

Most civilians captured and sold in Muslim slave markets weren't headed to the ruling caste.

The smoking hot young women were.

[Malthus]

Most civilians captured and sold in Muslim slave markets weren't headed to the ruling caste.

The smoking hot young women were.

Among the Turks - some of the cute young boys, too.  :grallon:

[Valmy]

Of course. But then, people on both the Christian and Muslim sides of the Med. captured slaves from the other - in battles like Lepanto, each side's fleet was largely rowed by slaves at least in part taken from the other side!

It was the use of slave-soldiers that really set Islamic nations apart, not the use of slaves per se.

I would say that slavery in the Islamic nations was exactly what it says on the tin the vast majority of the time. They were slaves. And modern connotations of slavery absolutely applied.

There were rather spectacular exceptions, of course, thanks to said really bad Arab idea.

[Valmy]

Most civilians captured and sold in Muslim slave markets weren't headed to the ruling caste.

The smoking hot young women were.

And even some not so smoking hot ones. Getting to bang your slaves was one of the big draws.

[Malthus]

Of course. But then, people on both the Christian and Muslim sides of the Med. captured slaves from the other - in battles like Lepanto, each side's fleet was largely rowed by slaves at least in part taken from the other side!

It was the use of slave-soldiers that really set Islamic nations apart, not the use of slaves per se.

I would say that slavery in the Islamic nations was exactly what it says on the tin the vast majority of the time. They were slaves. And modern connotations of slavery absolutely applied.

There were rather spectacular exceptions, of course, thanks to said really bad Arab idea.

Sure. What I'm saying us that the same applied to slavery in the Christian world. Islam and Christianity were alike in having slavery that sucked horribly.

Where they differed, is that the Islamic world *also* had this other form of slavery that did *not* exist in the Christian world. To my knowledge, no Christian kingdom had its warrior aristocracy composed of slaves.

[Sheilbh]

Political christianity is defined by Church dogma, which outlines certain policies, such as the Christian duty for social welfare.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_novarum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_et_Magistra
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadragesimo_anno

Christian morals also play a major role in setting the political ideology of Christian parties, e.g. support for traditional families, opposition against gay rights or abortion.

Yeah. I think the defining characteristic of Christian 'ideology' in the twentieth century is a political humanism. But that's just the last century.

Prior to Rerum Novarum the ideology of most of Christianity was reactionary politics. Absolute or very strong monarchies, opposition to democratic forces, disapproval of fake idols like 'class', 'nation' or 'race', privileges for the established Church and education controlled by it to the exclusion of outsiders. Obviously it's different for dissenting Churches but they were very much the minority and the established Church whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox tended to be pretty staunchly reactionary until the turn of the twentieth century.

[CountDeMoney]

How dare they?

I think it's wonderful.   

[Sheilbh]

Fascinating stat from Bookings, biggest predictor/correlation to number of foreign fighters joining ISIS of a country's Muslim population: French as an official language.

[celedhring]

Seems a bit of a "no shit Sherlock" stat given how many North African countries have French as official language.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but they're the highest in MENA and France and Belgium the highest in Europe. Of the 5 largest relative numbers of foreign fighters, 4 are Francophone.

It's striking that it's more predictive than demographic factors or things like unemployment or urbanisation (which both also correlate).