In which I display my stunning ignorance

[kate_nepveu]

Not once but twice!

These are serious questions, by the way—they might offend people but I'm not trying to make fun, I really am that ignorant and I really would like to know.

What was different about European colonialism?

It seems to me that European colonialism gets talked about in a different, more negative way than the various Empires that came and went in Europe, the Near East, and North Africa (Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, etc.). First, is it the general consensus that European colonialism was either worse or bad in a different way, and second, how? Was it the method, or the timing, or something else?

How, according to Christian theology, does Jesus's death save humanity?

Okay, as I understand it, Christian theology states that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine as one part of the Trinity, one of the three beings/instances/presences that make up God. (Well, those parts of it that believe in the Trinity.) His death saved humanity.

I think the easiest way to get at my question is by contrast.

When I think of other instances where a single death saves a large group, I come up with two categories, which are basically drawn from fantasy novels. First, the death provides the, hmm, the necessary means for something to happen: life-force or energy to power a spell, a door for the gods to enter into the material world, a messenger to tell the gods that their help is really truly needed, something like that. Second, the death is part of a bargain: for that price (to demonstrate resolve or need, perhaps), the gods agree to intervene.

When it comes to Christianity, the first category doesn't seem to fit at all. Instead, the little bit of doctrine I'm familiar with seems to incline somewhat toward the second—but I can't follow the logic of such an argument. That is, Jesus is part of God, and why would you bargain with yourself or pay yourself a price? (Possibly this is another way of asking whether Jesus, as part of the Trinity, had free will.)

Is this related to the way original sin is transmitted (which I don't know either)? Or is this something not actually explained in doctrine, that needs to be taken on faith?

(I'm most interested in actual doctrinal answers to this question, but personal opinions are welcome too.)

(I am, by the way, thinking of making this my default icon for the next four to six weeks. And how are you?)

Comments

[itlandm.livejournal.com]

2) Christian theology and the death of Jesus: According to the Eden myth, Adam voluntarily chose to disalign his life from God's will, and for this was punished with death. (Actually it was not so much a punishment as a precaution: If he lived forever, he would continue to degrade his soul and do evil forever. Not a good thing.) This choice was set in stone, genetically so to speak, such that no human being was able to fully align with God's will. (The infamous "original sin".)

Jesus, being divine of spirit but human of flesh, was tested in every aspect of human temptation, but remained aligned to God's will at any cost. As such, he earned the right to not die. By not exercising this right for himself, he became the second Adam and opened a new path: Resurrection. Christians have already taken part in the sin of the first Adam. By taking part in the death of the second, they can proceed to the resurrection.

It is true that in folk belief, the dead proceed to an extradimensional heaven upon their death, but as you will see from the Christian burial ritual, the official doctrine is that resurrection is the Christian hope. The Bible is also quite clear on this.

Although the self-sacrifice of Jesus opened the door to resurrection for every human, before or after the event, the general consensus among Christian churches is that only those who personally accept and enter into a covenant with Jesus will actually receive eternal life. Jesus himself is obscure on this topic, saying both that those who have done good will be resurrected, and that those who believe in him will be.

[kate_nepveu]

Thanks, and yes, it turns out I founder on not grokking *both* original sin and the Trinity! Oh well.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Faint memory from C.S. Lewis--why Jesus' death saved people was interpreted in different ways at different times. Unfortunately, I don't remember the specifics.

[kate_nepveu]

The encyclopedia article linked below talks about this, though in my current state of fatigue I'm finding the prose not quite accessible.

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

Hmmmmm. I don't think of European colonialism as *worse*, but it's far more immediate than, say, the Roman Empire's colonialism. If something affected your grandparents, that's a much bigger deal than something which affected a bunch of strangers several thousand years ago. We're also still dealing with the legacy of colonialism in that there are still territorial disputes ongoing in parts of the world which used to be colonies, in part because the boundaries of the state may have been first drawn by someone who didn't know the area, or its cultural/ethnic/tribal geography.

I was born in 1976. Only a few decades before that, Canada was still a Dominion. First Nations Canadians didn't have the right to vote until 16 years before I was born! And the abuses of the residential schools (which were most definitely linked to colonialism) continued through to the 1970's. The lawsuits are still ongoing. Hell, there are still ongoing land claims in parts of British Columbia. Now, I may be more aware of this than the average Canadian because the Anglican Church ran some of the residential schools, a diocese in my province went bankrupt due to lawsuits re: institutionalised abuse at residential schools run by the Diocese of the Cariboo. Also, the modern Anglican Church has been very involved in trying to promote 'truth and reconciliation', and making overtures to First Nations groups. So, as an active Anglican at a progressive parish, I'm probably more aware than the average person.

But even the average Canadian is going to be confronted with the legacy of colonialism from time to time, no matter how insular they are. I remember reading an article about the TV show Battlestar Galactica in which one of the Canadian actors on the show who was interviewed talked about the fact that his mother (a First Nations woman), had spent a good chunk of her childhood at a residential school. That article was in the entertainment section! I imagine that anybody whose ethnicity includes ancestors who never would've been in the West were it not for colonialism would be reminded from time to time. Ex: Most North American and Carribean black people are not recent immigrants from Africa, but the descendants of slaves.

Also, people from ethnic groups which emigrated because of persecution are often made extremely aware of past problems by people in their communities. i.e. The chances of a person of Armenian descent born in Canada not knowing about the Turkish genocide of Armenians is pretty slim. Likewise for Chinese-Canadians re: the head tax on Chinese immigrants (some of the people who paid are still alive, though very old. Reparations were finally paid to them or their families not long ago). And a third generation Japanese-Canadian who doesnt' speak a word of Japanese will still know a good deal about the internment camps. I know quite a few youngish Australians (white and non) who are very aware of the White Australia policy, despite its lapse several decades ago. Etc, etc. And there are a lot of non-whie immigrants to certain former colonial powers. ex: Lots of people from India, Pakistan, Jamaica, China live in the UK.

So, ya know, still fairly recent history, by historical standards. My uncle's wife was born in Indonesia to Dutch parents who lived there when it was still a Dutch colony (and then when she was a baby Japan invaded, and her father died in a camp). My great-aunt still remembers a pre-WWII trip to India in which she accidentally saw a pro-independence demonstration. Her (white, British) hosts were very disapproving. Not within my lifetime, but within the lifetimes of my relatives.

[kate_nepveu]

Being poorly educated about world history, I'm frequently surprised when I see just how recently some countries became ex-colonies, as it were.

In other words, yes, this probably does have a lot to do with it.

[prince-corwin.livejournal.com]

For the second question, first, realize that drawing on fantasy literature for sacrificial understanding is, uh, putting the cart before the horse, to put it mildly. The second is closer to the real spirit of the sacrifice than the first (because the first will get devout believers to recoil in horror from you as you suggest that something was otherwise not possible for an omnipotent God) but sacrifice exists in literature because it exists in historical religion.

Realize also that much of these answers (from anyone) will fall into the category that the Catholic Church refers to as "Mystery" meaning, a truth that lies above a natural, finite mind. The Trinity itself, by Catholic doctrine is an absolute mytery. Atheists like myself are not going to buy these answers.

Doctrinally, one simple way (but not the only way) to view the Redemption is the offering of an apology that God the Father could not fail to accept. There are a number of simple ways to view that, as well-- God could not fail to accept the sacrificial apology because the sacrificial apology was perfect, for instance. (That's perfect with a capital P.) And the apology had to he perfect because God's offense taken at original sin was also perfect... as it had to be, as everything a perfect God does must be perfect.

You got a lot of weird, but weirdly self-consistent, theology by starting with the assumption that God is perfect and then reasoning through the careful ramifications of that as though you were a Christian version of Aristotle.

The question of God's free will is also important, here. The Catholic doctrinal answer is, yes, God has free will. The important perfticble attributes of creatures can be reduced to intellect (whose object is truth-- you can see the Greek influences here, right?) and will (whose object is goodness.) God has a perfect intellect, knowing all truth, and a perfect will, willing all good. (Which itself is the core of the Catholic answer to the problem of theodicy.) It's not a will like a human free will, but a kind of a rough analog, because what God wills, is.

This loops back to the original question because, since God has free will, God must therefore have freely willed the redemption. But, having taken perfect offense to original sin, God required a perfect apology, which is beyond the ability of Man to provide, unless there is a convenient Incarnation there to offer that perfect sacrificial apology. You can get quite dewy-eyed chasing all the reverberations of that expression of how much God the Father loves Man and how much God the Son loves Man and how much God the Father loves God the Son and eventually you get back to the old Catholic guilt of you really suck, you ingrate, but it's okay.

Note: Becuase God has free will, God could have willed not to save mankind. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be a choice, would it?) But, in another stunning logical requirement of perfection, God exists outside of time, and so, having freely willed to save mankind, it was also foreordained. Try not to think too hard about that one, either.

Sorry you asked?

PS: All those who doubted that I actually had some theological instruction, let it be known: Yes, I can throw down when I want to....

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

I wish I could hear your comments on the book I am presently reading for pre-Cana counseling.

[kate_nepveu]

drawing on fantasy literature for sacrificial understanding is, uh, putting the cart before the horse

Dude, I know, but I gotta work with what I've got.

I don't expect to *believe* any answers, but I thought it possible that I might _understand_ them, given the premises. But no, I just can't get my head around the Trinity, I'm afraid.

God has a perfect intellect, knowing all truth, and a perfect will, willing all good. (Which itself is the core of the Catholic answer to the problem of theodicy.)

. . . is this different from the one in the Book of Job? Because maybe it's just that my brains are mush today, but otherwise I'm not getting it.

[annewashere.livejournal.com]

The church I grew up in (Baptist) related Jesus to the Old Testament laws. Specifically, the Hebrews were required to sacrifice animals to petition for forgiveness of sins, otherwise they would be consigned to eternal torment; Jesus, being God, offered himself to make that sacrifice once and for all for everyone that believed in and accepted his sacrifice. Fulfilled the requirements of his own original law given to the Hebrews, so to speak.

Of course, now that I put it like that, it sounds like he really just wanted to save all the doves and the lambs from dying an early death.

There was a lot more that they taught, but I could never make it make complete sense, which is why I no longer attend my parent's church even as a mythological curiosity.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Afaik, the Torah doesn't have anything about hell.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

It was the first known instance of "Pay it Forward", as a matter of fact.

(shoot me now)

[kate_nepveu]

Thanks.

Hey, unrelated question--would a Baptist willingly go to services at, say, a Lutheran church? Or some other very dissimilar but still generally Protestant one?

[sienamystic.livejournal.com]

This may just be rank theorizing, but I think the reason European colonization gets talked about in much harsher terms is partly because it was so recent, and partly because, in a certain sense, we expect things in the distant past to be harsher, more brutal, more interested in the blunt wielding of power. By the time the European powers were running around colonizing Africa and the Caribbean, I think there's a vague thought that we ought to have *known better* by then, but of course, we didn't.

In addition, many of the older empires had slightly more "live and let live, as long as we get our taxes" attitudes to the people being colonized, which comes across as more appealing than, say, sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

Like I said, this is just off-the-cuff speculation.

[prince-corwin.livejournal.com]

In addition, many of the older empires had slightly more "live and let live, as long as we get our taxes" attitudes to the people being colonized, which comes across as more appealing than, say, sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

Right up until the point where you realize that the Roman "alliance" system was anything but "live and let live." It was more to the point of, "We'll let you live here as long as you pay an arbitrary amount of taxes each year and sign a mutual defense pact with us on decidedly unfavorable terms to you, where what we mean by 'mutual defense' is best described as a system by which we will use you to extend our dominion through Europe."

The Roman subjugation of Italy was so brutal that Hannibal was able to rampage, unstoppable, through Italy for several years, and the vast majority of the Roman "allies" was still so terrified of the ROmans that they refused to come to the Carthaginian aid.

[kate_nepveu]

I'm sure someone's done a compare-and-contrast about the ends of various imperial-type systems, which would be fascinating reading except that I'm on a theology kick at the moment. Something to explore later.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to me that European colonialism gets talked about in a different, more negative way than the various Empires that came and went in Europe, the Near East, and North Africa (Roman, Byzantine, Abbasid, etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "European" colonialism. Post-Colombian colonialism in the New World? 19th-century imperialism?

(In addition to being a great deal more recent, I'd hazard the guess that part of the disgust lies how tightly "European" colonialism is attached to the economic theory of mercantilism, which demands the oppression of the colonial territories for very cold-blooded and rational reasons. And as mercantilism is preceded by evangelicalism and followed by nationalism as "reasons to colonize," European colonization efforts can appall the modern global citizen in a wide variety of ways!)

[buddhacat.livejournal.com]

European colonialism gets talked about differently, because, (1) for many of us, it's not far away and long ago - my father spent a few years in jail in 40's India, mom took part in marches/protests, etc; (2) we've been emigrating to every single country/region in the world, starting decades, sometimes centuries ago, and, while retaining our Indian-ness, carrying our tales also everywhere; (3) every one of us has an opininon on whether colonialism was a good/bad thing, inevitable or not, etc.

I must have been hoarding my commas, or something.

[kate_nepveu]

Commas want to be free!

(And semi-colons and dashes, judging by my writing.)

Thanks.

[rushthatspeaks.livejournal.com]

In addition, European colonialism was thrown off a relatively (historically speaking) short length of time after it happened in most places-- a century or three in most regions, quite often less. And so the damages of being conquered were still quite fresh, but the assimilation that inevitably happens over a long period of time-- such as the extension of full Roman citizenship to Gaul, the Romanized Seleucid dynasty of Judaea, etc.-- didn't happen. The conquered fought for and achieved independence before the original wounds had had a chance to heal, and the initial wounds had been very bad indeed because of the specific racial doctrines and calculated exploitation of the colonies on the part of the European powers. The Romans spoke and wrote of non-Romans as uncivilized, as barbarian, as incomprehensible, as unlucky enough not to have been born in Rome; the Catholic conquerors of the Caribbean decided that quite a few of the natives didn't have souls and consequently weren't human at all. You do not get the rhetoric of the colonized as essentially inhuman before the conquest of the Americas.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

You do in China, and I think in Japan too. And we don't know what the Incas thought about it.

Having said that, if you're talking just about Europe you're absolutely right, it's the same thing that made slavery different in the modern world from the ancient world: race theory.

[oyceter]

To add my two cents to European colonialism: besides the very valid and accurate points that it is a) more recent and b) more tangible, I think the other big thing is that European/American colonialism was also much larger. It started from Europe and ended up affecting all five other occupiable continents. Obviously, people living in the Roman Empire probably thought it affecting everything occupiable as well, but looking back and comparing, we know that there were other things going on in the Americas and in Asia.

Whereas now, I think it's pretty hard to go to any corner of the world and not find evidence of European colonialism, just because we're all so much more connected.

[oyceter]

And of course I didn't actually answer the original question! So... I don't know if it is qualitatively worse, given that the standards of living have changed so much. But I am much more annoyed by it than, say, the Japanese colonization of Taiwan (though I am annoyed by that as well), just because it affects me much more directly on a day-to-day basis.

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

I guess I've never gotten the impression that there was anything specific to *European* colonialism, rather than colonialism in general -- certainly in China and Taiwan, there's generally a lot more focus on the legacy of *Japanese* colonialism. The European powers certainly did their bit of stomping in China (see "Unequal Treaties"), but the Japanese did it more recently. So I wonder how much of that is simply a reflection that, in most places, the non-native jackboots just happened to largely be most recently worn by Europeans...

[kate_nepveu]

Okay, I so need a nap, because "mmmm . . . jackboots" is not what I ought to be thinking.

Partly this is a reflection of the fact that my question was prompted by listening to a lecture series on Islam, I think, and wondering about the difference in tone in talking about the Abbasids and the Europeans.

Also, see "stunning ignorance." =>

[teckelvik.livejournal.com]

Regarding the death of Jesus, the Bible simply states that it was effective, and has some hints about why. There have been all kinds of speculation since then, some of it mutually contradictory. (The technical name for this effectiveness, by the way, is the Doctrine of Atonement.) In general, there are some key Christian doctrines - Anthropology, Christology, and Atonement are the main ones - that have many different interpretations. Which position you take on one tends to determine which positions are available on others, so there are a variety of constellations of belief, so to speak, that can all be understood as Christian. Some of these crystalize into denominations, some exist within or across denominations. This makes it very difficult to talk about "the" Christian understanding of most doctrines.

Here is the article on "Atonement" from the online Catholic encyclopedia, which gives some, but not all, the major subheads. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

[kate_nepveu]

Thank you very much for that link. My brain is mush from fatigue and over-work at the moment, so I found it heavy going and put it aside for later contemplation, but it looks like a very useful overview.

Effects of colonialism

[(Anonymous)]

You might want to look at "Late Victorian Holocausts" by Mike Davis.
A book review is here:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,424896,00.html

I think the type of impoverishment that accompanied 19th century colonialism had not occurred in previous imperialist adventures.

(Hitler seems tame by comparison).

[(Anonymous)]

On #2:

There is a whole range of answers to the question, and no single one is universally accepted.

The "classic" Western (i.e. Catholic and later Protestant) one is that put forward in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, which uses the juridical model of a ransom paid for a crime, and is a variant of your second category. However, it's also generally downplayed in more recent theology, and is really formulated by Anselm, who is late for the "classical" period of both Western and Eastern Theology but is a major influence on all of the following Scholastics.

The Eastern (i.e. Eastern Orthodox) one emphasizes the union of the divine and human natures in the incarnation and then the effect of the resurrection on the human nature -- where "human nature" is taken as a universal in a moderately strong realist (as opposed to nominalist) sense. The phrase that gets batted around is "what is taken up is not redeemed", and was used a lot in discussion of heresies such as monothelitism which posited an "incomplete" humanity of Jesus being joined to his divine nature.

In both the Eastern understanding and more generally in the understanding of the early Church, the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus are seen as one action which can't be pulled apart, so it makes little sense to try to talk about the death apart from the resurrection.

Colonialism and Christianity

[skywardprodigal.livejournal.com]

This is a fascinating discussion. I have nothing more to add at this point though. Also, this happened so long ago in lj time, but again, fascinating.