There were crusades not just against Lithuania, but against Frisia, Russia, the Baltics, Slavic peoples in the Balkans, East Germany and Pommerania, as well as Ireland and Finland. Hell even charlemanges Saxon wars where he literally mass-slaughtered the native leadership and burned down their holy places could be counted under erasure.
To compare medieval europe and the colonization period is wrong. But saying that whiteness and whiteness fostered through „Shared Christian Values“ didn’t erase indigenous European cultures is distorting history and strengthening white supremacy.
Yeah, no, there were no equivalent groups or organizations or states or entities or religion equivalent to modern European nation states, nor any programs or projects akin to 16th century Spanish Colonialism or 19th century Missionary Imperialism, prior to the development of those things. Equating the spread of the Christianity in the late classical and early medieval period to shit going on in the 1500s or 1800s is ahistorical.
There barely were "Shared Christian Values" until like, idk... God, when did they start to homogenize the religion? Because for like a thousand years it was just a mish-mash of idiosyncratic practices, small religious communities, weird schisms, warring factions of scholars. There wasn't a single coherent centrally organized Christianity until probably the Crusades, and even that was a complete mess. Like yeah, they were mostly using Bibles that were at least similar, and a lot of the Priests were at least able to read Latin, but there wasn't much standardization. Treating "Christians" as a single religious group, or ethnoreligious group, or nation in the medieval period does not reflect the societal practices and systems of power at that time.
"Whiteness" as we conceptualize it didn't exist until like the 16th century at the absolutely earliest, and didn't really solidify in to it's modern form until a while after that. There was no "Whiteness" in medieval Europe. Tribes, towns, linguistic groups, allegiance to various secular or religious lords, sure. Religious societies, sure. But there was no whiteness, nothing we would recognize as Nation States. The Christians that replaced, violently or not, pre-Christian Europeans weren't an organized or monolithic body. It was dozens of different cultures and language groups, some of which were only barely practicing the same religion, acting according to their own material interests. There was nothing equivalent to the US genocide of Native Americans or the Spanish conquest and mass slaughter in South America.
The closest I'm aware of would be the Teutonic Knight's crusades in to north Eastern Europe. And those guys fought other Christians as much as they fought non-Christians, and were, iirc, widely considered psychopaths by all their neighbors Christian and non-Christian alike.
Also, genuinely curious - Crusade in Ireland? I have never heard even a suggestion of anything like that, except that silly nonsense about Patrick violently expelling Pagans from Ireland.
There were crusades not just against Lithuania, but against Frisia, Russia, the Baltics, Slavic peoples in the Balkans, East Germany and Pommerania, as well as Ireland and Finland. Hell even charlemanges Saxon wars where he literally mass-slaughtered the native leadership and burned down their holy places could be counted under erasure.
To compare medieval europe and the colonization period is wrong. But saying that whiteness and whiteness fostered through „Shared Christian Values“ didn’t erase indigenous European cultures is distorting history and strengthening white supremacy.
Yeah, no, there were no equivalent groups or organizations or states or entities or religion equivalent to modern European nation states, nor any programs or projects akin to 16th century Spanish Colonialism or 19th century Missionary Imperialism, prior to the development of those things. Equating the spread of the Christianity in the late classical and early medieval period to shit going on in the 1500s or 1800s is ahistorical.
There barely were "Shared Christian Values" until like, idk... God, when did they start to homogenize the religion? Because for like a thousand years it was just a mish-mash of idiosyncratic practices, small religious communities, weird schisms, warring factions of scholars. There wasn't a single coherent centrally organized Christianity until probably the Crusades, and even that was a complete mess. Like yeah, they were mostly using Bibles that were at least similar, and a lot of the Priests were at least able to read Latin, but there wasn't much standardization. Treating "Christians" as a single religious group, or ethnoreligious group, or nation in the medieval period does not reflect the societal practices and systems of power at that time.
"Whiteness" as we conceptualize it didn't exist until like the 16th century at the absolutely earliest, and didn't really solidify in to it's modern form until a while after that. There was no "Whiteness" in medieval Europe. Tribes, towns, linguistic groups, allegiance to various secular or religious lords, sure. Religious societies, sure. But there was no whiteness, nothing we would recognize as Nation States. The Christians that replaced, violently or not, pre-Christian Europeans weren't an organized or monolithic body. It was dozens of different cultures and language groups, some of which were only barely practicing the same religion, acting according to their own material interests. There was nothing equivalent to the US genocide of Native Americans or the Spanish conquest and mass slaughter in South America.
The closest I'm aware of would be the Teutonic Knight's crusades in to north Eastern Europe. And those guys fought other Christians as much as they fought non-Christians, and were, iirc, widely considered psychopaths by all their neighbors Christian and non-Christian alike.
Also, genuinely curious - Crusade in Ireland? I have never heard even a suggestion of anything like that, except that silly nonsense about Patrick violently expelling Pagans from Ireland.