Why didn't euros convert their northern African colonies? Turning Algeria into French speaking Catholics and Egypt into English speaking protestants etc
They tried.
As it turns out, not that many people care what the missionaries have to say.
In the rare situations that they did, it usually caused more harm than good.
>>315202
Because 90% of their populations didn't die to plague.
>>315202
Maybe Muslims are not keks?
>>315202
because the leftists of any period would whine >muh human rights until the leftists took power and de-colonized abrutly, leaving the mess that we have today.
PrayForParis
>>315202
Because they were all Muslim.
>>315202
Because, North Africans already had religion establishments that could fight off missionaries, and the colonial governments themselves weren't too invested. Also, Egypt wasn't your run of the mill colony, it already had a powerful, westernised civil-society from the Napoleonic times and Muhammed Ali's Western Europe missions, there was very little cultural shock when the Brits came.
Because Muzzies would rather die than change their religion
France turn Algeria into a part of France
>>315202
Because unlike Iberians the English realised the best way to make money from a colony is to just focus completely on trade and business. Ofcourse
there was the odd individual missionary but for most colonists all they wanted to do was make a pound using a penny
I assume its the same for the French but I don't know
>>316922
You have to admit turning Egypt into an Anglo country would have been amazing just for the bragging rights.
>>316911
and algeria turned france into algeria
>>316934
it would, but someone has to pay for it
It's much easier to convert pagans than Abrahamics.
>>315202
Organised religions are much more resistant to conversion than haphazard pagan beliefs which can be co-opted into another religious view.
And Muslims already know of Jesus and considered him a prophet, but believed the Christian and Biblical doctrines are inaccurate to the "truth".
So why on earth would they trade the beliefs they view as a correction of false, for those they see as false, but related fundamentally to the same belief system.
Basically, how do you sell people on something they think is a nonsensical heresy?
>>316941
Because we say we'll tax them more if they don't become Christian.
>>316944
Not really a sufficient incentive for genuine conversion.
>>316946
It worked for the Muzzies
>>316947
Only partially, and you have to keep in mind that they came with a message that is more acceptable to Christians of the period perhaps than Christianity is to them.
After all the whole Christ being God incarnate has more to do with the Nicean creed than any scripture anyway.
>>316941
>Basically, how do you sell people on something they think is a nonsensical heresy?
At the sword, like in reconquista Spain, or the Phillipines
>>315202
The thing that enabled european colonialism, the enlightenment, simultaneously discredited the practice of forced conversion.
>>316947
Theres a fundamental difference though.
The Islamic faith comes after Christianity, and it literally states that Christianity is incorrect.
For example
>[2:113] The Jews said, "The Christians have no basis," while the Christians said, "The Jews have no basis." Yet, both of them read the scripture. Such are the utterances of those who possess no knowledge. GOD will judge them on the Day of Resurrection, regarding their disputes.
>[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
>[2:135] They said, "You have to be Jewish or Christian, to be guided." Say, "We follow the religion of Abraham-monotheism-he never was an idol worshiper."
Whereas, since Christianity comes before Islam, and says nothing personally against Islam, it follows that it's much, much easier for a Christian to convert forwards than for a Muslim to convert backwards. Except in the current political climate of course.
>>316955
Europeans did plenty of forced Christianity.
Well not entirely forced or brutally, but the native children were taught it in the new schools.
>>316958
I admit I'm not knowledgeable about the religions but surely it is all basically the same shit? Doesn't Christianity say there will be no more prophets/big shit after Jesus? It's not like Muhammad's family horse is logical but Jesus' dying and coming back is crazy. Plus the freedom to drink and smoke in Christianity could be a draw.
>>316953
That requires far far more force than was ever invested in North Africa. And that means resources, which were being used elsewhere.
Especially if you want genuine conversion. We're talking a few generations of enough force to fully repress an entire population.
>>316959
Yeah you could do that with animistic savages, but not with people living in cities and following a religion no less organized than your own.
>>316965
>Doesn't Christianity say there will be no more prophets/big shit after Jesus?
No, even some of the Gospel writers are supposed to be divinely inspired.
> Plus the freedom to drink and smoke in Christianity could be a draw.
Not if you actually believe you'll go to hell for it.
I think part of the reason so many religious people ignore their tenants today, even Muslims, is because everyone sort of knows its not real. Slightly. When they're on their death beds they go back to shitting themselves though.
>>316981
That's the thing I wasn't raised with religion at all so learning it in RE class it all just sounded like pure non sense. It's hard to realise people did (And still do) literally believe in this stuff.
>>316947
Not really, there were still substantial Christian minorities in the Middle East until very recently, as most of them immigrated to Europe/The US after shit hit the fan in the Middle East during recent years. Even today there are still small groups of native Christians in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, etc.
There's also the fact that Muslims have occupied those areas for centuries, whereas Britain only had control of Egypt for about 70 years.
>>316953
That's a ton of resources to invest for such a minor benefit. Keep in mind that European countries weren't even making money from most of their African colonies, they served mostly as a prestige bonus or coaling stations so that your ships can get yo the colonies that actually matter, like British India, French Indochina, etc.
>>316922
Actually, french colonization of north africa was like iberian colonization, they build cities, infrastructures of all kind and emigrated there a lot.
Also, despite no religious convertion, they imposed french which is still used as a formal language and some vocabulary in casual talking.
An exemple of this integration politics is Algeria, algeria was annexed and stopped being a colony to become a region like normandy for exemple.
I think religious conversion was impossible because muslims already recognize and believe in Jesus.
Making them christians would mean making them not believe in mohamed anymore. It's much harder than converting pagans.
>>315202
You can't compare Egypt and Algeria like that. Algeria was a settler colony, eventually made a french department. Egypt was basically just under military occupation in order to protect the Suez Canal and fuck around in the Sudan.
Muslims have a superiority complex, they believe the Christianity and Judaism had turned to shit and they had fixed it, so it seems strange to go back to the thing you fixed, and as for language, most areas were held for less than 100 years, no where near enough for a complete change in language, North Africa was owned by Rome for 500 years and Latin only kind of took of
>>315202
Because converting organised religions which have shared history with your own, and believed by people with ordered societies is a lot harder than introducing a totally alien religion to tribal pagans.
Not to mention that conversion campaigns need funding and most colonials realised that pouring resources into commerce and stability was far more profitable than trying to rock the boat by forcing religion.
>>316941
Egypt and other regions were christian before the muslim invasions.
The right answer is:
a) they didn't control them for long
b) they weren't brutal enough
>>315708
i dont know anything about history and scapegoat anything bad to leftists: the post
>>315202
Unlike in the Americas, 80% of the population didn't die from disease, so resettling the area with Euro's wasn't as feasible, although there were attempts, like the Pied-Noirs in Algeria.
There's also the fact that the Americas were fertile and full of potential riches, so attracting settlers is much easier. No one wants to go and live in a fucking desert in Libya.
>>317244
at its peak 13% of libya was italian in the 1930s. so it could have been possible
Abrahamic religions are immune to each other, but they are a virus that can basically kill any other religion.
>>317213
>>317375
>>317381
>>317384
>>317375
this is not proof. your "evidence" has nothing to do with the history, or the relationship between leftism and decolonisation, which is minimal considering how many leftists governments turned a blind eye toward it before wwii
>>316965
The bible warns of false prophets after Christ, not that there would be none.
>>317375
Of Course they're fucking Labour that is why Labour let them into the country
>>315202
Found the idiot.
I'm french, my grand father fought the algerian war. Algeria was a french "departement" (meaning state or lander) BUT TRUTH IS YOU CAN'T - YOU CANNOT - """TURN""" PEOPLE INTO SOMETHING THEY AREN'T
Therefore your question makes no sense.
You are a new worlder and it shows, only new worlders live in multi cultural societies and believes it was always like this, that people can emigrate and "turn" into full blow Americans even though they're from other part of the world.
New worlder scum, get a fucking culture already you make me vomit
>>317452
>YOU CANNOT - """TURN""" PEOPLE INTO SOMETHING THEY AREN'T
You actually can, through mass genocide.
How do you think Algerians became muslim in the first place?
>>315202
Muslims are much more deep rooted in their language and culture then their sub-Saharan counterparts.
>>317455
it was a very long time ago, nowadays with all the news and information we have it's not possible anymore.
People will always find a way to secure their "heritage" and lifestyles and ultimately the oppression they are under will loose its power before they lose their heritage.
That's why people want to achieve globalism so much with American way of life because all other ways of expansion are dead.
