The original Barbarians were rootless, non-Christian bands of raiders. According to History of the Barbarians,
Their fierce, warlike nature and coarse behaviors earned them the name "barbarians", meaning both "illiterates" and "wanderers".

There were four groups that were categorized as Barbarians:
  • Vikings
  • Goths
  • Mongols, and
  • Huns

And, for the PC among us, they were racially White and Asian.

According to the History Channel, which earlier this year, ran a series on the Barbarians,

...the Barbarians were innovative in their development of weapons and strategies, clever in their use of diplomacy and deceit, and completely ruthless in their use of terror as a weapon. The story of the Barbarians is truly one of the clash of civilizations.

Remind you of anyone?

I can certainly understand the outrage of Muslims at the thought that the Q'uran might have been treated disrespectfully, IF TRUE. However, the violence shown to non-Muslims who were not directly involved is absolutely uncivilized - you might say BARBARIC.

I'd like to think we have not reached the point of a "clash of civilizations". It would be more agreeable to Western sensibilities to find a way to co-exist with followers of Islam. But, if over-the-top rioting is considered an acceptable standard of behavior in response to rumored or perceived disrespect, that won't be possible. So, the question is, do we trash all of our political, religious, and personal freedoms to make that co-existence possible, or do we tell them to accept our Western traditions,...or shove it?

A blog I've long been following is Dhimmi Watch. For those who aren't aware, a dhimmi is a non-Muslim. They have limited rights in Muslim societies, and never are even tolerated. They may not practice their religion, dress according to their beliefs, or attain citizenship. If they accept their dhimmi status, they will generally be allowed to live.


Popular posts from this blog


But...The Founding Fathers Were Young, So...