I mean “characteristics” – the neutral kind.  What I'm getting at is an answer as to why there has basically been a divide between Christian and Muslim nations for hundreds and hundreds of years, but other engrained notions – such as racism or viewing blacks as “chattel” – has been able to be overcome.  I imagine that if we were to transport back in time to South Carolina 1848, we'd think that there would be no way such a society could ever become integrated.  Perhaps if we were to transport to present day Iran, we might think that there's no way a Christian could ever become the leader of this nation.  However, we already know that the first of these scenarios has shown that the seemingly impossible has become a reality.  Why is that?

I'm going to throw in a question that is in line with this ongoing discussion.  Historically speaking, what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that seem to never change, and what are embedded qualities of nations/cultures/peoples that actually can change?  We see the Islamic influence in the Middle East/North Africa that has existed for perhaps 1300 years, and in some form or another conflicts between historically Muslim and Christian countries have kept on going.  On the other hand, I can point to the U.S. South which had a culture revolve around slavery and/or opposition to Yankee control or influence in Southern affairs.  Despite the depth of the engrained way of life down south, all eventually changed after the Civil War.  True, the situation required government involvement on a number of occasions (notably the Civil Rights laws) but today we see a fairly well-integrated society which is in stark contrast to society and the mentality of 150 years ago.

Funny you should ask.  There still seem to be gaps in the European section, but I think I am mostly done.  I might still make some modifications down the road.

I think you're right about this one.  Simple supply and demand suggests that the agrarian roles that slaves unwillingly played would have been filled by others.  Perhaps this would have led to a greater population of indentured servants.  Whichever the case, as demand for cotton went, plantations would have offered wages to workers to man the fields, and the workers would have migrated to those areas where work was offered.Something that would have resulted from this, though, would have been that the price of cotton would have been higher than it was, since the cost of production (including wages paid to workers) would have been higher.  This in turn would have made the price of clothes and other cotton-based products costlier.  I'm not sure how much exportation the South was engaged in, but if memory serves me correctly it traded with Europe.  This might have been reduced as Southern cotton plantations couldn't produce at a rock-bottom price. Then again, with a lack of essentially "free" slave labor (notwithstanding the price paid to purchase slaves), Southern plantations might have looked for alternative means for cutting costs, resulting in greater innovation and technological advancements.  This might have offset the cost of paying cotton worker wages.  It's an interesting "what if?" scenario.

Well, I think that if we step back and think about the potential for peace in that area twenty years down the road, George W. Bush will be considered in a different light.  Obviously, history's chapter on Iraq has not yet been written.  If Iraq is able to maintain a sustainable, secure, and peaceful governmental body, Iraq could very well become an oasis for democracy in the Middle East.  Any instability in Iraq currently is due directly to those who want to undermine the new government – namely, the insurgents.  I think that without insurgents planning attacks, there would be peace in Iraq.

I've got some software at my disposal.  I'll try to come up with a better one sometime in the near future now that I've got some free time on my hands.

I should add to this that in the U.S., laws or interpretations of laws currently in place help to foster an atmosphere of restriction.  This obviously was not the case with the colonies of the 1700s.  I could argue either way that restrictions either a) further an enthusiasm for one's religiosity, or b) make it more difficult to the flame of religiosity to spread into a wider movement.  Or could it be both?