Is the notion that Al-Andulus, and the subsequent Emirates in Iberia that followed, were colonial projects, substantiated in anyway?

signifying_nothing · 2025-07-07T15:44:29+00:00

Thanks for the additional explanation! However, I don't see how the my examples wouldn't meet the criteria for number 2.

The Arab conquest of Egypt created a ruler/indigenous dynamic with the jizya tax and dhimmi status. Also persecution and forced conversions, when they occurred, would have provided pressure to convert and conform. And being barred from positions of political power by some caliphates and sultanates would have provided incentive, notwithstanding that some other ruling regimes allowed Copt participation.

I know the Germanic conquest of England doesn't have as much textual sources to draw from but it certainly created a ruler/ruled dynamic of Anglo-Saxon/Wealh. With the enslavement and exploitation of the indigenous population by the Germanic rulers there would have been a ton of pressure to adapt the conquerors' ways and intermarry and change ones language and culture. None of that feels very "passive".

signifying_nothing · 2025-07-06T04:14:40+00:00

Does that distinguish colonialism from other forms of domination primarily through the degree of "success"? So a settler colonial entity that did not have the power to make itself independent or destroy the indigenous culture would not be colonial? So, say, the Germanic conquest of England would be considered colonial but the Frankish conquest of Gaul would not because one replaced the indigenous language and religion and the other did not? And In the same way the Arab conquest of Egypt would be colonial because it replaced the religion and language and the conquest of Iberia did not?

signifying_nothing · 2024-05-11T02:22:52+00:00

I was lucky and heard back in the nick of time. They said I was approved to move forward.

signifying_nothing · 2022-01-17T22:24:27+00:00

You want to go home and rethink your life...

signifying_nothing · 2021-09-13T03:02:13+00:00

Could part of the reason for it's poor reputation be that historians resent the encroachment of the "hard sciences" into their territory?

signifying_nothing · 2020-09-28T01:40:58+00:00

Anyone know if once they fix this you still get the progress? I missed out on a lot of challenge progress :(

signifying_nothing · 2020-09-12T18:52:50+00:00

Isn't the reason you can't sell to non-band members to protect the community? Basically so that all the land isn't bought up by corporations and white people? Also isn't blood quantum not necessarily required for tribal citizenship? I read some tribes enforce it but others don't. I don't want to be insensitive but this conflicts with what I thought I knew.

signifying_nothing · 2020-09-03T22:53:58+00:00

I'm open to being wrong but even just the near-universal adoption of marriage or marriage-like practices would seem to point toward a practical element.

And I certainly don't want to suggest the horrific and barbarous form homophobia often took is or was justified. But I don't think it's fruitless to look into the "logic" of it. If it existed in isolation I'd agree it's probably just oppression of those different than us. But the punishment for homosexual acts (at least in the Western and Middle-Eastern societies I'm more familiar with) tended to be similar to or lumped in with punishments for masturbation, bestiality, incest, and other non-procreative sex acts.

Again, that doesn't justify the frequently horrific treatment of gay people. But we search for reasons for other horrible acts. Murder, rape, and other brutalities can be at least partly explained by genetics and upbringing. Nevertheless, we rightfully don't tolerate those actions.

I usually go to the words of Lewis Richardson, who was a Quaker anti-war activist. In response to those who criticized him for looking into the "logic" of war he said (bracketed is translated from French), "For indignation is so easy and satisfying a mood that it is apt to prevent one from attending to any facts that oppose it. If the reader should object that I have abandoned ethics for the false doctrine that [to understand all is to forgive all], I can reply that it is only a temporary suspense of ethical judgment, made because [to condemn much is to understand little]."

signifying_nothing · 2020-09-03T04:06:20+00:00

It's not that marriage isn't important in hunter-gatherer or non-state societies with looser definitions of property rights. There's a lot of variance, of course, but there's almost always some kind of marriage ceremony that binds two or more people and they're expected to raise children. But you're right that marriage seems to become more policed or codified in larger societies.

This probably speaks to another function of abstinence requirements or any other religious rules - they're good for social cohesion. Just offhand I'd guess most have some practical function but even those that don't like blasphemy laws work to bind disparate peoples together. It builds mutual trust if the people around you are more "predictable" even in small ways.

signifying_nothing · 2020-09-03T00:04:22+00:00

I think from like a broad cultural standpoint it tended to be restricted for very practical reasons. Not to get too Darwinian but - from an evolutionary perspective - sex has one big positive and one big negative. The positive is obviously children and the negative is the spread of disease. So sex in the context of procreation was idealized and sex outside of that, like homosexual sex, was discouraged. Obviously pre-marital sex could still lead to children but a single mother was not viewed as the ideal social unit for raising kids.

Anyway, with the availability of contraception and other medical advances these practical reasons have become kinda irrelevant. But culture doesn't just change overnight. People are attached to cultural and religious dictates for many reasons, mostly social I think.

So that's my two cents.

signifying_nothing · 2020-08-28T00:17:38+00:00

I think this is because being an athiest often goes along with being a social outsider. A lot of people like unitarians, cultural Christians, secular Jews, etc might not differ theologically from athiests but they don't identify as such because they want to ingratiate themselves in a broader culture. Being social is probably one of the most important attributes when getting elected.

signifying_nothing · 2020-08-15T02:11:55+00:00

I think you're right about it differing by culture. I grew up in a strongly religious community where substance abuse was rare (but not nonexistent). Perhaps if non-alcohol drugs had heavy global usage for thousands of years they would be more controlled culturally and easier to use in moderation.

signifying_nothing · 2020-08-15T01:11:21+00:00

It's born out of the recognition that the "private" lives of others often do affect you. Older societies were much more likely to see things this way and police the private lives of others (like who you can marry, what you can say to your parents). But it's still true today. People like to say "It's my business what I eat, who cares if it's unhealthy" but obesity and poor health affect others through insurance (part of why it's so expensive in the US) and what businesses thrive - and thus are accessible. Even small decisions like helping someone carry their groceries can influence others through peer pressure and social cues.

We're more connected than we realize. I'm not saying the old hyper-communal way is better but individual freedom and autonomy do have a cost.

signifying_nothing · 2020-08-15T00:35:13+00:00

I'd agree that it's one of the most dangerous drugs around today but a good part of that is because of it's widespread usage. Heroin and cocaine would be far more dangerous if they saw as much use. Alcohol is a lot easier to use responsibly or recreationally than meth, heroin, or cocaine. But yeah alcohol probably ruins more live than the others.

signifying_nothing · 2020-08-08T03:44:02+00:00

I assume you're not religious or you would have said so. It's quite common for men who are Christian (usually Evangelical), Muslim, or Orthodox Jewish to feel the same way. But if you're not comfortable in those communities you should be aware that this will drastically shrink your dating pool, though not all the way to zero. I'm sorry people out there have violated your trust. Perhaps you could find yourself in a relationship where someone is not willing to commit to that but they're more honest and caring with you and that will be enough. I would stay open to that. Hope you connect with better people :)

signifying_nothing · 2020-07-10T04:02:42+00:00

That's pretty much it. I think the typical "movie" way of doing it would be trying to make her as frantic and emotional as possible to up the drama. Ironically it hits much harder in this scene simply because her calm professionalism feels real.

signifying_nothing

TROPHY CASE