9 ms·

> Against a backdrop of Islamophobia, Europeans are increasingly airbrushing from history their cultural debt to the Muslim world. It is all so tiresome. A dis

> Against a backdrop of Islamophobia, Europeans are increasingly airbrushing from history their cultural debt to the Muslim world. It is all so tiresome. A discussion of Arabic influences in European culture would certainly be interesting. Too bad she tries to frame the history of Muslim colonization of Europe [0-4] and kidnapping of its people into slavery [5,6] as something where Europeans are the villains, and that what little benefit they managed to extract (or steal, as she put it) from these hostile interactions indebted them to their colonial masters. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna_(1529) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna_(1529) [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

the-printer 3y ago
You know, I don’t share your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe in the least, but your response indicates to me that the angle taken by the author (which reeks of the kind of cultural self-flagellation that is en vogue these days) could do less to “challenge Islamophobia” as the press release says, than it can to embolden it or at least disturb people who would have otherwise benefited from the history without being force-fed a narrative that could be expressed differently (I’m not accusing you of Islamophobia, by the way). My knee-jerk impression is that this book is using Islamic history as a pawn in today’s “culture wars”. It will enlighten few, and serve as material for the in-group who is most likely to purchase it to pontificate over at cocktail parties.
- pipes 3y ago
  Can someone explain why the parent post has been flagged?
  - pvg 3y ago
    Yes, it's mentioned in the site guidelines: Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. The comment picks a word out, then claims the book is 'framed as' that (it's not) and then pirouettes to exactly the sort of culture flamewar rehearsed talking point it wrongly accuses the book of engaging in, complete with the URL barrage such comments often include. Absolutely none of it has anything to do with Islamic architecture's influence in Europe - the topic of the book. As a first comment, it successfully kills any chance we'd get an interesting thread. The people who flagged it were right and the people who vouched for it were mistaken.
    - the_lego 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Do you think predominantly Muslim ethnicities such as Bosnians or Albanians or Lipka/Crimean Tatars have a place in Europe then?
        the_lego 3y ago
        What does that have to do with allowing casual lies about history to go unchallenged? Let's say they do have a place - does that mean we have to whitewash the history of Muslim conquest? In other cases of descendants of invasions, they're made to call themselves 'settlers' and give land acknowledgments. The least we can do here is not tell lies.
        tptacek 3y ago
        None of this has anything to do with the book.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- the_lego 3y ago
  > your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe While I'm certainly not a fan of them, I'm not particularly outraged about them either. Wars of naked conquest were simply the way back then, and the Islamic world was not exceptionally brutal compared to others, including Europe. My antipathy is towards those that seek to erase or twist this history. I realize the main point is architectural influences, but that only makes the lie more insidious - a casual statement most won't pay much attention to, and simply assume it accurate, like the presence of kilts in Braveheart.
  - the-printer 3y ago
    We can count beans over whether it's appropriate to address how Islam entered the region in a PR piece, but I think we'd just be waxing historian in traditional HN fashion. After some thought, it's obvious that it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire (I failed in my part to recognize this earlier). I can understand how it can be interpreted that the book is advertised in a way that compels some of its Western readership to assume an implicit guilt or adversarial role as "Islamophobes" who denigrate the influence that the Islamic world had on its land. I myself was skeptic of this tone at first, but as a whole it simply isn't the responsibility of this particular book to cater to readers who want the history of the Islamic conquests from the perspective of the West (as the colonized) to be brought forth aside from the architectural influences that the conquests had. War and colonization involve more than just the bloodshed of the belligerents. For us to even focus on the just the event of conquest at the expense of what occurred afterward does a historical and cultural injustice. The Islamic conquests are in fact unique in this regard, as opposed to say, the Belgian Congo. The irony here is that I can make the same accusation of "self-flagellation" to those who are desperate to be recognized as "the colonized" (in this instance by a cultural "other", in a sense) as I can make against people who woefully lament their history as "the colonizers". The former accusation feels even more apt because if so much lengths have to be taken to recall this history, maybe that's indicative of the significant steps that the region (as a collective) has made in progressing past that stage of their legacy. Of course I feel that there are some exemptions. But on the whole, as I've said elsewhere, the Western world (as a hegemonic region that claims the most prosperous nations materially) in a way has lost the "narrative privilege" of the periods where they didn't have the upper hand being popularly discussed.Of course there are exceptions to this, but the Islamic conquests primarily have the distinction of being carried out by nations who if not foreigners themselves were driven by motives—the Islamic faith—entirely foreign to the invaded lands. It's not that there's anything to erase or twist, my hunch is that aside from specific historical discussions like this one, it's not worth mentioning.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pipes 3y ago
Agree. What's actually been airbrushed from history is the extent of the islamic slave trade. It was a serious threat to coastal populations of western Europe. Western governments were paying protection money to islamic governments to prevent raids. It wasnt just piracy, it was state sanctioned. So much so there was a permanent slavers base established on an island off England's coast: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barba... There was also a religious element that is conviently ignored, Islam did not allow enslaving of Muslims, but enslaving anyone else was fine. Hence Christian countries were targeted.
- the-printer 3y ago
  I suppose that the reason that it's spoken about less is because there isn't as much as an incentive to do so outside of discussions such as this, especially when compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade for example. The Western world, in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship with slavery being more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. This is likely a consequence of their predominance. There may just not be much for most people to talk about with regards to the effects that the slave trade in historically Islamic countries had on England because they traded slaves too. Even if the Trans-Atlantic method didn't involve piracy (it appears that "Adam Smith's invisible hand" was more effective), the modern view of slavery for most is that all forms of it are terrible. Not only that, but at a glance, the Western world has virtually shorn itself of its history as an enslaved people, save a few beautiful buildings left in their formally subjugated territories according to Stealing from the Saracens . Anyhow, slavery as a human institution is something that just about every society has both experienced and facilitated. The institution itself is more broadly associated with the West as slavers rather than the enslaved and most people are likely unaware or are indifferent to their history as the latter due to how well-know their involvement is as the former. On second thought, maybe the book from the article is worth a read after all. Authors usually have no control over press releases on their book. She deserves a fair shake.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
paganel 3y ago
> and kidnapping of its people into slavery Genoa and Venice are still highly praised in the Western world even though they did the same thing, I haven't heard any tourist complaining that the Basilica San Marco is basically built on pillage and rape [1204]. > On September 19, 1363, a ten-year-old Tatar boy named Jaqmaq was sold as a slave in the Black Sea port of Tana. His first owner had probably been a Christian, as he had already been baptized with the name Antonio. His second owner was a local Muslim named Aqbughā, the son of Shams al-Dīn. Aqbughā sold Jaqmaq/Antonio to his third owner, Niccolò Baxeio of the parish of St. Patermanus in Venice, for 400 aspers. Niccolò also bought a fifteen-year-old Tatar girl from Aqbughā and a twelve-year-old Tatar boy from another local man. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ckk https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ckk [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople
- GloomyBoots 3y ago
  You’re talking about a drop of water in an ocean. The Islamic slave trade is the most massive and brutal such enterprise that has ever existed. And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe. Islamic culture is definitely highly influential on Europe and in turn was highly influenced by European culture, and that kinship is worth acknowledging unlike this whiny confrontational Islamophobia narrative which holds no water when you actually look into the historical context. But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures.
  - paganel 3y ago
    > And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe. In 1204 there was no Islamic invasion in these parts of Eastern Europe which the Westerners sacked and pilfered at will. > But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures. All I see it's an inferiority complex (on the Westerners' part) that is oftentimes transformed into some sort of cultural colonialism, there's no self-flagelation in saying that, yes, for hundreds of years the West was culturally inferior to the Islamic civilisation (and to civilisations located further East more generally speaking). Fernand Braudel's works are a good introduction into that subject.
mustafa_pasi 3y ago
The point she is making is nonetheless correct. Nobody wants to associate themselves with Arabic/Muslim identities in today's Europe (except for those who have no choice), because of the many negative connotations. I don't know exactly where it all went wrong, but in the post-WWII period Europe decided they were going to import millions of Muslims, some Turkish, some Arabic, a few even Iranian, and then somehow turned them into the new enemy.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Is it like how in the US, we "import" people from Central and South America to do all the hardest jobs for the least pay? Basically serving the same economic function as slavery.

the-printer 3y ago

You know, I don’t share your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe in the least, but your response indicates to me that the angle taken by the author (which reeks of the kind of cultural self-flagellation that is en vogue these days) could do less to “challenge Islamophobia” as the press release says, than it can to embolden it or at least disturb people who would have otherwise benefited from the history without being force-fed a narrative that could be expressed differently (I’m not accusing you of Islamophobia, by the way). My knee-jerk impression is that this book is using Islamic history as a pawn in today’s “culture wars”. It will enlighten few, and serve as material for the in-group who is most likely to purchase it to pontificate over at cocktail parties.

pipes 3y ago
Can someone explain why the parent post has been flagged?
- pvg 3y ago
  Yes, it's mentioned in the site guidelines: Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. The comment picks a word out, then claims the book is 'framed as' that (it's not) and then pirouettes to exactly the sort of culture flamewar rehearsed talking point it wrongly accuses the book of engaging in, complete with the URL barrage such comments often include. Absolutely none of it has anything to do with Islamic architecture's influence in Europe - the topic of the book. As a first comment, it successfully kills any chance we'd get an interesting thread. The people who flagged it were right and the people who vouched for it were mistaken.
  - the_lego 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Do you think predominantly Muslim ethnicities such as Bosnians or Albanians or Lipka/Crimean Tatars have a place in Europe then?
      - the_lego 3y ago
        What does that have to do with allowing casual lies about history to go unchallenged? Let's say they do have a place - does that mean we have to whitewash the history of Muslim conquest? In other cases of descendants of invasions, they're made to call themselves 'settlers' and give land acknowledgments. The least we can do here is not tell lies.
        tptacek 3y ago
        None of this has anything to do with the book.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
the_lego 3y ago
> your antipathy toward the Islamic conquests of Europe While I'm certainly not a fan of them, I'm not particularly outraged about them either. Wars of naked conquest were simply the way back then, and the Islamic world was not exceptionally brutal compared to others, including Europe. My antipathy is towards those that seek to erase or twist this history. I realize the main point is architectural influences, but that only makes the lie more insidious - a casual statement most won't pay much attention to, and simply assume it accurate, like the presence of kilts in Braveheart.
- the-printer 3y ago
  We can count beans over whether it's appropriate to address how Islam entered the region in a PR piece, but I think we'd just be waxing historian in traditional HN fashion. After some thought, it's obvious that it's beyond the scope of this book to address the history of the Islamic conquest to the extent that you desire (I failed in my part to recognize this earlier). I can understand how it can be interpreted that the book is advertised in a way that compels some of its Western readership to assume an implicit guilt or adversarial role as "Islamophobes" who denigrate the influence that the Islamic world had on its land. I myself was skeptic of this tone at first, but as a whole it simply isn't the responsibility of this particular book to cater to readers who want the history of the Islamic conquests from the perspective of the West (as the colonized) to be brought forth aside from the architectural influences that the conquests had. War and colonization involve more than just the bloodshed of the belligerents. For us to even focus on the just the event of conquest at the expense of what occurred afterward does a historical and cultural injustice. The Islamic conquests are in fact unique in this regard, as opposed to say, the Belgian Congo. The irony here is that I can make the same accusation of "self-flagellation" to those who are desperate to be recognized as "the colonized" (in this instance by a cultural "other", in a sense) as I can make against people who woefully lament their history as "the colonizers". The former accusation feels even more apt because if so much lengths have to be taken to recall this history, maybe that's indicative of the significant steps that the region (as a collective) has made in progressing past that stage of their legacy. Of course I feel that there are some exemptions. But on the whole, as I've said elsewhere, the Western world (as a hegemonic region that claims the most prosperous nations materially) in a way has lost the "narrative privilege" of the periods where they didn't have the upper hand being popularly discussed.Of course there are exceptions to this, but the Islamic conquests primarily have the distinction of being carried out by nations who if not foreigners themselves were driven by motives—the Islamic faith—entirely foreign to the invaded lands. It's not that there's anything to erase or twist, my hunch is that aside from specific historical discussions like this one, it's not worth mentioning.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pipes 3y ago

Agree. What's actually been airbrushed from history is the extent of the islamic slave trade. It was a serious threat to coastal populations of western Europe. Western governments were paying protection money to islamic governments to prevent raids. It wasnt just piracy, it was state sanctioned. So much so there was a permanent slavers base established on an island off England's coast: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barbary-Pirates-English-Slaves/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Barba... There was also a religious element that is conviently ignored, Islam did not allow enslaving of Muslims, but enslaving anyone else was fine. Hence Christian countries were targeted.

the-printer 3y ago
I suppose that the reason that it's spoken about less is because there isn't as much as an incentive to do so outside of discussions such as this, especially when compared to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade for example. The Western world, in particular the United States, bears the burden of their relationship with slavery being more well-documented and its effects are paid more attention to than other parts of the world. This is likely a consequence of their predominance. There may just not be much for most people to talk about with regards to the effects that the slave trade in historically Islamic countries had on England because they traded slaves too. Even if the Trans-Atlantic method didn't involve piracy (it appears that "Adam Smith's invisible hand" was more effective), the modern view of slavery for most is that all forms of it are terrible. Not only that, but at a glance, the Western world has virtually shorn itself of its history as an enslaved people, save a few beautiful buildings left in their formally subjugated territories according to Stealing from the Saracens . Anyhow, slavery as a human institution is something that just about every society has both experienced and facilitated. The institution itself is more broadly associated with the West as slavers rather than the enslaved and most people are likely unaware or are indifferent to their history as the latter due to how well-know their involvement is as the former. On second thought, maybe the book from the article is worth a read after all. Authors usually have no control over press releases on their book. She deserves a fair shake.
- mistrial9 3y ago

paganel 3y ago

> and kidnapping of its people into slavery Genoa and Venice are still highly praised in the Western world even though they did the same thing, I haven't heard any tourist complaining that the Basilica San Marco is basically built on pillage and rape [1204]. > On September 19, 1363, a ten-year-old Tatar boy named Jaqmaq was sold as a slave in the Black Sea port of Tana. His first owner had probably been a Christian, as he had already been baptized with the name Antonio. His second owner was a local Muslim named Aqbughā, the son of Shams al-Dīn. Aqbughā sold Jaqmaq/Antonio to his third owner, Niccolò Baxeio of the parish of St. Patermanus in Venice, for 400 aspers. Niccolò also bought a fifteen-year-old Tatar girl from Aqbughā and a twelve-year-old Tatar boy from another local man. [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ckk https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6ckk [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople

GloomyBoots 3y ago
You’re talking about a drop of water in an ocean. The Islamic slave trade is the most massive and brutal such enterprise that has ever existed. And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe. Islamic culture is definitely highly influential on Europe and in turn was highly influenced by European culture, and that kinship is worth acknowledging unlike this whiny confrontational Islamophobia narrative which holds no water when you actually look into the historical context. But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures.
- paganel 3y ago
  > And the Crusades were a direct response to Islamic invasions of Europe. In 1204 there was no Islamic invasion in these parts of Eastern Europe which the Westerners sacked and pilfered at will. > But this whole self-flagellation thing never been about actual mutual appreciation of different cultures. All I see it's an inferiority complex (on the Westerners' part) that is oftentimes transformed into some sort of cultural colonialism, there's no self-flagelation in saying that, yes, for hundreds of years the West was culturally inferior to the Islamic civilisation (and to civilisations located further East more generally speaking). Fernand Braudel's works are a good introduction into that subject.

mustafa_pasi 3y ago

The point she is making is nonetheless correct. Nobody wants to associate themselves with Arabic/Muslim identities in today's Europe (except for those who have no choice), because of the many negative connotations. I don't know exactly where it all went wrong, but in the post-WWII period Europe decided they were going to import millions of Muslims, some Turkish, some Arabic, a few even Iranian, and then somehow turned them into the new enemy.

nerdponx 3y ago
Is it like how in the US, we "import" people from Central and South America to do all the hardest jobs for the least pay? Basically serving the same economic function as slavery.