If you saw my complexion, you would be disabused of this thought. I’m more of a forests in winter type of chap.
Lawrence said he was able to pass for an Arab; all he needed was dirty clothes.
I have a more green green grass complexion.
Here’s a fine piece of scholarship from an Arabist.
Here’s an example: “Notre-Dame’s architectural design, like all gothic cathedrals in Europe, comes directly from Syria’s Qalb Lozeh fifth-century church,”
Someone might want to tell her that Islam did not exist in the fifth century and since it’s a church, it was built by Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire, not Saracens or Arabs; Syrians are neither.
"It is not only the twin towers and rose window that have their origins in the Middle East, she pointed out, but also the ribbed vaults, pointed arches and even the recipe for stained glass windows.
The ancient Egyptians had stained glass. Ribbed vaults and pointed arches probably originated in India, not the Middle East and predate Islam regardless.
“Gothic architecture as we know it owes much more to Arab and Islamic heritage than it does to the rampaging Goths.”
The term Gothic was invented later to describe a style of architecture that had been called Frankish and it was pejorative in nature. No one suggested that the Goths created it.
“I thought more people knew, but there seems to be this great gulf of ignorance about the history of cultural appropriation…"
The CA term. Apparently she ignores the “CA” that went the other way. Like India’s contribution to Arab mathematics. Or, the contribution of the ancient Greeks to Arab science, math, philosophy and medicine which they had access to after conquering places like Egypt with its libraries. Besides, cultural appropriation is a stupid term that means nothing. Cultures do not invent anything, individual humans do.
"women in Venice were veiled in public and dressed in black from head to toe. “One cannot see their faces for all the world,” a 15th-century source commented. “They go about so completely covered up, that I do not know how they can see to go along the street.”
No. Women in Venice did not wear burkas. The women dressed in black were widows, not all women. This was not unique to Venice and continues in some places. The veils were chapel veils, not burkas. Any scholar should know that old sources tend to exaggerate for the sake of creating a sense of exoticism. This is one reason why Shakespeare had plays which took place in Italy because at that time it was seen as an exotic and mysterious place for most Englishmen.
“Saracen was a pejorative term for the Arab Muslims, against whom the Crusaders had fought their “holy war”. It originated from the Arabic word “ saraqa ”, meaning “to steal”, as Saracens were seen as looters and thieves.”
This is not true. It is a theory as the word has other possible meanings. With that said, the word was used by Arabs to describe a people they differentiated from themselves. In other words, Westerners did not invent the word Saracen as it was already in use prior to them coming into contact with them. So, if the word does indeed mean thief it is because that is how the Arabs saw them. And since the word is Arabic in origin, it is doubtful that any Westerner who used it knew what it meant in Arabic. It did have a negative connotation in the West once the Crusades began but that wasn’t because they were seen as thieves but because they were seen as infidels, Muslims.
“Never mind the fact that the Crusaders plundered their way across Europe, Jerusalem and Constantinople – pilfering the wonders of Islamic architecture as they went, and airbrushing the origins of their booty in the process.”
Because the Jihadists did not do the same? Who invaded Spain long before the Crusades? Constantinople? Why is it now called Istanbul? And who built the Hagia Sophia and was it always a mosque?
So Zara, Constantinople and Nicaea were Muslim?
She uses terms like pilfering and theft but then says, "Now we have this notion of east and west. But back then, it wasn’t like that. There were huge cultural exchanges - and most came from the east to the west. Very little went the other way.”
So were they exchanges or stealing? Also, given the fact that ancient Greek learning was probably the foundation for the Islamic Golden Age, it could be argued more went from west to east.
She’s wokesplaining the concept of the Mediterranean to idiots and attributing the entire legacy of Eastern Christianity - including North Africa - to desert Arabs.
And all that in a time when after 2000 years Christianity is being wiped out from the Middle East.
Guys, it’s the guardian. It exists to decry the west and call you a fascist for not voting labour.
They employ Owen Jones and Paul Mason, for God’s sakes.
Oh no no, any defensive actions taken against Islamic expansionism were Catholic theocratic fascism, it is known.
I haven’t checked to be sure, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find a guardian op-Ed criticising Charles Martel’s victory at Anjou.
I think they had a recent one criticising a film featuring Agincourt, for reasons of English jingoism.
T’is a rag.
She also ignores the contributions of India and China. She conveniently leaves out that it wasn’t an exchange between the Middle East and the cultures to its west but also the cultures to its east.
And its always outsiders to the cultures who bring up cultural appropriation and theft. I doubt the Egyptians at that time cared that they may have influenced Venetian architecture. Just as Byzantines didn’t care that their architecture influenced Islamic architecture. If she wants to talk about cultural appropriation then how about cultural imposition? The Syrians didn’t always speak Arabic and those former mosques in Sicily weren’t built because Sicilians needed them.
I recall you mentioned Anglo-exceptionalism at a point. This is the intellectual mirror image noted by Orwell:
‘In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.‘
They feel guilty that their founder was very pro-slavery and made money in the cotton industry. Money which went to help found the paper.
But the article is about a book.
I only wish they’d take their logic to its extreme and let me abolish Manchester and Liverpool.
Ah I see. My above points are generalist comments on the guardian, which I take great mirth in insulting.
Of course the Guardian would write positively about the book.
This is what the Left, specifically the socialist part of the Left, lacks today: a member who is not afraid to criticize it more harshly, and honestly, than the Right does. But unlike the “intelligentsia” he criticizes, Orwell had real world experience.
Islam is the Hotel California of religions. Correction - it’s not a religion, it’s a political system.
I’m more concerned about the ignorant millions in the states taking it at face value…
Apparently not the only country ![]()
America is the Anglo junior. You inherited some of our worst maladies. It confusing as to why it happened, but happen it did.
Well you exported the hooligans over here before you found Australia.
Why are you still up?
Weekend Dungeons and Dragons session. We’re at hour 10 now. God help me.