#Roman Colonization & Expansion

[ancientorigins]

A 1,700-year-old intact egg from Roman Britain shocked experts by its freakish state of preservation when a micro-CT scan revealed it still contained liquid yolk and egg.

[serpentandthreads]

Gonna need a lot of people to realize that the Romans were a colonizing empire that conquered for the purpose of expansion and power, and that them renaming their deities and adding deities from other cultures to their religion was to assist this purpose.

Using the Romans to make modern issues related to colonization and the oppression of minorities seem minimal, or even justify them... isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

[eponastory]

I'm sitting here wondering why there are people who don't like Zuko because he is a 'colonizer' and this is bad.

Like that's not the point.

History is full of colonization. Especially ours. Being a colonizer does not make anyone bad per sey, not on an individual level at least. Countries over thousands of years have practiced this expansion of culture and politics, which is why we have new countries and new cultures. I'm not disregarding the fact that some atrocities happened with colonization. They absolutely have, and there have been genocides included in that. It's complicated, but evidently some people have forgotten that colonies have been a thing since the ancient times. Rome was the biggest perpetrator of colonization and genocide, yet the Roman Empire is praised for its advancements.

Now, on to Zuko.

They whole reason anti-Zuko people don't like him is because he is a victim of a dark legacy. He is not at fault for the atrocities that his forefathers chose to engage in. If you really look at Zuko and his character, he doesn't actually kill anyone. Where as Aang has inadvertently killed (when he was the Ocean Spirit) several people. Not completely his fault, but he does share the responsibility of choosing to let the Ocean Spirit use him as a conduit of sorts. Again, it boils down to the power of choice and accountability. Zuko takes accountability for the things he does and actively tries to avoid making the choices his forefathers made. He cares about what happens to people, even though he is going through a dark time. I can remember being an emotional and angry teenager trying to get some sort of praise or love from my father. That is his goal at first, but over time he realizes if he continues on that path, he will be like his father. He doesn't want that. And he doesn't become Ozai or do the things that Sozin or Azulon do. Actually, it's the opposite.

Zuko helps bring peace and this sets him on a path that ultimately changes the world for the better. He can only do that if he is willing to accept the past and let go of the anger, which he does.

So, is he responsible for the actions of the Fire Nation because he is a descendant of Sozin? No. He isn't. As we learn, he is also a descendant of Roku. I also believe that Ursa had a very strong influence on Zuko's character as well.

In short, Zuko is not really a villain. He's definitely an antagonist at the beginning, but over time he becomes something else and that is why he is such a great character.

Anyway, just my thoughts as someone who has a deep love for complex characters.

[mapsontheweb]

Ethnic map of Serbia and Kosovo

This map reflects a lot of historical events, such as the migrations of the Serbs, the Magyar conquest of the Carpatian basin, Albanian expansion and reduction, Roman colonization, and many others. In the 18th century, groups of Rusyns and Slovaks started to settle in northern Serbia and are still present today. Both countries host minorities of the other's majority, with Albanian Serbs mostly concentrated in the Preshevo valley and Kosovo Serbs mostly concentrated in North Kosovo. This post is not meant to be political.

by crocmapping

[ryuutchi]

Final determination on To Gaze Upon Wicked Gods by Molly X Chang: If you like romantasy with independent protags and have a high tolerance for both navel-gazing about the violence of colonization AND heterosexual relationships that involve White Privilege, you might enjoy it.

The main character is a poor woman from a formerly noble house in a China-analogue fantasy world that has recently been colonized by technocratic "Romans". The romantic lead is the second in line for the Roman throne (who wants to use her death magic to take over both worlds). OTOH, she walks out at the end and joins the rebellion, so the narrative is not unaware of itself.

IMO it's a little too hetero for me, and too focused on the protagonist's extremely narrow first person perspective. It feels claustrophobic and like there are a lot of political nuances that would have enriched the book if the author had been willing to let her protagonist talk and listen to more people.

On personal preference, I'd recommend "The Final Strife" duology by Sara El-Arifi, which covers a lot of similar themes, has a more expansive cast, and is sapphic endgame

[gemsofgreece]

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJg3VowM/

What even is this? A Moroccan talking bad about Greeks because our ancestors defeated them thousands of years ago??? Like what?? Are they gonna just complain about everything at this point just to have an excuse to spread hate..

But also, Greeks did not defeat them, that's a major point! 😂 The interaction between Greeks and Berbers was minimal at best.

Imagine being colonized like a dozen times and accusing the ones who actually did not colonize you or colonised a small part where you happened to live nearby! But even if we had, it's also funny to blame people now for ancestors colonizing yours 2500 years ago but you simultaneously give a bigger pass to those colonizing you until 70 years ago LMAO

However, I don't think we should care much about such things. I am not aware of Berber people in general having any sort of beef with Greeks. That person, I mean, yeah like the girl in the response video says, seems to have issues. You only need to see the way she speaks and gestures, she's essentially spitting hate there.

I honestly wouldn't consider this concerning enough to discuss but I liked the Greek girl's response, she's very eloquent and, might I say, has a wonderful and effortless accent in English.

Of course the Greek girl makes numerous points throughout, however I could nitpick some stuff in her arguments as well. For one, Afroditi’s pronunciation is not that much of a serious argument as she's referring to the modern pronunciation. Not that the "Amazigh priestess" used an archaic pronunciation correctly, but just saying, not an entirely correct counter-argument either.

Also about the taxes, Ottomans absolutely did tax Christian Greeks very heavily, it's the notorious "haratsi" (Haraç), we still use the word to refer to illogical taxes.

Her best point was mentioning that the Berbers themselves had empires, expanding all the way up to Spain, sometimes cruel as well.

Then, just to be sure, I did make some research on the Internet. Wikipedia, for one, mentions no substantial interaction between Greeks and Berbers except to say that when Greeks of Sicily attempted to capture Carthage from the Phoenicians, Berbers fought along their side in hopes that their rights in the Phoenician city-state would improve!

Then the other time Greeks mention Berbers is when Byzantine authors were documenting that Berbers were raiding the Greek monasteries in Cyrenaica. Okay...

I did however find a website which is about Berber history which claims that everything we know is wrong and Egyptian and Greek gods are taken from the Berbers. Yeah, that whole "you know this wrong, it's the other way around, actually" is trending A LOT lately. This Berber website is twisting the general academic research that points that Berbers had their own original pantheon which however was later influenced by the Greeks and the Romans after they started settling there. Once again, this website too abuses intepretatio graeca and twists Herodotus' words. But still the similarities aren't that strong at all. And honestly I really doubt Egyptians needed to "steal" stuff from others. This priestess must spend a lot of time in this website.

I don't know what's happening lately. I think it has become a trend for everyone to claim they are indigenous from the very first 10000000000 year old original ultimately influential culture that everyone has colonized and tortured and appropriated, especially all the "unfairly" and "accidentally" famous civilizations. If I had a cent for every time I have been hearing this lately and by people that most likely are not equipped to claim this, I would have been changing icons to Twitter at this point. It does seem like a "culture envy" phenomenon... really the girl has a point for calling the priestess "culture vulture". It's like people can't promote their own culture without abusing or bringing down another.

And especially when it is about the organic voluntary expansion or mutual influence in religions, it is absolutely the most ridiculous thing. In the same sense, all Christians in the globe are culturally appropriating the Twelve Apostles. Why do we get dumber and dumber with every new year?

Anyway, here's the response video of the Greek girl.

[fzzr]

I was going to write a post about the "longest-lasting imperial title"

But I didn't, in the end. The way it was supposed to go is I would define an imperial title as one that asserts claim to a core territory and one or more periphery territories. To constrain things I was going to limit it to those who held at least some amount of temporal power over at least some of that area. I would specifically *not* have required an imperial title to be a monarchical one as well, asserting that a Roman Republican consul was just as much an emperor as any Czar or President of the United States. Titles could be in abeyance (say due to a revolution) but could maintain continuity after, just with the downtime not counted. After that I would introduce the commutative property of imperial titles, where the legacy of one imperial title is considered to continue if someone holds two simultaneously and one subsequently expires.

I had started out assuming the longest-lasting such title through the commutative property would start with "King of Sumer and Akkad", as that continued in use for over 1000 years and had continuity into Shah, but it turned out that the most compelling route was to start with Pharaoh of Egypt and conclude that that title still exists by the commutative property in the form of the Pope. In order to distinguish Pharaoh and King of Sumer and Akkad I had to figure out when Egypt became an empire, but that's when things started to fall apart.

The unification of the crowns of upper and lower Egypt by Narmer/Menes(?) could very much be defined as the founding of an empire, but today we consider Egypt to be one entity, meaning Pharaoh would only become an imperial title once it made a claim to land outside those of the ethnic Egyptians. But... were there ethnic Egyptians when the crowns were unified? Does an empire temporarily stop being an empire if ethnogenesis occurs within its area, then start again if it picks up new land again? If empire is defined by ethnicity, does a polity become an empire if it's temporarily conquered by outside ethnic group, and cease when it's ruled again by the native one?

This pushed me to step back another layer and assess my criteria from the top. Why had I started by defining an empire in terms of land and not people? Well, when you're studying history, there are inevitably going to be both words and maps. I'll leave aside the amount of bias that can hide in words for a moment and focus on maps. Maps are lines, colors, and words on a representation of some projection of the earth. So, let's say you're writing a history of the expansion of Rome's empire, and you want to show the changes in modern day Western Europe. Do you choose to show the Roman political subdivisions applied there after the conquest? The names given to that region by the people living there at the time? The names of the peoples? Do you use the names the Romans used, or make an attempt to use the names they used for themselves? Well, virtually none of the pre-Roman inhabitants of those lands had written languages that we know of, and certainly not ones that survived in a comprehensible form to today.

Having lost access to the native demonym, you face the final choice. You either label the land "Gaul" for the land or "Gauls" for the people. I live and was entirely educated in the USA, and most of the maps I learned from (across all of history) made the choice like this: Before conquest, put the current vernacular name for the indigenous people on the vague area where they lived, usually not attempting to include drawn borders. Use the names of the political subdivision once the region is colonized.

That's where I stopped. It was no longer interesting to try to trace imperial titles from the beginning of history until today because it would be too fuzzy to give the punchline I wanted or even an interesting set of possible solutions. I did learn something from the project though, and that's a new definition of "empire" for myself. Empire is what happens when you replace people with land.

Empires draw lines on maps.

[catsnuggler]

I carry some distrust of the word "progress" these days. Perhaps I should have had distrust of it all my life. There's nothing inherently radical about the word. It just indicates that some project has moved forward to some degree, but it says nothing of the character of the project, or if a previous state of affairs was preferable. I feel similarly about the word "advanced".

Pre-contact, women in the Americas generally had things pretty good, in terms of social treatment. Let's take the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as a reference. The Great Law of Peace has been instituted, to this day, for about 1,000 years; by 1492, keeping in mind Europeans arrived in North America some time after that, it still would have been centuries old. As far as I understand, only men could serve as delegates at the council fires, but they were strictly for intra-confederacy and international affairs. Clan mothers, however, held sway over domestic politics, and at a practical level, the men had to listen to the women. It's not equality the way we would think of it, but for certain, it wasn't so oppressive. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy still exists, but it has diminished under colonialism. Speaking of - well, do I really have to explain how, by contrast, European women were treated? We all know European societies are and were awful to women (at least after Roman conquest of about half of Europe, followed by conquests of the Western Roman territories by Germanic peoples that, through military service to, and militant opposition against, Rome, adopted more Roman attitudes toward women).

See, what I'm getting at is, going along with the women's rights example, we tend to think of it as progress, but for some societies, it's tradition. It's good, for certain, for women to be free, I make no argument to the contrary. But if we think less of whether anyone is actually freed from political servitude or economic destitution, and more about whether something has simply moved from a previous state of being, then what else might we praise as "progress", for the sake of progress, alone? Although the "white-only" population in the US is steadily going down, it went higher and higher and higher for a long time - was the expansion of the "white race" in the US "progress"? It was described as such by those in favor of colonialism, of land theft, imperialism, and slavery. I suppose they were right about it being "progress" - at the expense of millions of innocent people, who were forcibly "regressed" by colonial violence. It was "progress", but it wasn't good; it wasn't liberatory. These whites took land; committed pogroms against racially marginalized and colonized people; inhibited land stewardship practices: laid down infrastructure and agriculture in inappropriate places, which led to events like The Dust Bowl; became cops, soldiers, Klansmen, Pinkertons; and have ruined the place.

Isn't it "progress" when a poor neighborhood is gentrified and evicted so some profitable boho bougie shops can take root? Those "nasty" poors removed, so a new, profitable venture can prosper where they once lived. But that so-called "progress" ruined lives, didn't it? Were those boho bougie shops worth it? No. Not even if you call it "progress".

All this said, I'm just a confused white guy whose ancestors probably owned slaves, wracking my head trying to figure out what the way is. Some things can never go back, and some things shouldn't. The Salish peoples didn't have capitalism, although there were still rich and poor; but they had potlaches, frequent redistributions of wealth. The potlaches good, at least. There was also slavery, though, and slave raids. Then the Americans came and said "no" to that - and rightfully so, because slavery is the prime example of political domination and economic deprivation. That said, it's been about 170 years, I don't think any of them want to enslave anybody anymore. The past isn't inherently evil - and whose past? The future isn't inherently good - and whose future?

I've been influenced by the words of Sakej Ward and Lula June Johnston. Great, radical people. Landback, anti-capitalist, feminism, whole nine yards. But what struck me is their conviction that part of the problem is Europeans went through the precursors of what their own peoples later went through; that we once had women healers, we once valued the land as relation, we once fought and died rather than live under empires; that, after we were conquered by other Europeans, we fundamentally changed, and this state of affairs lasted so long we couldn't even imagine other ways.

For Lyla June, this is a personal struggle, as she is not just Diné and Cheyenne, but also European. I'm not multiracial, and I'm sure I can't even imagine the pain she's felt, both from how people treat her and her people today, and from reconciling the trauma of being a descendant of the colonizer and the colonized. Yet... she once dreaded and hated the other side of her family history, until she said, they spoke to her one day, telling her their love, their traditions, their songs - and where it all went wrong. She brought up the witch trials, in particular. Women, countless women, burned at the stake. Mothers, daughters, grandmothers, sisters, aunts, cousins - human beings. Men were forced to watch, helpless, as the women they loved were burned to death in front of them. The surviving women were terrified into submission to the men, and the men were broken into submission to the church and the state. It was like our very souls were taken away.

Per Stolen Anarchy, by Twin Rabbit, socialism, communism, and anarchism are largely derived from European fascination with societies like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and the desire to emulate them - *coughcough* in, *ahem*, proper, civilized, European fashion, of course. *wipes monocle*. Yeah, definitely a sense of cultural elitism there, with the whole "you have a good idea, but we can do it better because we're white" spiel, like you see with so many so-called "Authentic Korean BBQ" restaurants ran by white Karen's and Jeff's in the suburbs. It seems to me that we feeel this impulse to imitate in such a fashion because we know, deep down, we're missing the socioeconomic sense of real community, with each other and with nature; nature being everything, including ourselves; that was destroyed so long ago. We don't know how to get that back, so we see someone else doing that, and immediately try to copy them. Understandable. Wrong, definitely wrong, but understandable. We need to find that animist ethic again, and renew it, and we need the kind of community we have so long been without... But that doesn't mean we can Play Indian. We can't. That's not a solution, that's theft. We won't ever be free to discover our solution, though, until they're free, and in the end, I think socialism, communism, anarchism, are all completely and utterly meaningless if we don't give the land back. We won't be free to heal ourselves until they are free to be themselves.

Anyway, power vs freedom >>>>>>> "tradition vs progress"; landback; learn European history with an eye for the common people, but don't fall for Nazi Aryan Race bullshit; slavery is bad, cultural elitism is bad, burning women is bad. Sound about right?

[dariascultureblog]

Dacians & Romans War

The Dacians were the first to inhabit the territory of modern-day Romania. The Dacian empire becomes more powerful under the rule of Bure Bista (82 BC-44 BC). However, the Dacians did not escape the expansion of the Roman Empire. The Hungarian Kingdom had conquered Transylvania (the middle part of Romania) already in the 11th century. The Ottoman Empire was threatening the Romanians during their siege to Central Europe, in which they were successful until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. ​The Romans then colonized and lived within the territory (until the 3rd century AD), now called Romania. Centuries of migratory tribes' invasions followed the fall of the Roman Empire. Roman Dacia was of great importance to the military stationed throughout the Balkans and became an urban province. In 101, the Dacians led massive assaults on the Roman legions. In 102 Trajan moved his army down the Danube to Oescus. There the Roman armies converged for a final assault and defeated the Dacian army at the Battle of Tapae this led to the end of the conflict between the two and they were at peace in the end.

Map of Dacia soldiers

This is a tiny bit of the map where the Dacians had marched to invade and protect their contry away from the Romans. The areas circled in red were all the areas they had fought and marched in during the AC period. The Dacians wanted to remain out of the borderline for more safety so the Romans do not have an easy way of winning over or causing deaths.

History Fashion

The Romanian popular costume finds its roots in the part of Thracian, Dacian and Getae ancestors and resembles that of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula, of course with differences consisting of decorative and colourful details. Before the occupation of Romans over Dacia, the women’s clothing differed from nowadays traditional clothing and we get this evidence from the portrayal of Dacian women in the Trajan column. Dacian women wore shirts rippled at the neck, sleeves were either long and wide or short, and the dress was long to the ground over which sometimes was attached a wide draped mantle. On the feet, they wore leather sandals in summer and fur sandals in winter. This idealisation of Romanian clothing appeared in the mid-19th century in order to differentiate their culture from the other ones. Nowadays, the Romanian people as a national motif during certain events and celebrations in folk dances. 

Decebalus

Decebalus was the last Dacian king as he was famous for fighting within three wars and success in every war he had, he was the bravest and strongest king that fought with the other Dacians beside them. He was honoured and respected for his help in saving them and fighting for his own people. He fought against the Roman Empire bravely and tried to protect his people first. He had changed their world completely. After raiding south across the Danube, he defeated a Roman invasion in the reign of Domitian, securing a period of independence during which Decebalus consolidated his rule. When Trajan came to power, his armies invaded Dacia to weaken its threat to the Roman border territories of Moesia. Decebalus was defeated and remained in power as a client king but continued to assert his independence, leading to a final and overwhelming Roman invasion north of the Danube in 105 AD. The sculpture shown here was Decebals face that was carved in throughout time to remember how brave he was for us and protected their country well because of him, he cannot be forgotten as he is on a high cliff based in Romania. To this day, the Decebal statue is still standing and able to visit.

Here is more information if you would like to know more about the history of Decebal and how he became a brave hero in Romania.

[heywhatsupfolks]

Hey max I have a quesiton

Do you know why Iran attacked Israel?

I read somewhere it's cuz Israel attacked one of their embassy thingies.. or smth idk

/g

so Basically the Islamic Republic of Iran, the dictatorship that took control of Iran has been a very destabilizing force within the middle east. As an Islamic Jihadist organization, they believe in the strict enforcement of their branch of Islam (this includes Sharia law stuff and morality police). This also means the expansion of this belief into the rest of the world. Their proxies include Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, as well as groups in Syria and Iraq, and I believe the Taliban as well. They've pretty much been the big cause of conflict in the middle east over the past few decades, operating mostly in proxy wars such as the Syrian civil war, Yemeni civil war, and the attacks on Israel from Hezbollah and Hamas. It's pretty much religious imperialism. (Israel was colonized by many nations over time, including the Greeks, Romans, and the British, but most notably the Ottomans and Saudis).

Hezbollah and Hamas in particular, as well as the Houthis, have been bombing Israel for decades, after other countries in the region normalized relations with them. Notably, one of their diplomats who trains and supports Hezbollah and Hamas was bombed in one of the buildings they operated in. People have been claiming this building to be their embassy, but it wasn't. The embassy remains completely intact.

In response Iran directly launched 300+ drones and cruise missiles at Israel in random locations, including major cities, the most important church, temple, and mosque in the world, and the West Bank, as well as northern and southern Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas also launched missiles in this attack. It marks the first time Iran has attacked Israel without hiding behind their proxies.

Fortunately, Israel has the best missile defenses in the world so they, in conjunction with the US, UK, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (and kind of Syria) were able to prevent 99% of the missiles from hitting the ground.

sorry for the long post.

[ancientorigins]

A 2,000-year-old Roman battlefield discovered in the Swiss Alps! Archaeologists have found a trove of artifacts, including a spectacular Roman dagger. This site marks a historic clash between Roman forces and the Suanetes tribe.

[serpentandthreads]

Gonna need a lot of people to realize that the Romans were a colonizing empire that conquered for the purpose of expansion and power, and that them renaming their deities and adding deities from other cultures to their religion was to assist this purpose.

Using the Romans to make modern issues related to colonization and the oppression of minorities seem minimal, or even justify them... isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

[kashifqureshico]

Tracing the Arc of Property: A Historical Odyssey through Real Estate Evolution

Real estate, an essential facet of contemporary society, has a riveting historical evolution that spans across civilizations, epochs, and cultural landscapes. From its embryonic stages in ancient societies to the multifaceted digital era, the concept of property ownership has undergone a profound metamorphosis. Understanding the historical underpinnings of real estate unveils a captivating narrative that illuminates its pivotal role in shaping societal structures and economic paradigms.

Ancient Foundations of Property Ownership

The seeds of real estate and property ownership were sown in ancient civilizations. Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt serve as the cradles where the notion of land ownership was birthed. These societies delineated lands, granting titles and establishing the rudiments of property rights. The concept of land demarcation and ownership became pivotal, laying the cornerstone for future property practices.

Roman Influence and Property Laws

The Romans, known for their meticulous organizational skills, shaped property laws with precision. Employing rigorous land surveys and legal documentation, they fortified the concept of property ownership. The Romans' engineering marvels further underscored the importance of property development and urban planning, setting precedents that echoed through centuries.

Feudal Estates and Middle Ages

The feudal era during the Middle Ages was characterized by the dominance of feudal estates, vast tracts of land governed by lords and nobles. The societal structure was built around these estates, with serfs and peasants tilling the lands in exchange for protection, marking a distinct epoch in property relations.

Colonization and Land Acquisition

As the age of exploration unfolded and new territories were discovered, colonization emerged, signifying an era of land acquisition and territorial expansion. This period witnessed the establishment of property systems, land grants, and colonial territories, significantly shaping the global landscape of real estate.

Industrial Revolution and Urbanization

The Industrial Revolution acted as a catalyst for urbanization and industrial growth, necessitating accommodations for the burgeoning workforce and rapid urban expansion. This period marked the integration of labor, land, and capital, redefining property dynamics and urban landscapes.

20th-Century Dynamics and Modern Real Estate Frameworks

The 20th century witnessed transformative shifts in real estate practices. Mortgage systems, zoning regulations, and the emergence of skyscrapers became emblematic of modern property frameworks and urban planning. The century laid the groundwork for contemporary property norms and regulatory measures.

21st-Century Paradigms in the Digital Age

In the 21st century, the digital revolution reshaped real estate practices. Globalization and technological advancements introduced virtual property tours, blockchain-based transactions, and smart city initiatives, revolutionizing the sector and presenting new opportunities and challenges.

Conclusion: Real Estate's Enduring Legacy

The historical trajectory of real estate mirrors the evolution of civilization itself. It encapsulates cultural values, economic prowess, and societal aspirations. Unraveling its historical underpinnings offers profound insights into the contemporary property realm, illuminating its continued significance.

This historical evolution of real estate, spanning millennia, showcases its enduring legacy—a testament to its intrinsic role in shaping societies and economies worldwide.

An Invitation to Connect and Flourish

I extend a heartfelt invitation—engage, interact, and become part of this transformative journey. Like, share, comment, and subscribe to become a cornerstone of a community united by learning, exploration, and collective growth.

Digital Connections: A Labyrinth of Networks

Connect with me across a digital labyrinth—kashifqureshi.co, Blogger, Facebook, Instagram, Medium, Bloglovin', Tumblr, Reddit, Quora, Twitter, Youtube, and Linkedin. Let's traverse this digital expanse together.

Thank you for being an integral part of this profound odyssey.

Warm Regards, Kashif Qureshi

[newsource21]

Council on American Islamic Relations Los Angeles executive director Hussam Ayloush recently defended Hamas’s barbaric slaughter of 1,200 Jewish, Thai, Filipino, Bedouin, and other men, women, and children. He claimed Israel is “an occupier” that “does not have the right to defend itself.” Only Palestinians have “a right of self-defense,” he said and condemned Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza.

His assertions reflect language in the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas Charters. Israel is “imperialist, colonialist, racist, anti-human,” even “fascist,” “colonizers,” they declare. The “Zionist entity” “occupies” Palestinian lands and denies Palestinians their “right to return” to their homes. The charters call for the “liberation of Palestine” through “resistance,” “armed struggle,” and “self-defense.”

Mobs of students, faculty, and fellow travelers flaunt their ignorance of historic and modern reality by echoing these claims, justifying the October 7 massacres, calling for a “global intifada” (uprising), and demanding the eradication of Israel and its non-Muslim inhabitants “from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea.

You have to wonder: How does a group of people achieve permanent “refugee” or “colonized victim” status with a “right of return” that no others have had? What constitutes a “legitimate right” of “resistance” or “self-defense”? 

Particularly across the Europe-Asia-Middle-East mega-continent, human history has been a saga of settlement, invasion, victory or defeat, continuation or disintegration, expansion or dispersion. Those who lost wars were annihilated, lost title to their land, accepted subservient status (dhimmi in Muslim countries), emigrated, melded into the victorious civilization, or otherwise adjusted.

Over their six-thousand-year history, including since arriving in “the Promised Land” that is now Israel over 3,600 years ago, Jews have played all these roles. They defeated the Amorites, Canaanites, Philistines, and Jebusites, created the Kingdom of Israel, fell to Assyrians and Babylonians, lived under Persian and Greek rule, established the Hasmonean dynasty, and were slaughtered, enslaved, and dispersed by the Romans in 70-133 AD (CE).

However, they did not entirely disappear from the Promised Land. Indeed, Muhammed’s Muslim empire hired Jews as administrators after the Arab army arrived in 636. Jewish fortunes ebbed and flowed under Christian, Mongol, and 500-year Ottoman Turkish rule.

Anti-Semitism and pogroms brought Western European and Russian Jews to their ancestral land in the late 1800s. Theodore Herzl’s Zionism increased the purchase of agricultural and other land. Turkey’s loss to the Allies in WWI transferred ownership and control of the area from the Ottoman Turks to Britain.

The Roman term Palestine had applied to the region for two millennia, but there was never a Palestinian state or empire. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries emerged as independent nations from British-French-Russian rule over the Ottoman Empire before, during, and after WWII – but no Palestinian nation. Palestinian ancestors were always citizens or subjects of ruling empires.

Jewish immigration and land purchases from local and absentee Arab landlords increased significantly between the world wars. The Holocaust and the end of World War II brought surging Jewish immigration ... and more conflicts. Land ownership in the pre-1947 British Mandate area that is now Israel was roughly 15% Arab, 9% Jewish, and 76% public/Mandate land.

1948, despite Arab states’ opposition, the United Nations made Israel's nationhood a reality. Local Arabs and five Arab countries declared war on the fledgling state. Some 700,000 Arabs fled, emigrated, or were persuaded to leave Israel “temporarily” under hollow promises of victory over the Zionists. After the ’48 war, some 850,000 Jews were displaced, banned, or banished (Hamas charter language) from Muslim countries across North Africa to the Middle East and Afghanistan; most of them settled in Israel.

The 1967 and 1973 wars between Arab countries and Israel also ended in Israeli victory and expansion. Two intifadas (1987-1993 and 2000-2005) brought many deaths on both sides but no gains for Palestinians. The war in Gaza has been far more destructive.

Wars have consequences – now and throughout history. Assertions in charters or speeches do not change that, nor do they convey an “inalienable right” of return, even under some imagined “basic principles of human rights and international law” (Hamas Charter, Article 12). If a new Palestinian nation is created and recognized, there will be a right of return to that new nation – but not to Israel.

Imagine former German-speaking inhabitants asserting a right of return to lands that are now France, Poland, and Russia. Hindus and Muslims returning to their prior homes in India and Pakistan. Berbers and other conquered peoples reclaimed their villages and pastures across the Maghreb in North Africa. Spain regained Gibraltar from Britain. Turkey is regaining Greece, Spain, or its other Ottoman territories. China surrendered control over Tibet and Russia over Crimea.

Imagine descendants of Celts and other ancient peoples across Britain and Europe demanding redress because their ancestors were subjugated by the ancestors of today’s British, French, Italian, Hungarian, Balkan, and other nations. Descendants of the Mongols demanding the return of eastern Europe. Or Israelis demanding the return of Jewish Banu Qurayza lands near Medina.

The history of colonizers and colonized nations is long, complicated, and ill-suited for assertions in self-serving charters. Perhaps Hamas’s elimination as a military and political power in Gaza will clarify that. Perhaps it will finally resolve the matter of Palestinians still being “refugees” 75 years after the ’48 war.

Columbia University defines “colonization” as “a system of oppression based on invasion and control that results in institutionalized inequality between the colonizer and the colonized.” That certainly describes the fate of countless nations and peoples, including those subjugated by Muhammed and his caliphs, European countries, Lenin and Stalin, and Islamists today in Nigeria and Sudan. It does not apply to Gaza.

But Hamas and its allies assert that “armed struggle” is required to “liberate Palestine” from Israeli occupiers (PLO Charter, Art. 9) ... families, schools and mosques have a “national duty” to raise individual Palestinians “in an Arab revolutionary manner” (PLO Art. 7) ... and Palestinians have “a legitimate right” to use “all means and methods” to “resist the occupation” and meet the “demands of self-defense” (PLO Art. 18; Hamas Arts. 25 and 39).

For decades, Hamas terrorized Israelis by firing thousands of rockets at civilian targets, bombing buses, cafes and bar mitzvahs, and shooting or stabbing parents and children. To claim this was “resistance” or “self-defense” is patently absurd. The calculated, barbaric October 7 massacres crossed the line of what any nation can permit.

Hamas terrorists gunned down hundreds of unarmed concertgoers; gang-raped and mutilated scores of women; soaked people in gasoline and burned them alive; beheaded babies or roasted them alive in ovens; cut a pregnant woman open, murdered her baby and butchered her; wiped out entire families as they begged for mercy; kidnapped 240 more – and then hid behind, among and under Gazan citizens.

(Those who can stomach witnessing the atrocities can go here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

Gaza has smart, capable people and miles of gorgeous Mediterranean coastline. It could be as magnificent and prosperous as the United Arab Emirates. Its people just need to reject Hamas, tear up the PLO and Hamas charters, install a proper government, and build a genuine future for their children.

[geducation]

Mirrors and Windows

‘Curriculum should provide mirrors for students, in which they can see themselves reflected, and windows, through which they can look into the lives and stories of people who are different.’

Emily Style

I love the quote above.  I think I first came across a variant of it in relation to reading – a challenge about the extent to which books in our schools provide both representation and insight into other people and other places.  This version though has the word curriculum firmly planted at the start – a much broader call for us to consider the nature of pretty much everything we do  

To get to grips with this, the first step is to work out who we are as a community.  For some schools this might be relatively straightforward – for us, a bit less so.  We’re incredibly diverse as a school – at the last count, there are over 40 different languages spoken by our children and families.  Nearly half of our children are African[1] (and of this group around 50% are Eritrean or Ethiopian), our next largest ethnic group is Asian or Asian British (around 14% Pakistani and 12% Indian), followed by White British (8%), Black Caribbean (4%) and White Eastern European (4%).

This is our context, and when it comes to curriculum decision making, I don’t think there’s a stronger rationale than building a curriculum to meet the needs of your community.  It feels unquestionable – no one can come into your school and try to tell you that they know more about the children or community than you do.  And so with that in mind, we started to think critically about aspects of the curriculum that we’d previously never questioned.  

The first subject that we started to unpick was history.  It seemed an obvious choice - its focus on an island-centric British narrative seemed to completely miss the mark when it came to representation.  But before getting carried away, we knew that we needed to be careful.  We wanted our history curriculum to represent our children, but we also needed it to be coherent and well-sequenced.  We wanted it to build cumulatively over time so that each new component built on what had gone before.  The National Curriculum attempts to achieve this be setting out the subject content chronologically through KS2 – you start with the stone age and work your way up to around 1066.  We decided that we’d stick to some aspects of this and also work chronologically (for the most part) from Y3 up.  The starting point for us was the Romans – something we decided to cover in Y3.[2]  The Romans is something that’s covered in most primary schools at some point – in the National Curriculum, it’s phrased as the Roman Empire and its impact on Britain.  We took this as an opportunity to look at the impact on Britain from the perspective of the people who settled here in that period.  As part of their project, the children learn about the expansion of the Roman Empire and the invasion of Britain in 43CE by Emperor Claudius.  They go on to learn about the first African settlers in Britain, and in particular, a unit of Roman soldiers called the Aurelian Moors who were stationed at the fortress of Aballava on Hadrian’s Wall.  The Aurelian Moors were from the North African provinces of the Roman Empire, and thanks to an inscription found on a an altar stone, historians have been able to give an approximate date of between 253 and 258CE.  This would make them Britain’s first black African community – and the fact that Britain was colonized long before we became colonizers gives important context to the multi-cultural development of our country.  This evidence is explored further through the story of the Ivory Bangle Lady, whose remains were discovered in York.  In her sarcophagus, were precious items including bracelets and a perfume bottle – items that suggest she was a woman of high social status.  Through analysis of her bones, historians believe that she was of North African descent.  The idea that parts of Britain were more ethnically diverse in the 3rd century than today is a bit of an eye-opener, and its stories like these that begin to build the mirrors we’re interested in for our children.  

Year 4 works chronologically as we move from the Roman’s into the Anglo Saxon period.  In terms of British history, from the 5th century on, Britain was largely cut off from Africa and the routes previously established by the Romans that enabled the movement of people pretty much disappeared.  At first glance, it doesn’t seem to offer much in terms of representation, but what the Anglo Saxon period does bring though is an opportunity to look at what was happening in another part of the world at the same time.  We focus on two significant leaders - Alfred the Great, probably the most famous Anglo Saxon king, and Al Ma’mun the Caliph of Baghdad.  These two men lived within about 20 years of each other and make for an interesting comparison.  Both men were driven by a desire to build (and share) knowledge and wisdom.  Alfred had Latin works translated into Old English so they could be read more widely – Al Ma’mun had Greek scientific and philosophical texts translated into Arabic so they could be studied in the House of Wisdom (an incredible centre of learning at the heart of the round city of Baghdad).  They both made important cultural contributions and the children explore the idea of legacy (and the disciplinary concept of significance) through an overarching enquiry question: What makes a great leader?  For our children, a first glimpse into the Golden Age of Islam helps us to demonstrate some of the incredible achievements within the Arab (and Muslim) world.[3]  

Year 5 breaks away from the chronology we’ve seen so far by taking in a number of different periods as the children learn about the history of astronomy.  Beginning with the ancient Sumer and Babylonia, we then take in the Ancient Greeks before revisiting the Golden Age of Islam and building on the scientific developments introduced in Y4.  The ancient Greeks enable us to loop back to the Romans and Anglo-Saxons to explore the influence the Greeks had on these later periods – this shifting back and forth in time is supported by the consistent timelines we’ve developed (see mini blog) so the children can see clearly which periods and civilizations came first, which came later and which overlapped.  

In Year 6, we deal with European history and the developments in Nazi Germany through the 1930’s.  This is the third time through KS2 that the children will come across ‘Empire’, beginning with the Romans, then the Islamic Empire through Y4 and Y5 before finally exploring the Nazi ‘Third Reich’.           

Throughout each year group, there are other substantive concepts that act as threads through the different periods we’ve chosen – Religion, Church, Ruler, Hierarchy, Trade, Migration, Democracy etc… all of which helps with what Christine Counsell describes as the ‘deliberate crafting of resonance.’  

In terms of mirrors and windows – we feel that we’ve got a history curriculum that better reflects the children we’ve got in front of us.  We’ve not ignored the National Curriculum, but we’ve done it on our terms – we’ve uncovered hidden (and sometimes ignored) stories that mean something to our children.  And history was just the beginning – we’ve since cast a similar critical eye over other subjects to make sure that context is at the forefront of our thoughts when planning our curriculum.

If you’d like to know more about what this looks like, keep an eye out for future blogs; you can also come to visit us at St Catherine’s and find out for yourself – click here for information about the open event dates for 2024.      

[1] ’African’ is generally stated on our system as ‘Other Black African’ – to break down this unhelpfully broad category, we looked at language spoken and then mapped it to countries to give us more of an idea of specific heritage.       

[2] The Stone Age, Iron Age and Bronze Age don’t feature as part of our taught history curriculum, but they do form part of our wider curriculum offer.  Basically, we’ve got a basket of books on these periods of history in Y3 that are available for the children to read.  We talk about what came before the Romans when working on timelines and reference some of the books that are in class – this is complimented with a history timeline that weaves its way through the KS2 building – beginning with the Stone Age just outside the Y3 classrooms.          

[3] In terms of curriculum coverage, along with introducing the Golden Age of Islam, Alfred also enables us to cover the Anglo-Saxon and Viking ‘struggle for the Kingdom’

[airaglub]

Galin Jordanov

The aim of this booklet is simple: one who has no time to read vast works can, by these few dozens of pages, get in touch with the most important events that took place during the past two millennia on the territory south of the river Danube and west of the Black Sea – the land that bears the name Bulgaria…

Galin Jordanov

A land like a human palm…

A bigger land I don’t require.

I’m glad your mountains are flint-hard And that your blood has Southern fire.

Taken from Georgi Djagarov’s “Bulgaria”, translated by Peter Tempest

From Prehistoric Times to The Forming Of A Nation

Thracians, Greeks and Romans

Archaeological excavations had shown in an indisputable way the existence of primitive man earlier than hundreds of thousands of years in the lands inhabited today by Bulgarians. Impressing collections of Hint, bone and horn tools as well as earthenware and ceramics used during the Copper and Stone Age can be seen in most Bulgarian museums. Works of idol plastic arts reveal the diverse and unique spiritual life that took place in these lands Private Tours Balkan.

However, the earliest inhabitants of the Bulgarian lands were recognized to be the Thracians – mentioned by Herodotus as “one of the most multitudinous peoples” of the Ancient world and referred to as the “horse bridlers” in Homer’s Iliad. Five thousand years ago numerous tribes of them inhabited not only the Balkan Peninsula – south of the Danube, along the river Maritza and the south-western parts of present- day Bulgaria – but also Asia Minor and some of the islands in the Aegean Sea. Thracians were of Indo- European origin and certainly represent the ethnical basis that served later as on of the genetic ingredients for the forming of the Bulgarian nation.

They were acquainted with the ways of producing iron tools and dealt well with farming or animal breeding. Thracian kings minted coins and had at their disposal skilled goldsmiths for which testimonies are the famous Thracian silver and golden treasures – such as the Rogozen or the Panagyurishte treasures – found in our lands and exposed in many countries of the world. But along with that some ancient historians admit that part of their tribes have shown themselves as good sailors who rivalled in experience the rulers of the marine expanse, the Greeks, and sometimes acted even like pirates…

Thracian culture of that period was strongly influenced by the Greek colonization of the Black Sea coastline after the 7th century B. C. as the multiple settlers of the Greek city- states established economic and cultural exchange with the Thracian lands. So was initiated the processes of Hellenization of a part of the Thracian ethnos and the mighty Greek civilization this way enriched the Thracian culture. Thracian religion took notions from the Greek divinities and, on their part, the Greeks paid tribute to the legendary Thracian singer and musician Orpheus, who had an important position in Thracian mythology.