Recommend your longform reads

So turns out the ISIS flag is derived from a series of hoax letters purporting to have been written by the Prophet Muhammad but actually conjured up by 19th century European orientalists:

The Hoax in the ISIS Flag
Claiming to channel pure Islam, the Islamic State fell for a long-debunked 19th century hoax

https://newlinesmag.com/essays/the-hoax-in-the-isis-flag/
 
Good one from The Atlantic. It's a bit depressing.

For autocrats and would-be autocrats around the world, the Chinese offer a package that looks something like this: Agree to follow China’s lead on Hong Kong, Tibet, the Uyghurs, and human rights more broadly. Buy Chinese surveillance equipment. Accept massive Chinese investment (preferably into companies you personally control, or that at least pay you kickbacks).

Then sit back and relax, knowing that however bad your image becomes in the eyes of the international human-rights community, you and your friends will remain in power
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/the-autocrats-are-winning/620526/
 
I have been reading long-form articles on my lunch for the last eight years and have around two hundred bookmarked articles
 
The Corinthian said:
Fascinating.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-battle-o...kXVoZm9uWDWJyh3n4ZPDq9D5_ZbD2TxMk0KZIwU3Q3AJI


The real Battle of Vienna
In 1683 an Ottoman siege was repelled from the walls of Vienna. But it was far from a fight between Islam and Christendom.
Click to expand...

Similar dynamics played out wherever “Islam” and “Christianity” supposedly clashed throughout history, e.g. once the Crusaders established their states they quickly became part of the political landscape in the eastern Mediterranean and regularly forged alliances with local Muslim powers against rivals, both Muslim and Christian. Likewise in Spain after the collapse of Umayyad authority there.
 
2cents said:
Similar dynamics played out wherever “Islam” and “Christianity” supposedly clashed throughout history, e.g. once the Crusaders established their states they quickly became part of the political landscape in the eastern Mediterranean and regularly forged alliances with local Muslim powers against rivals, both Muslim and Christian. Likewise in Spain after the collapse of Umayyad authority there.
Click to expand...
Agreed - interfaith aggression has always been overstated in my opinion. The Battle of Vienna is a part of history I’ve known very little about though.
 
The Corinthian said:
Agreed - interfaith aggression has always been overstated in my opinion. The Battle of Vienna is a part of history I’ve known very little about though.
Click to expand...

Yeah it’s probably just as interesting for the symbolism embraced by today’s anti-Muslim right described in the article than for its actual significance. The first siege of Vienna in 1529 was potentially a lot more threatening to Central Europe as the Ottoman Empire was at the absolute peak of its power while Europe was on the brink of the destructive wars that followed the Reformation. I think most historians agree that by 1683 the Ottomans were not the military force they had been and the centralizing states of Europe were destined to have the upper hand in these encounters.

The Ottoman-Safavid wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (mentioned in the article) are very interesting to read up on, and may go some way to explaining the Ottoman reverse in fortunes vis-a-vis the European powers.
 
Scientists showed that you can kill animals on industrial scale by slowly heating them till they (mostly) die in about 12 hours. In early covid, the method was used to dispose off excess pig stock that slaughterhouses were unequipped to deal with. It drew some criticism, so obviously the practice has now expanded, with the blessing of science.

This article talks about the foolish vets who misunderstand their job and think the pain of commodities matters, and how the rest of their profession understand their actual job: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23516639/veterinarians-avma-factory-farming-ventilation-shutdown
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...

But Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and historians told me that race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. But there are also signs that Nixon wasn't solely motivated by politics or race: For one, he personally despised drugs — to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied.
Click to expand...
https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11325750/nixon-war-on-drugs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.