I've Said This Before But It Bears Repeating: A Concerning Amount Of Information Circulating On This

i've said this before but it bears repeating: a concerning amount of information circulating on this website about islam directed towards non-muslims comes from conservative sources and paints a very specific and narrow image of an extremely diverse religion. outsiders have this fictitious understanding of a monolithic islam, and somehow it is always the most dogmatic and overzealous and inflexible version of religion they can think of.

the reality of things is that like with all organized religion, there are muslims who are very strict in their practices and interpretations, and there are people who were born in muslim families and are influenced by islamic culture but are not religious, and there is a whole spectrum of beliefs in between these two extremes. this isn't even touching on the matter of different sects and ethno-cultural divergences.

i don't like making direct comparisons, but this is the language most anglophone westerners understand: if all the information about christianity you received was from evangelicals, you would have an incredibly biased conception of the daily life and beliefs of the average christian. you would also have an extremely problematic understanding of christian dogma - and i do mean problematic here as in something that causes problems, something that has harmful consequences. i understand and appreciate that people are usually walking on eggshells when handling issues of marginalized and stigmatized religions, but let's be bluntly open for a second: all organized religions have extremist ideological currents whose tenets directly contradict core progressive and liberatory ideas. accepting those tenets as valid and respectable in the name of battling bigotry is counterproductive and reverberates badly first and foremost on minorities.

the uncritical propagation of conservative (and sometimes straight up fundamentalist) conceptions of islam among non-muslims, especially in fandom/creative spaces that are concerned with political correctness and a genuine will for accurate and respectful representation, feeds a vicious cycle of insidious islamophobia: supposedly progressive depictions of muslims confirm the previously internalized bias that all muslims are indeed Like This, and said bias is what makes people swallow literal wahhabi propaganda without blinking in the first place, rinse and repeat.

this point of this post is not to embolden white people to start commenting on intra-community issues; rather it is a plea for people to be a little bit more critical, a little bit more analytically active in their consumption of information. may i suggest, accessorily, interacting with muslims in other contexts than just uhhh "learning". none of my white friends pull this shit, mostly because they have hung out with us enough to internalize the notion that we are... human beings, with a vast array of political and spiritual beliefs.

a lot of you hate historians and archaeologists, and i think that’s a problem

look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.

but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.

historians being homophobic has become a whole meme, and it feels like people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…

(source… really? nobody?)

this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.

there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).

there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.

this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)

lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking

oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.

so why does this matter?

none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.

on a personal note, so many marginalized scholars are trying to survive the dumpster fire of academia because we care that much about making sure the stories that are too often unheard don’t get left out of history… and when that’s the entire focus of my life right now, it’s disheartening to see how many of my political allies are just going to assume the worst about the entire field

46K notes View Post

xiah-ception

2 years ago

ummm hi do u remember me? we were two bacterias in the acidic springs of ethiopia and we were friends