#Early Muslim History

[cinematic-phosphenes]

Portrait of a Prince with a Hawk | 18th Century Mughal miniature, gum tempera and gold on paper 

[lux--nova]

I encountered the funniest phrase I've ever read in a scholarly article yesterday and I had to share it with yall. I will now quote scholarly sources when assessing whether something is tiny, teeny, or teeny-weeny, thank you.

[covenawhite66]

There appears to have been an extended period of coexistence between Christians and Muslims in the region.

“Christian monasteries and churches were in use in some places until the ninth century,” says Michael. “It’s possible that the mosque we uncovered in Rahat was visited at the same time as Christian places of worship nearby.”

In Israel’s Negev Desert has revealed evidence of the effects of Islam in the region between the seventh and ninth centuries A.D. Researchers discovered multiple buildings dating to the Umayyad (A.D. 661–750) and Abbasid (A.D. 750–1258) periods, including a mosque dating to the seventh or eighth century A.D. Roughly 400 yards away, the team discovered the ruins of a palatial Islamic-style building thought to have belonged to a local ruler, featuring walls decorated with frescoes and stone hallways arranged around a central courtyard. Beneath the courtyard, the team unearthed a 10-foot-deep, rock-hewn cistern system.

[quatregats]

Current Situation would actually probably be solved if I stopped looking to Projects for all my satisfaction in life

[athis3]

Mesopotamian religion was central to the people's lives. Humans were created as co-laborers with their gods to hold off the forces of chaos and to keep the world running smoothly. As in ancient Egypt, the gods were honored daily for providing humanity with life and sustenance, and people were expected to give back through works that honored the gods.

It was understood that, in the beginning, the world was undifferentiated chaos and that order was established by the gods. The gods had separated the sky from the earth, the land from the water, saltwater from freshwater, plants from animals, and this order needed to be maintained. As the gods had many different responsibilities, humans were created to help them in the operation of the world. The meaning of life, therefore, was to live in accordance with this understanding, and so one's daily life would be a form of worship.

Every city had a temple complex clearly visible from afar for its ziggurat, the monumental architecture most closely associated with Mesopotamia, which was usually topped by a temple or shrine, elevating the officiant closer to the gods. The gods were understood as inhabiting their own realm but also living in the temple, in the statues created in their images in every city. This belief was already firmly in place by the time of the Uruk Period (4100-2900 BCE) and developed fully during the Early Dynastic Period (2900-2334 BCE).

Although Mesopotamian religion changed in focus and the names of the deities over the centuries, the central understanding of the relation between humanity and the gods did not. As late as c. 650 CE, the people of Mesopotamia still adhered to the belief that they were the gods' coworkers who assisted in the maintenance of order. This paradigm only changed after 651 CE with the invasion of the Muslim Arabs and the new monotheistic religious model of Islam.

[floralfemmes]

was talking to my mom about how white people ignore the contributions of poc to academia and I found myself saying the words "I bet those idiots think Louis Pasteur was the first to discover germ theory"

which admittedly sounded pretentious as fuck but I'm just so angry that so few people know about the academic advancements during the golden age of Islam.

Islamic doctors were washing their hands and equipment when Europeans were still shoving dirty ass hands into bullet wounds. ancient Indians were describing tiny organisms worsening illness that could travel from person to person before Greece and Rome even started theorizing that some illnesses could be transmitted

also, not related to germ theory, but during the golden age of Islam, they developed an early version of surgery on the cornea. as in the fucking eye. and they were successful

and what have white people contributed exactly?

please go research the golden age of Islamic academia. so many of us wouldn't be alive today if not for their discoveries

people ask sometimes how I can be proud to be Muslim. this is just one of many reasons

some sources to get you started:

but keep in mind, it wasn't just science and medicine! we contributed to literature and philosophy and mathematics and political theory and more!

maybe show us some damn respect

[fairuzfan]

This post is for the anon who sent me that video asking me to debunk it's claims so they can be better equipped against accusations of antisemitism.

Sorry, I won't post the video since I refuse to have that man on my blog but I can give you common Zionist talking points and the illogicality behind it.

To preface: most of the questions Zionists will ask you are a trap, and will make you fall into a "rabbit hole" (as I was once told when I was younger), as we try to apply their reasoning. My advice is to ALWAYS center the humanity of Palestinians. For example, when a Zionist says:

"Don't Jews deserve a homeland to be safe?"

It fundamentally ignores the core issue: Palestinians are being raped, murdered, and expelled from their homes so that the establishment of this so called "homeland" may exist. When people ask this to you, I personally advise saying something like:

Why must Palestinians suffer for the establishment of this homeland?

Always recenter to the issue at hand—the inhumane removal and treatment of Palestinians.

"Palestine belongs to the Jews and Not Muslims"

The whole premise of this claim is flawed—there is a weird tendency to equate Arab/Palestinian=Muslim when it just is like. Completely untrue. There are Palestinian Christians, Bethlehem is famously a Christian city, who have been there for centuries. There are Palestinian Jews, who have been there for centuries. There are Palestinian Muslims, who have been there for centuries. My grandpa told me stories of how he would turn on lamps for his Jewish neighbors in Al-Khalil (or Hebron) during Shabbat.

To claim that Palestine is EITHER Islamic or Jewish doesn't make any sense and completely neglects the fact that dissemination of culture has occurred for centuries, as well as the intermingling of people throughout generations. To somehow assert that for some reason, Jews and Muslims did not have ANYTHING to do with each other—did not create together, did not build families together, did not build culture together, all while being PALESTINIAN—is incredibly racist and nonsensical. "Palestinian" is not a religious identity—it's a cultural and ethnic one.

Also, it does not negate the core issue—Palestinians are being killed, removed, and tortured so that others can live on that land.

"Well what about [something about partitioning land]?"

Honestly like, who cares about the partitioning throughout the 1900 and early 2000s. Sorry, I'm not going to list the whole "partitioning" history nonsense. The whole reason "Israel" exists is because of a Mass Exodus, murder, and rape of Palestinians. Everything after that is rendered obsolete.

"Well, I heard Palestinians allied with Hitler"

I don't know how to tell you this but Palestine was under British Control. No they didn't.

"Israel withdrew from the Gaza and left them to themselves and they put Hammas in charge"

Oh yeah, Israel totally left Gaza, that's why Gazans' water, electricity, internet, and food is completely controlled by Israel (this is sarcasm, Israel still controls basic life in Gaza).

Go back to centering the idea that no human deserves to be shoved into an open-air prison, starved, and controlled. Did you know that the Zionist Entity controls the amount of water Gazans receive, as well as counting their calories to ensure they don't have enough energy on a day to day basis?

"I heard Israel asked Arabs to stay"

Show them these papers and videos when they say this:

If you can't show them these videos, check in the next point what to say.

"Well the Palestinians left of their own will in 1948"

Palestinians in 1948 didn't "leave." They had heard of how the Zionist Entity was slaughtering Palestinians en masse. Women especially heard stories of rape and sexual violence. They fled from *violence*. Again, from an earlier post, that this was a calculated effort on the Zionist Entity's part to try and get them to "leave" on their own and "abandon" their houses so that they can come in and say "hey, they left on their own so, we can come in and take their houses now."

Anyways, the idea that once you leave your house you can't ever come back to it is incredibly odd to me as an argument on Zionists' part. Like if you leave your house right now to go to the grocery store and you come back and see someone in your house and they're like "sorry dude, this is my house now, you left so that means you can't come back," you'd be like, "what the hell!" It would be even weirder if everyone agreed with the guy who took your house, which is what happened to Palestinians.

In Al-Khalil, or Hebron, Palestinians always have to have someone stay in their house or else a Settler will come in and take it from them. So it still goes on today as well.

This is not a point, but when that one person in the video said "Arabs lived under Israeli rule" and showed a clip of a bustling city with mountains, I'm pretty sure that was Amman, Jordan, not Palestine lol. Those buildings in the mountains look like how downtown Amman builds the residential areas. Could be wrong tho.

"There are no Jews living under Palestinian rule in Palestine"

What is this, some sort of gotcha argument? What are they trying to prove, the racist (obviously false) notion that Palestinians hate Jews as a whole? How do they know no Palestinian Jew lives in Gaza? Also, Settlers in Palestinian Territory exist??? I had never heard this claim before, its incredibly stupid lol. You're automatically a citizen of "Israel" if you're Jewish, whether or not you live in or outside of Palestinian Territories. So of course technically they don't live under Palestinian rule, they're granted full rights as an "Israeli" citizen automatically!

Go back to talking about the inhumane treatment of Palestinians, I wouldn't bring up the above counterpoint unless they really won't let it go since the main point is mistreatment.

"Why are Christians supporting Israel then, if it's a secular issue rather than a religious one?"

Well actually for a couple reasons:

Oil interests and regional control of goods (White People Supporting White People).

Weird fundamentalist ideology where they want to enact the second coming of Christ.

And finally because they are racist and don't think Arab Christians deserve to live. They literally bombed a 1500+ year church the other day. Why would (White) Christians cosign that.

Anyways, its a stupid argument again, because it forgets the core issue of Palestinians dying and being displaced.

In summary, always go back to the point of centering the Palestinians being displaced, tortured, and murdered, no matter the argument a Zionist gives you.

[allthegeopolitics]

Last week, President Joe Biden amplified a dangerous myth when he claimed that the Middle East has long harboured an “ancient hatred for Jews”. This assertion, made during Holocaust Memorial Week, suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the region’s history. By alleging that Hamas is “driven by an ancient desire to wipe the Jewish people off the face of this earth”, Biden not only spreads falsehoods but also engages in a troubling revisionism of history. It is no exaggeration to suggest that the rhetoric of the US President serves to justify Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza and its takeover of historic Palestine. Biden’s statement effectively transposed the historical anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe and the ancient animosity toward Jews within Christendom onto the Middle East. How can Hamas, a group established in 1987 in response to Israeli occupation, be attributed to an “ancient hatred”, especially given the absence of a historical precedent for such animosity towards Jews in the Middle East compared to Europe? In fact, for centuries, Jews found sanctuary and co-existence in Muslim-ruled lands while facing persecution in Europe. This fact is attested to even by some of the staunchest critics of Islam and Muslims. “The coming of Islam saved [Jews]”, an essay in the Jewish Chronicle concluded.  The author goes on to state that Islam provided a new context in which Jews “not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity.” The historical reservoir of anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust did not originate in the Muslim world, but rather in Christian Europe. Contrary to Biden’s assertion of “ancient desires”, the Middle East, where the three Abrahamic faiths were born, was not the breeding ground for such sentiments. In fact, Muslims and Jews have a rich history of peaceful co-existence and mutual support, dating back to the time of Prophet Muhammad. As early as 622 CE, the Prophet ratified the constitution of Medina, a ground-breaking pact that unified Muslims, Jews and others into one community, as part of the Ummah, demonstrating a long-standing alliance and shared heritage.

Continue Reading.

[writingwithcolor]

Non-offensive Historical terms for Black people in historical fiction

@pleasespellchimerical asked:

So writing historical fiction, with a white POV character. I'm not sure how to address race in the narration. I do have a Black main character, and I feel like it'd feel out of place to have the narrator refer to her as 'Black', that being a more modern term. Not sure how to do this without dipping into common historical terms that are considered racist today. Thoughts on how to handle this delicately, not pull readers out of the narrative? (fwiw, the POV character has a lot of respect for the Black character. The narration should show this)

There are non-offensive terms you can use, even in historical fiction. We can absolutely refer to Black people without slurs, and if slurs is all one can come up with, it’s time to go back to the drawing board. I cannot say which terms are best for your piece without knowing the time period, but hopefully the list below helps.

Historical terms to use for Black people (non-offensive)

African American documented as early as 1782 (documented in an ad in the Pennsylvania Journal). Note the identity isn’t accurate for non-American Black people.

African could refer to African people or “from 1722 as ‘of or pertaining to black Americans.’”

The place of origin could also be used. For example, “a Nigerian woman”

Africo-American documented as early as 1788.

People of Color documented as early as 1796 (with specific contexts, usually mixed people)

Afro American documented as early as 1817, 1831 (depending on source)

Black American documented as early as 1831 

Black was used in Old English to refer to dark-skinned people. Black was not capitalized until recent years, so “She was a young black woman.” would make sense to say, though “She was a young Black woman.” is the better standard today, although not universally adopted. I personally prefer it capitalized. 

Moor was used as early as the late 1400s for North African people, but had a somewhat flexible use where anyone visibly Black / Of African descent or the Afro Diaspora might be referred to or assumed as a Moor. Note, it has other meanings too, such as referring to Muslim people, but that doesn’t mean the person using it is going by the dictionary definition. Not really the way to go today, but okay in a historical setting (in my opinion).

Biracial (1860s), mixed race (1872), multiracial (1903) and multicultural (1940s) are also terms to refer to people of two or more races.

Occupation + description. Throughout history, many people have been referred to as their occupation. For example, the Carpenter, The Baker, the Blacksmith. Here’s an example of how you might go about using occupation and traits to identify a Black character in history. Here’s an example I came up with on the fly.

“You should go by Jerry’s. He’s the best blacksmith this town’s ever seen. Ya know, the real tall, dark-skinned, curly haired fellow. Family’s come here from Liberia.”

Offensive and less-sensitive terms for Black people 

Blacks was used in plural more, but this is generally offensive today (Even writing it gives me **Thee ick*)

Colored was mostly used post-civil war until the mid 20th century, when it became unacceptable. This is not to be conflated with the South African Coloured ethnic group.

Negro/Negroes were also used as early as the 1550s. Capitalization became common in the early 20th century. I'm sure you know it is offensive today, though, admittedly, was not generally seen as such until around the 1960s, when Black replaced it. It does have its contexts, such as the trope “The Magical Negro” but going around using the term or calling someone that today is a lot different. 

Mulatto referred to mixed people, generally Black and white, and is offensive today. 

The N-word, in all its forms, is explicitly a slur, and there is absolutely no need to use it, especially in a casual manner, in your story. We’ve written about handling the N-word and alluding to it “if need be” but there are other ways to show racism and tension without dropping the word willy-nilly.

Deciding what to use, a modern perspective

I’m in favor of authors relying on the less offensive, more acceptable terms. Particularly, authors outside of the race. Seldom use the offensive terms except from actual direct quotes.

You do not have to use those offensive terms or could at least avoid using them in excess. I know quite famous stories do, but that doesn’t mean we have to so eagerly go that route today. Honestly, from teachers to school, and fellow non-Black students, it’s the modern day glee that people seem to get when they “get a chance to say it” that makes it worse and also makes me not want to give people the chance. 

It goes back to historical accuracy only counting the most for an “authentic experience” when it means being able to use offensive terms or exclude BIPOC from stories. We’ve got to ask ourselves why we want to plaster certain words everywhere for the sake of accuracy when there are other just as accurate, acceptable words to use that hurt less people. 

Disclaimer: Opinions may vary on these matters. But just because someone from the group cosigns something by stating they’re not offended by it, doesn’t mean a whole lot of others are okay with it and their perspectives are now invalid! Also, of course, how one handles the use of these words as a Black person has a different connotation and freedom on how they use them.

~Mod Colette

The colonial context

Since no country was mentioned, I’m going to add a bit about the vocabulary surrounding Black people during slavery, especially in the Caribbean. Although, Colette adds, if your Black characters are slaves, this begs the question why we always gotta be slaves.

At the time, there were words used to describe people based on the percentage of Black blood they had. Those are words you may find during your searches but I advise you not to use them. As you will realize if you dive a bit into this system, it looks like a classifying table. At the time, people were trying to lighten their descent and those words were used for some as a sort of rank. Louisiana being French for a time, those expressions were also seen there until the end of the 19th century.

The fractions I use were the number of Black ancestors someone had to have to be called accordingly.

Short-list here :

½ : mûlatre or mulatto

¼ or ⅛ : quarteron or métis (depending on the island, I’m thinking about Saint-Domingue, Martinique and Guadeloupe)

1/16 : mamelouk

¾ : griffe or capre

⅞ : sacatra

In Saint-Domingue, it could go down to 1/64, where people were considered sang-mêlé (mixed blood for literal translation, but “HP and the Half-Blood Prince” is translated “HP et le Prince de Sang-Mêlé” in French, so I guess this is another translation possibility).

-Lydie

Use the 3rd person narrative to your advantage

If you are intent on illustrating historical changes in terminology consider something as simple as showing the contrast between using “black” for first person character narration, but “Black” for 3rd person narrator omniscient.

-Marika

Add a disclaimer

I liked how this was addressed in the new American Girl books it’s set in Harlem in the 1920’s and there’s a paragraph at the beginning that says “this book uses the common language of the time period and it’s not appropriate to use now”

-SK

More reading:

NYT: Use of ‘African-American’ Dates to Nation’s Early Days

The Etymology dictionary - great resource for historical fiction

Wikipedia: Person of Color

[covenawhite66]

There are fifth-century inscriptions in Greek and Syriac dedicating the site to Salome, a woman who assisted at the birth of Jesus according to the traditions of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

Then some 200 years after the Muslim conquest of the region. To read about a mosque and other Islamic-style buildings unearthed in Israel's Negev Desert, go to "Side by Side."

[bobemajses]

Jewish (Sephardic) couple from Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1910

The first Jews came to Sarajevo, later called "Little Jerusalem", from the Iberian Peninsula in the early 16th century, bringing with them the Ladino language and Sephardi customs. A prosperous Jewish quarter with a synagogue was erected in 1577 under the pasha Siavush. Known to the Bosnians as tchifut-khan, the Jews themselves called it El Cortijo (the communal yard). Making up more than 20% of Sarajevo' total population, they maintained excellent relations with their Bosnian Christian and Muslim neighbors and held renowned positions as merchants, weavers, tailors, blacksmiths and hatchims (from the Arabic-Turkish Hakīm, "doctor"). With the Holocaust, this rich Jewish life and history tragically came to an end.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Word List: Fashion History

to try to include in your poem/story (pt. 1/3)

Adinkra - a flat, cotton textile that is stamped with symbols which create the meaning of the garment; produced by the Asante peoples in Ghana

Agal - a rope made from animal hair which wraps around a keffiya (square cloth) on the head and is worn typically by Bedouin men

Akwete - a decorative cloth with complex weave designs, creating intricate geometric patterns, made with many vibrant colors; it is usually made into wrappers for women to wear and it is made by the Igbo women of Nigeria

Aniline Dyes - synthetic, chemical dyes for garments first invented in the 19th century

Anorak - a jacket that typically has a hood, but not always, which was originally worn by the indigenous peoples of the Arctic designed to keep them warm and protected from harsh weather

Back Apron (Negbe) - an oval-shaped decorative pad worn by Mangbetu women over the buttocks in Central Africa

Backstrap Loom - a lightweight, mobile loom made of wood and a strap that is wrapped around the back; it only needed to be attached to a tree or a post for stability and to provide tension

Banyan - a loose-fitted informal robe or gown typically worn by men in the late 17th to the early 19th centuries

Barbette - a piece of linen which passes under the chin and is pinned at the sides, usually worn in conjunction with additional head coverings during the Middle Ages

Bark Cloth - fabric made out of bark from trees

Beadnet Dress - a decorative sheath dress made of beads worn in ancient Egypt

Bloomers - a bifurcated garment that were worn under dresses in the 19th century; they soon became a symbol of women’s rights because early activist Amelia Bloomer wore drawers long enough to stick out from under her dress

Bogolanfini - (bogolan- meaning cloth; fini- meaning mud) a cotton cloth made from strips of woven fabric, which are decorated with symbolic patterns using the mud-resist technique, sewn together at the selvage to create a fabric that is utilized during the main four stages of a West African Bamana woman’s life: puberty, marriage, motherhood, and death

Bombast/Bombasted - the padding used to structure clothing and create fashionable silhouettes in the 16th and 17th centuries

Boubou - an African robe made of one large rectangle of fabric with an opening in the center for the neck; when worn it drapes down over the shoulders and billows at the sleeves

Buff Coat - a leather version of the doublet that was often, but not exclusively, worn by people in the military in the 17th century

Bum Roll - a roll of padding tied around the hip line to hold a woman’s skirt out from the body in the late 16th and early 17th centuries

Burqa - an outer garment worn by Muslim women that covers the entire body, often with a cutout or mesh at the eyes

Busk - a flat length stay piece that was inserted into the front of a corset to keep it stiff from the 16th century to the early 20th century

Bustle - a pad or frame worn under a skirt puffing it out behind

Cage Crinoline - a hooped cage worn under petticoats in the 19th century to stiffen and extend the skirt

Caraco - 18th century women’s jacket, fitted around the torso and flared out after the waist

Carrick Coat - an overcoat with three to five cape collars popular in the 19th century and mostly worn for riding and travel–sometimes called a Garrick or coachman’s coat

Chantilly Lace - a kind of bobbin lace popularized in 18th century France; it is identifiable by its fine ground, outlined pattern, and abundant detail, and was generally made from black silk thread

Chaperon - a turban-like headdress worn during the Middle Ages in Western Europe

Chemisette - a piece of fabric worn under bodices in the 19th century to fill in low necklines for modesty and decoration

Chiton - an ancient Greek garment created from a single piece of cloth wrapped around the body and held together by pins at the shoulders

Chlamys - a rectangular cloak fastened at the neck or shoulder that wraps around the body like a cape

Chopines - high platform shoes worn mostly in Venice in the 16th & 17th centuries

Clavus/Clavi - decorative vertical stripes that ran over the shoulder on the front and back of a Late Roman or Byzantine tunic

Clocks/Clocking - decorative and strengthening embroidery on stockings in Europe and America during the 16th-19th centuries

Cochineal Dyes - come from the Cochineal beetle that is native to the Americas and is most commonly found on prickly pear cacti; when dried and crushed, it creates its famous red pigment that is used to dye textiles

Codpiece - originally created as the join between the two hoses at the groin, the codpiece eventually became an ornate piece of male dress in the 16th century

Cuirass Bodice - a form-fitting, long-waisted, boned bodice worn in the 1870s and 1880s–almost gives the appearance of armor as the name suggests

Dagging - an extremely popular decorative edging technique created by cutting that reached its height during the Middle Ages and Renaissance

Dalmatic Tunic - a t-shaped tunic with very wide sleeves; worn by both men and women during the Byzantine empire

Dashiki - a loose-fitting pullover tunic traditionally worn in West African cultures that was adopted by African diasporic communities as a symbol of African heritage in the 1960s and then more widely worn as a popular item of “ethnic” fashion

Dentalium Cape - or dentalium dress is a garment worn by Native American women that is made from the stringing together of dentalium shells in a circular pattern around the neck and across the chest and shoulders

Doublet - an often snug-fitting jacket that is shaped and fitted to a man’s body–worn mostly in the 15th to 17th centuries

Échelle - a decorative ladder of bows descending down the stomacher of a dress; worn during the late 17th and 18th centuries; sometimes spelled eschelle

If any of these words make their way into your next poem/story, please tag me, or leave a link in the replies. I would love to read them!

More: Fashion History ⚜ Word Lists

[depressedraisin]

here's how armand can still be bengali

why do i think so? no other good reason than i am bengali myself and i want armand to be. (also assad zaman's family is from bangladesh. bengali solidarity!!!)

bengal: the region in south asia comprising present-day bangladesh and the indian states of west bengal, odisha, assam and parts of bihar.

armand said in the season one finale, that takes place in 2022, he is a 514 year old vampire. is it 514 years including or excluding his human years? let's go with including. that means armand would have been born in 1508.

now what was going on in india and bengal in 1508? well, the mughals hadn't come to india yet; it's still about two decades before babur makes his way here. delhi was under the rule of the lodi dynasty, the delhi sultanate was in its dying days. most of north india, mainly uttar pradesh and bihar was under the jaunpur sultanate. bengal was still it's own independent kingdom, called the bengal sultanate. alauddin hussain shah had just seized power and become the sultan of bengal in 1494, beginning the hussain shahi dynasty (they ruled in bengal till 1538 when the mughals captured the region).

india as a country did not exist yet. even it's conception would be a few centuries away still. the subcontinent was a collection of big and small kingdoms and sultanates, constantly warring amongst themselves, some ruled by hindu rulers others by muslims, each with their own distinct histories and cultures. bengal was one of the most prosperous and thriving among them. the bangla language and bengali culture was just beginning to develop.

vasco da gama had arrived in india in 1498, landing at kozhikode on the malabar coast. this began the arrival of the portugese in india, and soon other european colonialists followed. they soon set up their capital in goa, built forts all along the western coast and established trade through obtaining licenses and exclusive permits from local rulers. they first made their way to the bay of bengal region around 1516, with the first portugese representative- a guy called joao coelho- coming to chittagong (present day bangladesh). the first factory was set up in chittagong the next year.

the portugese traded in spices and cotton and fruits and muslin and also slaves. the european indian ocean slave trade began with the coming of the portugese in the early 16th century. slavery in south asian societies had obviously existed long before, and it was a deeply complex and diverse system of dependency and regimes of slavery. slavery of youth and children was also pretty prevalent: it would not be uncommon for poor, farming families to sell away themselves or their children to zamindars (landlords) and colonial overlords in desperation. there were many, many cases of young children being forced to get onboard ships where they'd be held agains their will and taken to europe, the americas or south-east asia. goa and lisbon were the two cities that linked the movement of goods and people between the indian and atlantic oceans, but goa wasn't the only place where enslaved children were traded in portugese india nor lisbon the only european they were taken to.

one of those kids might as well have been arun.

i know the brief glimpse at the talamasca files showed armand's origin to be in delhi but in this particular scene he clearly says that he was sent *to* delhi, thinking he was going to work on a merchant boat.

this is just a theory i have btw. armand could've been from maharastra or the deccan as well idk. anyway.

armand is a monster, a vicious, villanious creature of unfathomable powers and ferocity. but he is also so deeply tragic. he had been forcibly torn away from his people and his land. he has no memory of his family or his humanity. he has lived for over half a millenium. the india he might've known hasn't existed for centuries, and he never got to know the one that exists today. the bangla he might've spoken no one remembers anymore. he has nothing left of the human he was except that name.

further readings (STRONGLY SUGGESTED!!!):

[fantabulisticity]

In a clear reaction to pro-Palestine protests, the House might pass legislation that would hand the government a dangerous tool to stifle free speech and punish disfavored groups. We must take action. This bill (H.R. 9495) gives the executive branch the authority to effectively dismantle any nonprofit organization it deems to have provided "material support" to terrorist groups and the potential for abuse under this law is staggering. We've already seen government officials conflate protesting students with Hamas or other terrorist groups. It isn't a stretch to imagine how this bill could be used to pressure universities to shut down student groups and further criminalize dissent in this country. Knowing the U.S. government's long history of abusive and discriminatory material support investigations and prosecutions in the post-9/11 era – disproportionately against Muslims and charities – we cannot allow this bill to pass. Tell your representatives to vote no on H.R. 9495.

As of ACLU's Instagram post 6 hours ago, the House could vote on this bill as early as TOMORROW, Tuesday, November 12th.

This bill "would give the incoming Trump administration a new tool they could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish groups that disagree with them."

Here is the link to the Intercept article the ACLU links to, titled "Congress Is About to Gift Trump Sweeping Powers to Crush His Political Enemies"