Feminist claims resisting military invasion at Battle of Tours was Islamophobic

Can I kill these idiots?

actually a good point

pre enlightenment shit shouldn't even be discussed here

Literally nothing to do with leftism or politics

rude sage

No. Just time travel them to 1906 macedonia region and let the wittness Bulgarians killing Greeks killing Turks killing Serbs. And all civilians.

Oh, I forgot, they weren't "muslims" so it doesn't count, right?

...

My point is, ethnic groups were always fighting and killing each other thoughout history, always civilians suffer and it's always for the causes of those in power.

Time period means nothing, unless we talk about the now.

ssssssomewhat agree

Oh?

Dropped.

I want to assume this is bait. Unfortunately, postcolonial theorists are so retarded, I suspect you're serious.

No, I'm referring to the horribly written SJW piece.

Arabs aren't indigenous to France or Iberia. They're indigenous to Arabia. Berbers are indigenous to North Africa.

...

That sounds somewhat tautological.

Bourgeoise liberal feminism, no. Which is what this is.

And shortly after removing the other women, the first international fell, and never become serious in the American section because the it's orientation would not be to the fairer sex, nor blacks, only 3 years since liberated from their chains by the 14th amendment, nor to Chinese immigrants working the rails, but only to the white workers and their embryonic trade unions. Additionally, Marx did not want to remove Ms. Woodhull because of her feminist, nor anti-racist appeals, but because of her "spiritualism" and most importantly because she started to lie to the council and to the American people about her candidacy for president being approved by the international. So, yeah, great success!

Tbh you should actually read what Marx wrote about her.

REALLY makes me think…

Why am i still responding to you?

You can't judge the actions of the past by modern moral standards. Back then, secularism and separation of church and state were unheard of; religion and government were intertwined, both for Muslims and Christians. So back then it'd be like kicking out illegal residents of a nation.

Just CK2 things.

Oh pol/, never change

Islam does not believe in communism. Sure, there have been "Islamic socialists" in the past (i.e. Shariati) but they hardly represent the teachings of Islamic doctrine as a whole any more than Walter Benjamin represents Chabad-Lubavitch, or Camillo Torres represents the Vatican.

Talk to any religious Muslim and they will tell you the teachings of Muhammad were completely incompatible with communism. Free markets, private property, and inheritance are huge things in Islamic Law. Muhammad himself was a successful merchant, and by the time he became a prophet he was far removed from his early childhood as a poor orphan. Also, Ba'athism is closer to Useful Idiotism than it is Marxism-Leninism so I don't see how Nasser or Papa Assad would be relevant.

Its stupid to talk about these events using post enlightenment notions or terminology anyway. That's why discussion about pre enlightenment history really doesn't have a fucking place here.

Honestly, the whole "Islam was PROGRESSIVE" thing wouldn't bother me so much if the leftists propagating that shit would bother to tell us what Marxism or anarchism can actually learn by adopting an Islamic paradigm or teachings. Most of these claims about Islam being enlightened and super-tolerant or progressive aren't necessarily supported or explained through historical materialism.

All they know is that if brown people are doing it, it is progressive. Somehow.

Not to mention, the whole "we must take up an indigenous epistemology" mantra is not only absurd, but totally outdated. The model of imperialism that's being exercised now is not Vietnam but El Salvador: instead of imperialist countries sending in their own troops to invade black and brown countries, they just pay black and brown peoples who are sympathetic to imperialism or pro-imperialist regimes to engage in civil war with the black and brown peoples who aren't. We're already seeing this in Syria and most likely in Yemen in the near future.

Yea… I'm fairly confident it's not considered Islamophobia when contesting the outcome of an actual invasion like, with swords and everything.

I mean, by that logic 'Anglophobia' would serve as the pat explanation for most of the history of Ireland/England relations. It's reductio ad absurdum.

Also, why was this dross even posted here? I think we're all familiar enough with this particular brand of tumbler-tier bourgeois liberal nonsense.

It's more about mea culpa and self-hatred ("oh no! I'm white!" I'm eevul!!") for these people.

yeah I need to think like a native american if i'm going to fight my landlord. is politics about winning victories or is it about soul cleansing now?

This is literally the most fucking stupid thing I've read all week.

...

...

This.

I wish everybody posting in this thread would die, me included

Liberal politics has been about soul cleansing for a while now.

Appaches were just Ameriphobes tbh, very excellent. Just like those Zulus, what a bunch of racist sinners for fighting those Brits. Remember, white people in Africa can't be racist because they don't possess the institutional power to enforce racism in a black society!

...

...

By this logic, Maoism itself is outdated.

Piss off.

not a fem but i dont understand this pol meme

What does that have to do with the insane claim that a military conflict 1000 ago set the precedent for modern islamaphobia?

Try to understand this.