Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
     (5230.181)
    To an extent, and in theory, yes, that's true. But it was frequently used as an excuse to levy greater taxes on religious minorities to finance various projects and programs. We especially see a lot of this in the wake of events such as the different Berber uprisings in Spain, where the Sultans needed a quick source of income to stabilize their domains to resist the Christians. Another good example is in the later days of the Ottoman Empire, when the government was rapidly bankrupting itself because of corruption and ineptly negotiated trade treaties with the west. In the second example, we see the administration levying large taxes on minority groups under the name of this tax, which ultimately led to several uprisings and rebellions.

    Why do we know this? Well, the Muslim cheritible tax to religious authorities was always rated at a fixed percentage, normally 5-10% of a family's income depending on their trade, where they lived etc, while non-muslims frequently payed much higher taxes in these types of systems (the average rate for Jews in the Ottoman Empire, for instance, seems to be around 15%; see The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic by Stanford Shaw for more). These higher taxes were sometimes insisted on by the Islamic majority, to ensure that favoritism wasn't shown to minority groups (as I pointed out earlier, Jews came close to running several Islamic economies at different points in history).
    •  
      CommentAuthormister hex
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009 edited
     (5230.182)
    I once confused a party full of people by claiming that the Irish were the Lost Tribe of Israel. The Very Lost Tribe. Dark good looks, fierce intelligence, religious devotion (uh ... to the wrong religion but still ...), a definite way with words, a history of persecution by their Lousy Fucking Neighbors, along with the worst luck Fate can deal out ... I had 'em going. Then some fucker said "He's lying to you" and the whole thing fell apart and I had to leave quickly.

    EDIT TO ADD : That was during my Drinking-In-Public-and-Being-Invited-Out-Places phase. Now I drink alone, unless the Lord counts as a person.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMike Black
    • CommentTimeAug 21st 2009
     (5230.183)
    Just tossing this out there to anyone who may be familiar (as I don't expect Looney to know everything.)

    Is anyone aware of a solid background book on Nestor Makhno? There isn't much on the web yet about that part of the Russian Revolution, so I was hoping there was a solid book out there (a cursory glance at Amazon shows a few books, but I want to make sure.)
  1.  (5230.184)
    @ Mister Hex -- I remember reading once there are a number of Irish words that have nothing to do with Indo-European but which do resemble a number of Semitic words.

    Not quite what I was looking for, but it'll do.

    My own, biased, spun-out-of-air-with-no-evidence idea is Carthaginian exiles fleeing Roman purview settled there. Because that'd be keen.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.185)
    Language is a weird thing. Like the fact that two of the most closely related languages in the world are Finnish and Korean, to the point that until the 1960's the were believed to belong to the same Language sub-family, the Ural-Altaic languages. I'm told that the two are very similar in terms of certain word pronunciations and grammar.

    @Brendan

    Or it may have to do with the "Black Irish". We know that the Jews and other Semitic-language speakers were aware of Spain in the ancient world, and research has show many Irish people have genetics similar to people on the Iberian peninsula. A theory is that the two traded and possibly cross-migrated. They would obviously end up transferring words to one another, as always happens when two different groups meet, and it's possible that these Irish words were corruptions of semitic words the Iberians had borrowed from populations farther east.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLBA
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.186)
    thanks for all the information all.

    this thread does kick a lot of ass
    • CommentAuthorBoga_
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.187)
    A theory is that the two traded and possibly cross-migrated. They would obviously end up transferring words to one another, as always happens when two different groups meet, and it's possible that these Irish words were corruptions of semitic words the Iberians had borrowed from populations farther east.

    The lusitanians from the eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula colonized parts of Ireland in the centuries before the roman occupation.

    Just an aside, I really enjoy your posts, but seeing people refer to pre-roman peninsula as "spain" really makes the hair on the back my neck stand up.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.188)
    Spain, Iberian Peninsula, Andalusia, Al-Andalus... I think they all work in informal parlance like this. And as far as I know there's no evidence of outright Iberian colonization of Ireland (if there is, please point me to it because it's certainly not something I'm familiar with), unless you count neolithic travels there which I certainly wouldn't consider "colonization", more "migration", the term I used before.
    • CommentAuthorBoga_
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009 edited
     (5230.189)
    Andalusia is a spanish corruption of Al-Andalus, which, in turn, was the arab name for the islamic territories in the south of the peninsula. The term Andalusia is used today to designate a very specific part of Spain, namely the south, so you can see why it is an inadequate replacement for plain old "Spain", especially if you're referring to the ancient world, when the Iberian Peninsula didn't exist as any kind of unified territory and Islam was just a twinkle in Allah's eye.
    Not like the I.P. has ever been unified (or even ethnically homogenous for that matter), except between 1580 and 1640, and even that's debatable.

    When I spoke of the Irish "colonization", I spoke of the iron-age migration between Ireland and the Celtiberian tribes (namely, the Lusitanians), not any kind of Neolithic mass-migration which is where most of the common ground between Irish and Iberian genetic ancestry is drawn from. This exchange can be traced back to the first Celtic settlements in the western peninsula, which were founded by Hibernians (the Brigantes, more specifically) from modern-day England, who were from Celtic stock.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.190)
    The point is that they're all terms that at one time or another were used for the same general area and are roughly synonymous unless we're being incredibly nitpicky.
    • CommentAuthorBoga_
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.191)
    Well, if you think that taking objection to the use of a term that neither designates the geographical area that is being referred to, or even existed in the historical period in question, then I guess I'm being incredibly nitpicky.
    • CommentAuthorlooneynerd
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.192)
    Would you prefer I go back and edit each to post include the phrase "modern day"?
    • CommentAuthorBoga_
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.193)
    No, that's fine.
    •  
      CommentAuthorstsparky
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2009
     (5230.194)
    Jews went everywhere; There were the 20th century Anglo-Irish constables who thought the Hebraic writing on a Kosher butcher's shop was the then outlawed Gaelic. More ancient Jewish world travelers were the Haida or Hata tribe I believe made it to Japan.


    Some believe this wall built to repel the Mongols was built using Babylonian Jewish masonry techniques.