How to learn and remember what you've read? I read a lot of history but usually forget most of the details. Do you guys like to take notes? annotate? outlines?
LEARNING AND ANALYZING HISTORY TECHNIQUES THREAD
I have very bad memory myself.
It's a shitty trait for a history lover.
I'm now using an outline program to summarize what I've read and my thoughts on it. It's helping a lot.
It just sticks in my head. I have shitty handwriting so I just remember it. Danton style.
isis IS conservative
does op think they're fucking progressive?
I think the image is mostly just noting the huge shift in narrative that the phrase "extremist conservatives" presents versus more commonly used phrases for ISIS like "islamic extremists" or even "religious extremists." "Extremist conservatives" could even be considered a particularly dangerous shift in narrative by any western group that calls itself conservative, since they might be afraid of being lumped in with extremists who are hardly politically related. Of course, this happens in reverse in the west quite often when any Middle Eastern political party that includes the word "Islamic" in the name is automatically assumed to have similar politics to violent Islamic extremist groups.
Mainly it's just indicative of someone's politics to see what kind of narrative they use, since it basically shows what angle they want to spin the issue in. Such rebrandings and their consequences to the public dialogue have been a big subject in political science in recent years.
Conservative means to conserve the current culture and politics of it's people. Given that one of the main motives of ISIS is to unite Islan under it's incredibly different interpretation of the Quran, Shariah Law, and Islamic culture they would either fit under the prescription of progressive, or in a more broadly historical context, reactionary.
I don't think Progressive or Reactionary really works to describe ISIS because the way they operate in doctrine (with ISIS's interpretation of the Quran and such) ISIS tends to be more like Fascist Italy, with seemingly contradictory elements that are both Progressive and Reactionary at the same time. I think generally Islamist works best to describe ISIS
The problem with what you are saying is that you are a analyzing ISIS using a progressive/conservative spectrum that is only relevant to the west.
The reality is that they can't really be properly defined under the prescriptions of Western Conservative or Western Progressive as neither things have much relevance to ISIS.
With no cultural connotations to the idea of conservative, which is to conserve the current state, and progressive, which is to progress the current state, ISIS would technically fit correctly in the label of progressive.
>Of course, this happens in reverse in the west quite often when any Middle Eastern political party that includes the word "Islamic" in the name is automatically assumed to have similar politics to violent Islamic extremist groups.
Lol same. That's how I've passed my highschool history classes with literally no studying
I read ebooks because they're easy as fuck to pirate. Even when not on my tablet I keep them and my bookmarks in Calibre (desktop ebook library).
>does op think they're fucking progressive?
'Murican pro-cons dychotomy makes no sense when dealing with islamic terrorists.
Best habit I've found is stopping every fifty or so pages to take notes on everything you've just read and then continuing.
cant read for shit. i think i have ADD or something.
Yes, because to go back hundreds of years to the previous laws and practices isn't conservative at all. You're right, they're regressive - which is just a synonym for conservative anyways
Because they more than likely do. If you look at the Ulema that own the madrassas throughout much of the world you will find their funding is based from saudi arabia and other wahhabist strongholds, they actively preach the destruction of secular and democratic rule and call for the institutions that support them to be undermined.
As a litmus test just ask any so called preacher about "What my right hand possesses and slavery" they will simply follow the wahhabist line for that or they might try to weasel out of the question.
>Yes, because to go back hundreds of years to the previous laws and practices isn't conservative at all.
By all definitions, it isn't. To go backwards to is to be Reactionary. As I said you could either view ISIS as reactionaries attempting to emulate more ancient orthodox interpretations of Islamic culture and law or you could argue that their orthodox interpretation is something different enough from ancient times to be seen as something new, therefore making them progressive.
Either way, they have no intention of maintaining the status quo of Islam, so by definition, they can't be conservative.
Because it benefits people who have interests opposed to the Islamic world to paint Islamic politics all one color, just like the arguments within the American media that use "librul" and "conservitard" to politically whitewash and diminish opposing views. It's just spin.
Well, that's not really true. There are Islamic political parties that heavily oppose the Wahabists, and still reject secularization of their country. That's the kind of whitewashing I'm talking about. It benefits a long-standing American foreign policy narrative to paint all middle easterners as the same kind of threat. Fortunately for people who fear Islam, the Islamic world is much less unified than they fear and much more petty than they hope.
ITT: OP derailed his own thread with his picture
>It benefits a long-standing American foreign policy narrative to paint all middle easterners as the same kind of threat.
Yea because my opinion of them is very dependant on what US think about it. That is the kind of white washing I am talking about, the sheer indifference about the history of the muslims, what they did to many of the nations of the world and the cancer of islam that is still ongoing. There is no 'fear' of islam, it is an active rejection of it as a faith and religion.
>Fortunately for people who fear Islam, the Islamic world is much less unified than they fear and much more petty than they hope.
Islamic world was not that unified to begin with, just look at the Ridda wars, and since the Abbassids and still caused a lot of headaches and loss for many non muslim nations
Also check these links
I would like you to provide data that opposes this so that I can understand where you are coming from.
I think you're misunderstanding me. What I'm saying has nothing to do with muslims. It has to do with use of language in politics, and how the words that are chosen indicate the political motives and preferred political narrative of the speaker. It isn't about whose politics is "right," it's just about rhetoric and the manipulation of language to serve the political whims of the speaker. It's all psychological framing, and has nothing actually to do with the objective politics of Americans or Muslims or anyone.
Well then this is the wrong board to debate about that, please go to /pol/