{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02090843547224225, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024513338139870222, 'mean_word_length': 5.609523809523809, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
"Icelandic Putridity": Colonial Thought and Icelandic Architectural Heritage

Scholars have suggested that the relationship between iceland and denmark is best defined in the light of the political connections between the two countries, and they have often drawn on the concept of colonialism for that purpose (Guðmundur Hálfdanarson 2014). Others have criticized and rejected the use of that concept and prefer to view the status of iceland as one of a dependent territory up until 1918, when the country gained sovereignty (Helgi Skúli Kjartansson 1991, 94; Helgi Þorláksson 1990, 181).1 the discussion has mainly focused on an interpretation that elucidates the relationship in view of iceland’s legal and administrative rights in relation to denmark. it ignores, however, the ways in which cultural authority influenced the relationship. in recent years, historians have increasingly taken steps toward placing a stronger emphasis on the part played by culture in the relationship, although legal jargon remains prevalent in their analyses (Guðmundur Hálfdanarson and Rastrick 2006; ellenberger 2009). the historian Frederick cooper contends that colonizers delimit their power with regard to the colonized by means of ideas concerning their own level of civilization and that the colonizing power marks the cultural center of the colonized peoples (cooper 2005; ashcroft, Griffiths,