- This topic has 3 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here is a good refutation of the revisionist version of Christian-Islamic relations in the Middle Ages. I dislike most revisionist history and revisionism inspired by politics and political correctness is the worst kind. History should not be the plaything of populism it is about what really happened.Refuting God's Cruciblehttp://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3344
Coexisted with Christians???? Yeah, whatever. Christianity wouldn't have spread throughout Europe if it WASN'T for the Carolingians.I'd only go this far: Arabs perhaps gave us math, made some contributions to science, and preserved many of the ancient writings (as did Catholic monks). I doubt every Arab hated every Christian and vice versa..they did cooperate at times as citizens. And I would give the Arabs this, I would like to have seen that library at Cordoba. That must have been something.But the only coexistence in Spain was between Jews and Muslims, Jews were the dhimmis of Muslims for protection because they were persecuted by Christians.Perhaps the author of this "scholarly" book missed the classes on the Ottoman Empire. :-There's one-sided history, which I don't like, that says all Arabs were bad all the time, which isn't true, but then we have this anti-Christian anti-Western revisionist garbage. How do books like this get published?Great post and link, scout. Thanks!
Heres another article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post today about how happy the Jews were under Islam. Admittedly, it is not from an unbiased source, but it doesn't say anything that I have not read elsewhere either. This article is a good example of using the facts for political gain.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275808&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Here is a good refutation of the revisionist version of Christian-Islamic relations in the Middle Ages. I dislike most revisionist history and revisionism inspired by politics and political correctness is the worst kind. History should not be the plaything of populism it is about what really happened.Refuting God's Cruciblehttp://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3344
The Brussels Journal is a conservative blog, founded by the Flemish journalist Paul Beli?n. In April 2006 the Belgian government accused the blog of "racism" and forced the removal of a Dutch language article on the site, "Geef ons Wapens!" (Give us Weapons!). The incident caused the site to shift to English-centric in order to be able to present future such cases to the international media. The Washington Times carried an editorial deploring the stance of the Belgian authorities on August 17, 2006 concluding 'From what we've seen of the English version of the Brussels Journal, the accusations of racism are utterly baseless. Mr. Belien is guilty only of vigorously expressing his opinion, and in many cases it would benefit Belgium -- and Europe as a whole -- to heed the advice from the Brussels Journal rather than to criminalize it.'The Washington Times is a daily broadsheet newspaper published in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. It was founded in 1982 by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, and has been subsidized by the Unification Church community. The Times is known for its conservative stance on political and social issues.The strategy of right-wing populism relies on a combination of ethno-nationalism with anti-elitist populist rhetoric and a radical critique of existing political institutions.They are considered radical because they oppose the current welfare state and the present political system.Right-wing because they oppose aspects of social democracy and have traditional policies on immigration.Populist because they appeal to the fears and frustrations of common citizens.
Ok, you have refuted my source as biased, which I will admit. That does not make his point any less valid. The argument is political in nature and it is patently impossible to make a political argument without picking one side or the other.Here are some internet sources that may or may not pass your objective test.dhimmitude, I will even post wikipedia which I have expounded on in the past for its lack of rigour Dhimmi. The problem with this subject is there are few if any sources that refute the fact of dhimmitude. I cant find any, I do have a few history books that talk about it as fact though.BTW, what us an objective source?Lastly, because a government went after somebody, I am supposed to then think he is not a good scholar? David Irving is a flake but he is also responsible for some good scholarship. Political views that I disagree with do not automatically make an author's entire body of work irrelevant. Is the article factual or not? From what I know, yes it is.
BTW, what us an objective source?Lastly, because a government went after somebody, I am supposed to then think he is not a good scholar? David Irving is a flake but he is also responsible for some good scholarship. Political views that I disagree with do not automatically make an author's entire body of work irrelevant. Is the article factual or not? From what I know, yes it is.
Scout,I'm not here to preach.However you know about Historical Method.For me, source criticism is the very first question to state. And by whom was it produced is another major stance.Especially in this case.
Yes, I do know what Historical method is.Bias does not automatically negate the points an author tries to make, it just means that obvious bias must be examined even more critically than a putatively objective or unbisaed source. I can take his bias into account when analyzing a source can't I? Or is that not allowed?And yes, you do tend to be a little bit Preachy.
Off topic somewhat: JB Bury, who is one of the most prominent and well-known scholars of Classical history, is tainted with racism (the social darwinism type of racism). At first I dismissed him because of this, but I was strongly advised not to by a few professors.
So were most 19th and early 20th century Historians, at least in the English language and most of the German historians I am familiar with. Ranke is one of them. Gibbon is notorious for his biased views, he still wrote a splendid history of the Roman Empire. If you know how to critique it properly he still managed some unique insights into the reasons for Rome's rise and fall.
Burn after visiting ? 8)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8472111.stm
