Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor
|
The three questions concern the credibility of an interpretation offered by a person using said sources in addition to the reliability of those sources themselves. (Also, respectfully but bluntly, the notion that a single book on any topic gives a "full answer" to any question is at odds with the conventions of intellectual inquiry in the Western world that have been practiced the last seven centuries.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor
[G]et a copy...Read the back of the book....
|
Please do not take offense but I decline what appears to be an invitation. It is my observation that you frequently use this rhetorical tactic when you respond to viewpoints that disagree or question yours. The logic appears to be if I've read what you've read, I'll interpret it as you do.
Unfortunately, on those occasions where I've taken a look at some of the sources you cite, not only do I disagree with you but the sources themselves do not support your position or they contradict other sources that you site or positions you've taken elsewhere or the sources just are not reliable. Or all of the above. And these are sources that are in English. The most convenient, if not recent, examples are your discussion of 'Stockholm Syndrome' and the historiography of Nazism, which I addressed above.
Your interpretations of the religious, political, social, intellectual, strategic, economic, diplomatic, military, naval, and cultural history of Europe and America are similarly at odds with what little I know about those topics.
For these reasons and many others--not the least of which is the tone you use when people have the temerity to disagree with you--I do not have as high a level of confidence in your expertise on these topics as I need to accept your guidance on the topic at hand.
FWIW, your posts on the topic at hand have occasioned substantial changes to my reading/research agenda. Indeed, earlier this week I encountered a useful summary of the two prevailing views of the Islamic world offered in the West since 9/11. (Your comments are in line with the first view.) The summary is followed by an interesting piece of analysis.
Quote:
|
Neither of these interpretations is particularly novel. Both echo the received wisdom in the field of Middle Eastern studies since the early twentieth century, which views the region's history as an offshoot of global power politics rather than a process propelled by internal, autonomous dynamics.*
|
Two additional comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor
This wasn't translated by some lone-wolf and it can't be accused of "orientalism."
|
I understand that you disagree with Said's critique. I do not understand why you demonstrate your dislike for his analysis by posting comments that exemplify the man's points.
The second comment centers around your apparent disdain for what you label "revisionist" history. Sir, please know that your tone, the structure of your argument, your historiographical sensibilities, your selection of sources, and your use of those sources are strikingly similar to the practices of the so-called revisionist historians of American foreign relations. Please also know that while these scholars have given historians a different way to look at the past, the energy they brought to the discussion proved to be counterproductive not only to their own intellectual interests but also damaging to themselves and to others.
______________________________________________
* Efraim Karsh,
Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2006), p. 2.