Winston Churchill on Politics, and Mohammedanism in 1899

[carpro]

No you don't.

You're surmising. You may have reason to suspect but you don't know .

Churchill was using the language of his time. Nothing unusual in that.

 

[mioque]

Call me arrogant.
I've read enough texts covering the Middle-East written in that era to make that judgement.
Just like I call you arrogant for claiming that you know this for certain:

"This is the result of the appeasement of Spain.
Terrorist tactics of intimidation worked so well in Spain, they believe terror will weaken the will of others as well."
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/3553.html

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I am around Muslims and Hindus almost every day. We earn the right to tell them about our faith when they see our faith in action.

That is incredibly profound. How true! Thank you for sharing that. Perhaps I need to take that to heart myself.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Agree with Churchill. Never heard him called a bigot though, just a great Statesman who loved his country.

I agree (don't pass out) with you here. By our standards, his words are bogited. But these words were delivered over a undred years ago, and we must place them in such a context. The question is, were the words bigoted by the standards of the time. Perhaps they were a bit haughty (as were most political speeches), but bigoted? I think it falls short of that definition by the standards of the day. I really don't see how anyone could see Churchill as anything other than a great statesman, in his time or any other.

President Thomas Jefferson was fighting with Muslims during his presidency. They were called the Barbary Pirates.

Yes and no. Piracy of ships in Atlantic waters was a serious issue for Jefferson and the Presidents who followed him. The Barbary pirates were from Muslim regions, but that is not any more or less significant than the Spanish pirates being from a Catholic region. I don't think one could argue that the early Presidents were fighting with Catholics. Then again, some might.

 

[Johnv]

(doublepost)

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by mioque:
Call me arrogant.
I've read enough texts covering the Middle-East written in that era to make that judgement.
Just like I call you arrogant for claiming that you know this for certain:

"This is the result of the appeasement of Spain.
Terrorist tactics of intimidation worked so well in Spain, they believe terror will weaken the will of others as well."

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/3553.html

You can call me names if you want but I'm not much into that sort of thing.

I made a statement I'll stick by but it is my opinion , and as such, open to debate or question.

On the other hand ,you claim to know something that you have no way of knowing for sure. Therefore, what you hold is also an opinion which you refuse to acknowledge as such.


You have called that arrogance and I'll take your word for it.

 

[mioque]

Suddenly you merely have an opinion!!!!!!

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by mioque:
Suddenly you merely have an opinion!!!!!!

All you had to do was ask.

Surely you are not so naive as to believe I had facts to back up such a statement. It had to be a belief or opinion and I would have thought most people would have realized it and they probably do. I believe you do , too. (That's an opinion, BTW)

For some reason you want to pretend you didn't. OK by me.

Since you absolutely know that Churchill was merely parroting the line of the time and it was not his assessment as well, perhaps you would provide some proof?

 

[mioque]

This would be a place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by mioque:
This would be a place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism

Lot's of reading there and not enough time. So why don't you just lead me to the part that says Churchill was just parroting the line of the times or didn't write that essay, or didn't believe what he wrote, or maybe plagiarized someone else?

Any thing at all to back up your absolute knowledge that Churchill didn't make this assessment or was quoting someone else.

Anything at all that closely resembles proof and mentions his name or the words he wrote.

Dealing with an arrogant person, as you refer to yourself, is somewhat of a bore and resembles a merry go round.

This is your last chance. I'm tired of your games.

 

[mioque]

Well Carpro if your not interested in the grand Orientalist tradition of (at times pseudo-)scholarship, you will never find out.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by mioque:
Well Carpro if your not interested in the grand Orientalist tradition of (at times pseudo-)scholarship, you will never find out.

I know a person with an opinion they think is fact when I see one.

Then when they can't provide proof of their opinion/facts, they like to send people on wild goose chases.

Sorry to spoil your little game.

Your opinion may matter, but that's all you have in this case.

If not, prove it.

 

[mioque]

carpro
I have to admit defeat.
You see I dug up the works of a couple of 19th and 18th century authors who gave their opinions of Middle-Eastern cultures, opinions that were strikingly similar to the one produced by Churchill, but what I ofcourse can't produce is an admission by churchill that he was influenced in his opinions by other western authors.