Shouldn't this be in the history books?

[lord of the mark]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by KrazyHorse
" and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India."

this seems relatively fair to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I rather doubt it would be good to see the Khalifat Raj in India. Even Jinnah denounced it apparently, though Congress cooperated with it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


this seems relatively fair to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khilafat_Movement

I rather doubt it would be good to see the Khalifat Raj in India. Even Jinnah denounced it apparently, though Congress cooperated with it.

Funny, that wasn't the part I bolded as indicative of bias.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and Ned's calling to you again in the WWI thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Funny, that wasn't the part I bolded as indicative of bias.

Its indicative of what she meant by "islamic rule" Not necessarily an instance of democracy where muslims happen to be in the majority, but of a movement dedicated to an Islamist state, in particular to a revived Khalifate. Which IIUC is what the Khalifat Raj movement advocated. Now whether the events in Malabar prove what an Islamist state would be like, is another question, but it hardly shows the bias that would be indicated if she saw those events as proving that rule by muslims was always unacceptable.

[KrazyHorse]

Its indicative of what she meant by "islamic rule"

I disagree.

Again, not that it matters. I'd rather read a source which at least bothers to take an impartial tone with regard to a political matter if I was looking to get some facts straight...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Its indicative of what she meant by "islamic rule"

I disagree.

Again, not that it matters. I'd rather read a source which at least bothers to take an impartial tone with regard to a political matter if I was looking to get some facts straight...

Well, then, you should appreciate the site Ned is quoting from in the WW1 thread. They similarly are opposed to blame and side taking in history. (f**k Godwin) OTOH you might have a problem reading, say, Overy on WW2.

[KrazyHorse]

Dude, I don't think that history from a moral perspective is necessarily a bad thing.

My point is than on an objective historical fact, i.e. the scale of massacres, I'd rather read a source which involves itself in specifics rather than attempting to weave a moral picture.

If I want to know how much rubber the Japanese needed to get from Burma then I'm not interested in your opinions about how evil the Japanese are. In fact, if you spend your time telling me that, then I'm going to begin to doubt the veracity of your claims.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not just a liar, but a bad liar.

(this is me)

The only idiot here is the person who doesn't realise that somebody who makes unabashed value judgments about one side in a conflict cannot be assumed to be "unbiased" regarding that conflict.

(this is you)

It can be a conflict when there are two sides who are fighting. It is a genocide when one side simply massacres the other, encountering no opposition and no retaliation. Learn the difference.

Now, who brought up the definition of the word "conflict"?

I thought you were referring to the scientific method, not the definition of conflict.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

If I want to know how much rubber the Japanese needed to get from Burma then I'm not interested in your opinions about how evil the Japanese are. In fact, if you spend your time telling me that, then I'm going to begin to doubt the veracity of your claims.

Does the bias of a source necessarily imply the falsification of its factual claims? The most you can say is that the conclusions drawn from said claims may be off, but unless you have found evidence of them falsifying their factual claims, dismissing them for having a bias is dishonest.

[Zkribbler]

Update:

Yesterday, I was in a book store in Burbank. I checked out the "history" section.

There wasn't a single book on Indian history. I did find a book on "world history" but India wasn't mentioned.