I feel like I've made this post before

[sabotabby]

Dear white liberals,

Please stop talking about Gandhi until you have read at least one (1) book about Indian Independence (that was not written by a white liberal) and until you can spell his name properly.

kthnxbye,

sabotabby

Comments

[sabotabby]

It was a huge influence on me (and I haven't heard anything challenging the facts in it either). He's dogmatic in the service of making his point, but the argument is a fundamentally sound one.

[beeblism.livejournal.com]

the argument is a fundamentally sound one.

but he does base a lot of his arguments against the efficacy (i used a big word!) of pacifism on historical facts surrounding the campaigns of gandhi and king... which i don't have the energy or intelligence to double-check. i was just wondering if you'd heard anything come down the wire about this in particular -- since some other things i've read about churchill's research made him sound kinda sketchy...

[sabotabby]

Theoretically, that would be a lot easier to debunk than the information he's been challenged on (which, if I recall correctly, was research on the Trail of Tears, etc.). But Pacifism as Pathology is more analysis/opinion based on well known facts.

Also, I think that a lot of the disputes had to do with him plagiarizing research. Not that that isn't sketchy, but it's a different sort of sketchy than fabricating information.

[beeblism.livejournal.com]

thanks. that's good news. i guess... except it really sucks that he has to be sketchy at all, since most of the people that i argue with know about the research stuff, which means they'll reject everything he's ever written out of hand.

[culpster.livejournal.com]

Lots of good stuff in there but I am stymied by the Toronto appearance where he shouted out to the 9-11 hijackers and got the applause he wanted. I do not buy the 'little Eichmanns' spin at all even if it is true. He grandstands a lot, he observed meekly.