The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine
A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017 by Rashid Khalidi
A landmark history of one hundred years of war waged against the Palestinians from the foremost US historian of the Middle East, told through pivotal events and family history.
@ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Those phrases suggest to me a certain narrative, one based in an anti-colonialist perspective, similar to what we see with examinations of other settler-colonial societies (South Africa, Australia etc). And yes, I agree, all historians are telling a story from a certain position. Mr Khalidi’s academic credentials suggest that the content will be somewhat rigorous.
@KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe Isn’t an appeal to academic credentials an Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy and inherently classist?
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe What am I not getting here? Study at advanced academy isn’t trustworthy simply because a large number of people say so. If anything, that high education isn’t trustwortht has lately become a rather popular argumentum ad populum…
@gimulnautti@mastodon.green @Kirilov@kolektiva.social @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe My point is they don’t address the actual arguement. They address the person making it. It’s also an appeal to accomplishment. By addressing the context and not the point the person is engaging in sophistry and not dialogue focused on understanding the truth. Logical fallacies are tools to understand when someone is hijacking our emotions
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe
It seems logical to me to expect solid work from someone known for producing solid work, and I see no fallacy here.
@Alexandrad1 @Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Then go read the wiki or stanford philosophy encyclopedia entry for logical fallacies. These are textbook examples.
@Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
These textbook examples do not apply here, for the reason I mentioned.
@Alexandrad1@mas.to @Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe Yes - these logical fallacies do obviously apply here.
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe
If they did, you could easily demonstrate it, since it’s logic, instead of just claiming there is a logical fallacy.
Karuna said he expected a rigorous work, because the author is known to produce rigorous work. That’s perfect logic.
@Alexandrad1@mas.to @Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe ‘appeal to accomplishment (also known as appeal to success) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is defended from criticism based upon the level of accomplishment of the individual making the argument’
@Alexandrad1@mas.to @Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe “An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.
All sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, that is to say, that this is a logical fallacy”
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @Alexandrad1@mas.to @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe Can I note that Khalid’s book is not offering “opinion”, but a thesis based in evidence. And I did not refer to Khalid so as to use an “influential figure” to support an argument. The argument is FROM Khalid’s work.
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @Alexandrad1@mas.to @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe
Argumentum ad populum and fallacy of authority are not the same, you pompous prick.
You are making general opinions on a book you haven’t read, based only in your inability to grasp the title.
3.You wouldn’t call a book titled “History of World War 2” biased. Why do you call a book that tells the story of the 100 years resistance to colonialism in Palestine biased? It was a war, by any definition
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social
Uh, no. You’ve excluded the most important part:
>(…) of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority.
The definition you took from Wikipedia actually does not reflect its source.
<If (…) we try to [impress the reader] with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, (…)
@Alexandrad1@mas.to @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. It seems you have been captured by a love for the rules of logic, but have (illogically) misapplied these.
@KarunaX @Kirilov @gimulnautti @ymishory @appassionato @palestine How have they been misapplied?
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @gimulnautti@mastodon.green @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @palestine@a.gup.pe Read back over this thread - and especially your posts - and you will easily see where you are subjecting logic to irrational contortions.
@Kirilov @KarunaX @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
From what Google says, Mr. Khalidi is an accomplished academic, and I have the utmost respect for his credentials.
As I wrote, the book may present a coherent and fact-based narrative that justifies the title and subtitle, but that would have to include some outstanding claims and evidence.
@ymishory @Kirilov @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine I think Khalid’s claims are not exceptional, but rather mainstream in academic (not populist) circles, given the numbers of other authors who propose a similar thesis. See eg Ilan Pappe, Schlomo Sand, Edward Said.
@KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory@tooot.im @Kirilov@kolektiva.social @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe You mean Khalidi? Have you even read the text? Said is not a historian and Pappe does not come to the same conclusions.
@Kirilov@kolektiva.social @ymishory@tooot.im @appassionato@mastodon.social @bookstodon@a.gup.pe @palestine@a.gup.pe Ilan Pappe’s writing is certainly in the same ballpark. Perhaps you haven’t bothered reading his work? But back to the main point - the title of Khalid’s book reflects the very real history of Palestine. You may not like that, but that is fact.