According to an article in the September 26, 2007 edition of Telegraph.co.uk, other races and cultures should be included in historical accounts, starting with the role played by the Turks in the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Read the article.
Did Allah send the storm, too, in answer to pleas from the Turks, thus making Great Britain a land rightfully belonging to Muslims?
…The Armada was blown north up the east coast of England and attempted a return to Spain by sailing around Scotland and out into the Atlantic, past Ireland. But very severe weather destroyed a portion of the fleet, and more than 24 vessels were wrecked on the north and western coasts of Ireland…
Will the next call be for a change to the British flag, which prominently features a cross at its center? After all, according to Trevor Philips, chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, the Turks played an important role in the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Perhaps a crescent and star should be added so that Muslims feel more included. Or perhaps replacing the cross on the flag will make them feel even better. Sure, let’s take that step in the name of inclusionism — never mind historical realities.
Multiculturalists desire to rewrite history so that the new account subverts and denies Western culture. What I don’t understand is why it’s just fine for any culture other than our Western one something to be proud of. For example, speaking of the realities of Islamic history elicits cries of “Racist!” and “Islamophobe!” Perhaps a commenter can explain that conundrum to me?
18 Comments
»
The following is what I have written on this subject:
First they come for our free expression, then they come for our history…
Not content with cracking down on free expression, the UK establishment now wants to rewrite our history in order to bring it into line with its crackpot blueprint for society. I fear that this is still just the beginning of the left wing Orwellian nightmare state that is been constructed in our midst.
I refer of course to the recent comment by Trevor Phillips (of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights) calling for the rewriting of our history. So as far as Trevor Phillips is concerned it was not our own national heroes and resilient people who kept us free in 1588, but the Turks! Talk about Chaos Theory! Perhaps a butterfly flapping its wings in the Bay of Biscay also played a critical role in the events of that year. Maybe it was not the English that made English history after all! Thank you Turkey, you came to the rescue again, and just in the nick of time, I am grateful that we had you at our side in those difficult days.
If we are going to teach Turkish history in our schools then perhaps it would be more instructive, and indeed useful, to focus on the Turkish conquest of Eastern Christendom and the more recent twentieth century genocide perpetrated against the Christian Armenians. I do not think that it was an accident for Trevor to choose the example of the Ottoman Turks. I believe that our political and media establishment is determined to make the whole of Europe into an Islamic state. This is just another bit of evidence that suggests that my opinion is true. After all, Trevor could have chosen the far more credible and meaningful example of the role played by British Africans in the Battle of Trafalgar.
Trevor, you have no right to attack our culture so blatantly by giving exaggerated prominence to events that are only worthy of a footnote. You may not like our culture or our history but it is ‘ours’ and if you can’t accept that then that is just too bad. Just because the events of the past do not meet with your ideals then that is just one of those things that you will have to learn to live with. In your attempt to pervert our national story to further your own ideological agenda you are, in my opinion, no better than those who deny the holocaust against the Jews in the 1940s. You should be ashamed of yourself!
“He who controls the past controls the future…”
“Perhaps a commenter can explain that conundrum to me?”
Well, since you ask, I can certainly try. But I think the problem arises from your formulation of the issue. Let me take it step by step.
“According to an article in the September 26, 2007 edition of Telegraph.co.uk, other races and cultures should be included in historical accounts, starting with the role played by the Turks in the defeat of the Spanish Armada.”
Hard to take issue with that. When I grew up, I was taught that Canada was exclusively the product of interaction between its two “founding” peoples, the French and the English. There was no recognition of the huge role in our history played by the Irish, native people, the Chinese in the west. To add additional levels to the history, as long as they’re accurate, is surely a good thing, no?
“Did Allah send the storm, too, in answer to pleas from the Turks, thus making Great Britain a land rightfully belonging to Muslims?”
Well, that’s certainly not an argument that Trevor Phillips makes. I believe he’s talking about historical facts, rather than myths.
“Will the next call be for a change to the British flag, which prominently features a cross at its center?”
Nope, don’t see any sign of that argument either.
“After all, according to Trevor Philips, chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, the Turks played an important role in the defeat of the Spanish Armada.”
Well, there’s a historical assertion. It can be verified. If it’s true, then it should be part of the historical narrative. That’s pretty simple, isn’t it?
“Perhaps a crescent and star should be added so that Muslims feel more included. Or perhaps replacing the cross on the flag will make them feel even better. Sure, let’s take that step in the name of inclusionism — never mind historical realities.”
Not really sure how you’re connecting these rather measures with Mr. Phillips’ suggestion.
“Multiculturalists desire to rewrite history so that the new account subverts and denies Western culture.”
I guess perhaps some do. And some on the other side of the argument suggest that historical facts should be ignored when they don’t fit a cherished model. However, the key question is historical accuracy.
“What I don’t understand is why it’s just fine for any culture other than our Western one something to be proud of. For example, speaking of the realities of Islamic history elicits cries of “Racist!” and “Islamophobe!”
Well, it’s fine for every culture to be proud of its achievements, and hopefully to regret its failures. Those who despise a culture will always cite history to denigrate it, and any culture that’s been around for a while can easily be denigrated: those who love a culture will celebrate its achievements, and accuse its critics of anti-whatever.
‘Perhaps a commenter can explain that conundrum to me?”
Well, I tried. Did that help?
Balbulican,
Some of my comments in this posting are edgy. I know that. I guess that I’m concerned about a “slippery slope.”
And actually, perhaps we can take issue with the Turks’ having helped Queen Elizabeth I. See the bulleted items HERE.
IMO, historical accuracy should indeed triumph. So, tell the bad with the good, and the good with the bad. In many cases, relating the history of the Islam glosses over the bad. For example, the genocide of Asian Indians by Muslims has been omitted from most history books, to the point that even some Ph.D.’s in world history have never heard of that genocide.
‘Some of my comments in this posting are edgy. I know that. I guess that I’m concerned about a “slippery slope.”
No problem at all with edgy, that’s why we’re all here. I too am concerned about slippery slopes…they slide both ways, though. 
“And actually, perhaps we can take issue with the Turks’ having helped Queen Elizabeth I.”
Excellent. Let’s let the historians sort that out, and try to achieve consensus on the basis of verifiable evidence. My point is that inclusion of that point in the historical narrative should NOT depend on either anti-Muslim sentiment OR a sense of political correctness, but on objective analysis.
“Historical accuracy should indeed triumph.”
I agree.
“So, tell the bad with the good, and the good with the bad. In many cases, relating the history of the Islam glosses over the bad. For example, the genocide of Asian Indians by Muslims has been omitted from most history books, to the point that even some Ph.D.’s in world history have never heard of that genocide.”
Yup. My point, however, is that folks who don’t like Muslims or Islam are going to want to emphasize the horrors of Sharia Law and neglect Islamic science, just as the folks who don’t like Christians are going to want to emphasize the Inquisition and neglect the Church’s role as a repository of scholarship during the so-called “Dark Ages”. We all seek a narrative that reflect our own bias.
Yes, the narratives to which we give the most credence fits in with our own views. Psychological studies substantiate that trend in human nature.
One of my biggest gripes with certain books and publications is that they hold the West accountable today for the West’s bad deeds of the past, but they don’t do the same with Islamic history. Also, I see many Westerners, for whatever reason, leaping to conclusions such as the Turks helped Queen Elizabeth I when, in reality, there may well not be historical data to substantiate such a claim.
You said, Let’s let the historians sort that out, and try to achieve consensus on the basis of verifiable evidence.
I strongly agree–except that there may be quite a wait for such an empirical analysis. Also, too many are willing to accept the word of an “expert” instead of searching out the reality. And, yes, both sides of this discussion can be guilty of such laziness.
As I see it, at this point in time many leaders and scholars in the West seem too quick to believe anything good about Islamic history and to ignore the significance of (1) shari’ah law in the basic tenets or Islam and (2) the history of the by-the-sword expansionism of Islam. To ignore those elements is to ignore present danger, IMO.
I know that the analogy is not perfect, but in the middle of World War II, did the Allies stop to discuss the good aspects of Nazism? Now, don’t take what I just said in the wrong way! It’s an analogy, and not a perfect one. My point: in a war or in a clash of civilizations, demonizing the enemy serves two purposes: (1) to rally the people and (2) to force abrogation and/or reform of the ideology which presents the threat.
For my own part, I can criticize the history of Islam and, at the same time, admire certain elements. In fact, back in college I did a lengthy paper on the beauty of Islamic architecture in Moorish Spain. I really got into the topic! I can disagree with the ideology but still admire the civilization in some aspects. Maybe such is the result of James Michener’s influence on me. I read a lot of his works in my younger days.
I hope that I’m making sense here. I’m in a rush–as usual. Off to work in a few.
“One of my biggest gripes with certain books and publications is that they hold the West accountable today for the West’s bad deeds of the past, but they don’t do the same with Islamic history.”
Very true. And of course, there are a number of publications and pundits who focus exclusively on the most repellent aspects of certain branches of Islam, just as unfair critics of Christianity focus on such lunatics as Reverend Phelps. Treating extremists as the norm makes for bad judgements all around. But, as we both agree, folks select their sample to prove a point or emphasize a world view.
“Also, I see many Westerners, for whatever reaso, leaping to conclusions such as the Turks helped Queen Elizabeth I when, in reality, there may well not be historical data to substantiate such a claim.”
This is the first time I’d actually heard about this, so I can’t really comment on its historicity, nor on the numbers of westerners “leaping to conclusions”. Fortunately, while not an exact science, the critical tools available to historians are pretty good. I’ll wait until this is no longer an issue of politics to draw any conclusions.
‘As I see it, at this point in time many leaders and scholars in the West seem too quick to believe anything good about Islamic history and to ignore the significance of (1) shari’ah law in the basic tenets or Islam and (2) the history of the by-the-sword expansionism of Islam. To ignore those elements is to ignore present danger, IMO.”
Yup, one is certainly well advised to bear in mind that most religions, especially when allied with the power of a state, can represent a real danger, and that many have teachings that advocate violence, intolerance and expansionism. I’m an agnostic myself, and am pretty unimpressed by Islamist, Hindu and Christian intolerance in the name of God(s).
‘My point: in a war or in a clash of civilizations, demonizing the enemy serves two purposes: (1) to rally the people and (2) to force abrogation and/or reform of the ideology which presents the threat.”
We can add a few to that list, of course: it also makes guilt -free killing possible, excuses states or religions from adhering to their own laws or principles, and of course justifies military and economic exploitation.
The only inconvenience is, of course, that “demonizing” is a lie. A useful lie, of course, but a lie. Americans are not all fat, lazy, sinful Spawn of Satan. Muslims are not a jihadis. Christians are not all homophobic bigots. Once people start to believe those lies, then critical judgement disappears, and a Hitler or a Stalin become possible.
Trevor Phillips is - pardon the phrase - not whiter than white , check his wikipedia page for the joke he made about the late queen mother.
I have a few history books I can lend him on the Ottoman Empire if he ever wants to let some facts get into his Guardian newspaper filled brAIN
Interesting. And Trevor Phillips; joke about the queen mother impacts on this discussion…how, exactly?
Balbulican,
it also makes guilt -free killing possible, excuses states or religions from adhering to their own laws or principles, and of course justifies military and economic exploitation.
As does whitewashing of any sort.
Yup. Your point?
Balbulican,
My point? That facts should trump any given agenda.
In any formal debate, the facts used by either team support that team’s position. The same is true for essays, commentaries, editorials, etc.
History courses themselves (textbooks included) insofar as is possible should not be a debate, IMO. As you’ve pointed out, objectivity should be the goal–not whitewashing nor demonization.
For my own part, I try to be a counter-voice to the whitewashing of multi-culti movement. Therefore, my voice is frequently strident. But in my heart I know that “the truth” is somewhere in the middle.
I can be proud of my Western orientation without accepting all of that orientation as perfect. I guess that I sort of expect the same of other orientations.
We agree. I just reviewed my posts here to see if in any way I suggested that whitewashing was desirable, and I didn’t, so your reference confused me a bit.
“One of my biggest gripes with certain books and publications is that they hold the West accountable today for the West’s bad deeds of the past, but they don’t do the same with Islamic history.”
I absolutely agree.
And by the way, the aim of Islam is total world dominance.
Someone please prove to me I am wrong.
Jenny from Queensland, Australia
Jenny,
…the aim of Islam is total world dominance.
Certainly the Koran codifies that in the Medinan verses, which are the most recent verses. The Haditha are even more explicit in that regard.
“And by the way, the aim of Islam is total world dominance.”
Interesting.
Here’s a statement from your group’s home page:
“Our members encompass many religious beliefs, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, apostates, agnostics and atheists, all races, ages and genders, at least 21 nationalities, and a wide range of opinion on political and social issues.”
So…do you feel that World Domination is the goals of all Muslims?
Balbulican,
do you feel that World Domination is the goals of all Muslims?
In a word, no.
But the fact remains that the Koran and the Haditha contain that passages supporting that ideology, i.e., world domination (aka the caliphate). From this WaPo article:
{T]he caliphate is also esteemed by many ordinary Muslims….Muslims regard themselves as members of the umma, or community of believers, that forms the heart of Islam. And as earthly head of that community, the caliph is cherished both as memory and ideal, interviews indicate.
The caliphate as the goal of all Muslim individuals? No. But the article is disturbing in that many Muslims yearn for such an entity. Yearning for it is one thing; acting upon that yearning is something else altogether.
Over the course of the past 1400 years, many Muslims have historically focused on and used certain passages to justify their actions including jihad and genocide, one goal of both of which is the establishment of the caliphate.
Of course, many Muslims don’t know about certain passages in the Koran and the Haditha. Ayaan Hirsi Ali serves as one example of this type. She discovered certain passages of which she had not previously knows. As a result, she left Islam and became an atheist, as you probably know. Other Muslims remain followers of Islam.
Other Muslims have focused on passages which have nothing to do with Islamism. I think of these Muslims as secularists, though that might not be the correct term.
As you’ve probably guessed about me by now, I try to look at all sides on a given issue. To that end, I’ve provided some information below.
For your consideration, from this source:
…Nowadays we hear from the non-Muslim world about the moderate version of Islam and moderate Muslims. In my view, being a Muslim and not being radical is simply not possible. I never thought that it would be easy to reason with Muslims. They don’t understand that freedom has a price. Freedom lets a person make choices and be up-front about it. And that’s where I part with those who would prefer to be sheep and have sheepdogs hem them in.
Many non-Muslims are obviously very well-meaning with regard to Islam, but they are also extremely naïve and ignorant of the facts. They seem to think that Islam is just another religion of love and peace and Muslims should be given full freedom to practice their religion. Do they also believe that thieves, misogynists, rapists, child-molesters and any and all manner of practicing evils should be given complete carte blanche to carry on with what they value and believe? These well-meaning simpletons are just as deluded as the fanatic jihadists by refusing to acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the dictates of the Quran.
There is no such thing as moderate Islam. There is no such thing as secular Islam or a secular Muslim. How can you possibly secularize a shark or a snake? You can’t. It’s the nature of the beast. There are numerous sects within Islam. One and all are extremes and not in the least amenable to change. Keep in mind that Islam claims that it is the perfect eternal faith for mankind. Splits have occurred and will continue to occur in Islam. Yet, reformation has not happened in nearly 1400 years and is not going to happen. Islam is carved in granite, just the way it is. No change. Allah’s book is sealed.
There are indeed some Muslims who are moderate in the way they practice their religion. These people, for the most part, are culturally Muslims. They don’t practice Islam the way it is mandated. They pick and choose. Therefore, “moderate Islam,” is no Islam at all. It is not possible. The only way to deal with the menace of real Islam, the Islamofascist varieties, is to fully dismantle it and relegate it to the confines of museums….
Now, I’m not sure that I agree with the next-to-last pargraph of the above citation. I have met with Dr. Tawfik Hamid, one who seeks to reform Islam through different interpretation of the Koran and the Haditha. Here is his web site. Also, there is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. Excerpt from this essay by Jasser:
…If Muslims can begin to articulate and establish an ijtihad (reinterpretation of scripture in the light of modernity) through the lens of individual freedom, we can then reconcile our faith, our religion, with American ideology.
[...]
In the defense of freedom for all under God, Muslims need to wake-up to the current relative vacuum of reasoned Islamic theological defenses of liberty. Anti-Islamist Muslims are far behind where we should be in the theological defense of liberty.
In sum, then, on the one hand, where Muslims accept the precedence of national sovereignty, national constitutions and rights of the individual OVER Koranic law, by definition those Muslims have agreed not to seek world domination for the ummah. On the other hand, where Muslims insist on the precedence of Koranic law and the spreading of Islamic shariah law and the caliphate OVER national sovereignty, national constitutions and the rights of the individual, by definition those Muslims seek world domination. The latter group presents a grave threat to all who are not Muslim.
“There are indeed some Muslims who are moderate in the way they practice their religion. These people, for the most part, are culturally Muslims. They don’t practice Islam the way it is mandated. They pick and choose. Therefore, “moderate Islam,” is no Islam at all.”
I suppose one could argue with equal merit that Jews who no longer murder women taken in adultery or Christians who practicce usury are also “picking and chosing”?
We were recently engaged in a lengthy discussion at our blog with a Roman Catholic candidate for office here in Ontario, running for the provincial legislature with the Family Values Coalition party, who insisted that a Cathocli candidate’s first obligation is to vote on issues as directed by the Vatican; when these conflict with the wishes of the electorate, she said, well, “the electorate is wrong.”
Fundamentalists of all stripes - Christian, Muslim, Hindu - are a serious threat to real democracy. Fortunately, the vast majority of Christians and Muslims of my acquaintance use their religion to direct their own lives, and have no interest in imposing it on others.