The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #128361 Message #3181337
Posted By: John on the Sunset Coast
04-Jul-11 - 01:53 PM
Thread Name: BS: what about Glen Beck?
Subject: RE: BS: what about Glen Beck?
Greg, you may find a source questionable...you may disagree with facts or interpretation, but you must refute them, not just dismiss them out of hand. This is true whether it is Wikipedia, the Oxford History, or The Protocols or... Granted all sources are not equal, but none can be dismissed because you may not like them; you must show where they are wrong, or unreliable. In the case of the Protocols, that's pretty easy. Wikipedia is often correct, sometimes not. you have to determine which it is when. You haven't done that. Even the Oxford histories are not totally correct, and are revised and updated periodically. So until you refute, I stand by the quotation I posted.
It is interesting, that of all the criticisms you might have made of Beck's arguments, you chose the alleged misuse of the term 'Italian' to focus on, something not germain to his comments. For example, suppose in commenting about the French and Indian War I wrote the following: 'Colonel George Washington led American troops in battles against the French.' But wait. He did not lead Americans, he led Colonists (probably mostly from Virginia) against the French. Those Colonists would not be Americans until the Declaration of Independence a dozen years later, or perhaps until the ratification of the Constitution. Using the word Americans is a shorthand, perhaps imprecise, for the soldiers Washington commanded, and it gives one the feeling for where and who they were. But that's not the importance of the statement; what is important is that Washington commanded troops and fought the French. Incidentally he did so with troops who would later in history be called Americans.