Posts Tagged ‘Marko Attila Hoare’
Greater Surbiton has a superb post on Douglas Murray:
“Murray has spoken in defence of the English Defence League, a fascist, Islamophobic organisation of street thugs, and of Robert Spencer, proprietor of the anti-Muslim hate-site ‘Jihadwatch‘ (see the video at the start of this post). With some nuance, arguably, but unambiguously enough to be described as a ‘ringing defence’ by Spencer, who writes ‘At a recent conference… devoted to attempting to smear many anti-jihad forces, including the English Defense League and our own Stop Islamization of America, as neofascists, the extraordinarily eloquent English writer Douglas Murray offers this ringing defense (of me also, for which I am grateful) and denunciation of the Left’s guilt-by-association tactics.’ Murray praises Spencer as a ‘brilliant scholar’. Yet Spencer is a promoter of Srebrenica genocide denial. The EDL has also promoted Murray’s defence of it on their website.”
The Srebrenica Genocide Blog has more background:
“The entire Bosniak population of Višegrad was “ethnically cleansed” between May and July 1992. 3000 were murdered or disappeared, another 8000 were expelled. In the thirteen years since the war only a small percent have returned to their former home.”
Marko Attila Hoare has written a superb post on Anti-Semitism, racism and Srebrenica genocide denial, here’s an extract:
“Srebrenica denial and anti-Semitism frequently go hand in hand. The anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and associate of Julian Assange who goes by the name of ‘Israel Shamir’ is a Srebrenica denier and has written ‘Many war atrocity stories are just stories – from Srebrenica to Kosovo “killing fields”, from Saddam Hussein’s WMD to Belgian babies on German bayonets of the WWI, from Kuwait’s incubator to anti-communist inventions of the Black Book.’ Shamir was one of a group of Srebrenica deniers, including Edward S. Herman and Diana Johnstone, who wrote an open letter to the Serbian parliament calling on them not to recognise the Srebrenica massacre. “
This is the original open letter, Appeal To President Boris Tadić And The Serbian Parliament: Do Not Gamble With Your Country’s Future! No To The Srebrenica Resolution.
The letter is debunked here.
Coming back after a few days away is refreshing, if only to see how others view matters.
I particularly appreciated Owen’s comment in this thread, as it seems to sum things up nicely:
“Owen 24/01/2011 at 15:25
What a pompous ass David Gibbs comes across as.
I asked him three questions, not unreasonable questions, in order to try and determine the substance of his position in relation to Srebrenica.
But he doesn’t choose to clarify.
Nor does he choose to deal with the criticism of his observation that the origins of the genocidal massacre at Srebrenica lay in the raids conducted by the defenders of the besieged enclave and not in the Strategic Objectives of the Bosnian Serb Assembly.
A historian so picky and choosy that he reserves the favour of his disclosing his position to the followers of Louis Proyect is hardly demonstrating a determined commitment to the public justification of his opinions.
When it comes to defending his take on historical events in the public forum the tenured professor has a lesson or two to learn from Marko Hoare’s robust willingness to face the music.” [My emphasis.]
I should remind readers that Dr. Hoare has produced another wide ranging critique, First Check Their Sources 3: The myth that ‘Germany encouraged Croatia to secede from Yugoslavia’.
Dr. Marko Attila Hoare previously posted an initial reply to David N Gibbs on his blog, Greater Surbiton, as First Check Their Sources: On David N. Gibbs and ‘shoddy scholarship’.
One of the key parts was:
“…let us first make this clear: it is wholly untrue that Gibbs’s book has ‘presented an extended critique’ of my own publications. Anyone reading Gibbs’s book without examining carefully the endnotes would not even notice that I had been criticised at all: my name does not appear in the text itself, nor in the index. Gibbs has four trivial quibbles with me, buried in his endnotes. Gibbs does not, as he now claims, accuse me in his book of ‘shoddy scholarship’, and has made this accusation only in his subsequent reply to me.”
In a second reply, First Check Their Sources 2: The myth that ‘most of Bosnia was owned by the Serbs before the war’ Dr. Hoare deals with Gibbs’ questionable use of sources.
This explains it:
“Gibbs’s claim that ‘Serbs had always occupied most of Bosnia’s land area, owing to their demographic dominance in rural regions’ and that ‘the Serbs had always controlled most of the land in Bosnia – since they were disproportionately rural’ is therefore false. His deduction, based on this falsehood, that Western peace-plans that awarded over 40% of Bosnia to the Serb rebels were actually unfavourable to them, can therefore be exposed as an attempt to fabricate Serb victimhood at Western hands.”
I finally got around to reading all of the 339+ comments on David Gibbs’ guest post and I must say I am disappointed.
I like academic discussions normally.
I appreciate clever people making intelligent points and I confess to being a fan of Engage, where some witty or informative exchanges are to be found. I had hoped that this guest post would be equally sharp and illuminating, sadly it is not.
Professor Gibbs seems to have made a conscious choice not to address the criticism of his work in any significant way.
Read the rest of this entry »
I made a mistake by allowing David Gibbs a guest post.
At the time I thought he was a reasonable academic who deserved a right of reply, however, subsequently I have had time to reflect on my poor judgement.
I could excuse it away by saying I was rushed and I often tend to give people the benefit of the doubt in such matters. I could say I thought it would be informative to see these issues thrashed out, but that’s not good enough.
It was very poor timing, inconvenient for everyone except seemingly Professor Gibbs, and at the very least it should have been put off for another time.
In truth, I should have probably said “use someone else’s blog or create your own”. But that’s not good enough
Dr. Hoare was rightly annoyed at matters, but made a conscious effort to put all that behind him and deal with Gibbs’ arguments.
I haven’t reviewed the thread with any real attention to detail, and will probably cover its contents in a future post.
Dr. Hoare deserved better, I am very sorry for the hassle and inconvenience that I caused him.
I won’t make the same mistake twice!