Academic books...

[b.scheller]

I just wanted to know, the fine line between categorising bias books. I'm writing a essay on Israeli counter-terror, and the books I lent from the school library claim to be all academic, and yet those who are not written by Israeli or Jewish scholars seem to be greatly biased.

What is the fine line in a academic book, of anti-Israeli sentiment and trying to tell the truth?

[KettleWhistle]

I tend to think of "academic" as a style of writing. It has no bearing on whether it is biased. And usually the so-called scholars are wrong.

One of the most important things to understand here is who are these scholars. A scholar is essenatially a reader of literature on a particular subject who wrote a bunch of papers, articles, and sometimes books on it. In other words, these people simply read much. Whatever they publish depends on what they read. And what they read depends mostly on what is available, and what they actually want to read. So when there are tons of books supporting the Arab point of view, and a few supporting the Jewish point of view, and even less of those that present the reality, it is easy to understand what these readers are going to think, and consequently write.

[b.scheller]

thanks kettle...
i'm doing an essay on the infitada, and i picked up a book written by two american professors, in the short skimming throught the book, ive noticed how they play off the widely known myths about Israel...even the stupidity of the control over the media... and make it seem like its all true :rolleyes:

when i read some of the passages, it felt like a massive brainfart...mind you the book is written by the retards at merip

[Leon]

and yet those who are not written by Israeli or Jewish scholars seem to be greatly biased.


Thats ironic. When I did Middle eastern politics, the Pro-Arabist proffesor based most of course on Israeli/Jewish sources...Avi Shlaim, Illan Papae and Benny Morris were the all time favourites.

Then you get certain Jewish MIT proffesors/linguists from the USA

[Mil]

Go to the bibliography section and look for sections named specifically "Primary Sources" and "Secondary Sources." If a book does not have the section or it is missing "Primary Sources", especially "Primary Sources", don't bother.

then post some of the sited works in bibliography on this site. We can comment or just post the books you are reading in general. If, for example, the author is using Chomsky as a source then of course we can pretty much get the flow of "history" within the book.

[KettleWhistle]

Go to the bibliography section and look for sections named specifically "Primary Sources" and "Secondary Sources." If a book does not have the section or it is missing "Primary Sources", especially "Primary Sources", don't bother.

Good point. Often these dolts cross-reference each other, although many do cover it up. When I was in college, I found this happening much in various books on ancient cultures. There were several books that were written by one guy, used by the other to write his, and then the later person's book would be used as a reference for another book by the former.