22 of 31 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle That Shaped the Middle East (Paperback)
I have only read 160 pages so far but I am quite surprised by the way this book is written.
in willing to portrait the middle east history as a conflict between France and Britain, it is successful to a certain level. what is mot annoying is the perspective from which this book is written.
only French and English archives are quoted.
The author does not even cite why he is not including Arab or Turkish archives. Arabs are just pawns in this history and defunct of any humanity insofar as they archives or ideas or strategies are not mentioned. they are not portrayed as having their own agenda even if they are weaker than the other participants.
If you write a history book like this one to denounce Imperialism then the author should have adopted an inclusive approach and shown what all the participants thought and how they reacted to events.
For example, when Faisal is made King of Iraq after the Cairo conference in 1921, nothing is said about Iraq until oil is found. Anything that does not explicitly show English/French rivalry is not mentioned, and that is really annoying.
In conclusion: we would have appreciated a book where every body talks!
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 Oct 2012 22:57:23 GMT
Lord Walsingham says:
Mandates were mandated by the League of nations which thought them necessary and even virtuous at the time. The author might have asked why. It was not to support imperialism, was it? These were unstable non states thrown up by the collapse of the Caliphate and Turkish Empire. We can see the potential for violence today with hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq and tens of thousands in the last months in Syria.
Posted on 29 Oct 2012 23:00:32 GMT
Lord Walsingham says:
The French and British governments no doubt made a clumsy hash ot it. Governments do. They have political agendas quite unconnected with the impractical aspirations of populations
Posted on 10 May 2013 10:14:59 BDT
Danny of Arabia says:
Probably there are two reasons the author did not include Arab/Turkish material:
1) He probably doesn't speak either language
2) More fundamentally, such archives would show up the Arab support for the Arab revolt to be virtually non-existent along with Arab nationalism at that time.
Posted on 19 Jun 2013 13:36:34 BDT
I expect he didn't include those sources because those sources were irrelevant to the French and British when they did what they did. Therefore a fair reflection of what happened, even if Arabs and their apologists might want it to be different.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›