Candace Owens Hero Or Villain Poll
- Thread starter Phyllis Diller
- Start date
Scott
Verified User
You're not the first person on here who has gotten confused with who was running things in Palestine prior to European powers taking over in Arab lands. At least you have the right world war, but the arabs in Palestine and elsewhere were actually fighting in league with the victors, not the defeated, at least until the Europeans betrayed them. Wikipedia can be quite useful in clearing things up in this regard:
**
During the First World War the Ottomans sided with the German Empire and the Central Powers. As a result, they were driven from much of the region by the British Empire during the dissolution phase of the Ottoman Empire.[citation needed]
Under the secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, when conquered from the Ottoman empire, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. Shortly thereafter, British foreign minister Arthur Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration, which promised to establish a "Jewish national home" in Palestine,[524] but appeared to contradict the 1915–16 Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which contained an undertaking to form a united Arab state in exchange for the Great Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. McMahon's promises could have been seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence, an undertaking violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, which became the real cornerstone of the geopolitics structuring the entire region.
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine#Great_War_and_interregnum
A lot of people know of a film called Lawrence of Arabia that details the time that T.E. Lawrence spent as a liason between Arabs and Britain in order to revolt against the Ottoman Empire. Not so well known is the European betrayal that happened afterwards. There was also a second film, also not as well known, called "A Dangerous Man: Lawrence After Arabia", that chronicles T.E. Lawrence's life -after- the arabs had successfully revolted against the Ottoman Empire.
From the Wikipedia article on the film:
**
The film starts with a quotation from Lawrence's 1926 book Seven Pillars of Wisdom which is used to provide the title of the film:
"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream in the dark recesses of the night awake in the day to find all was vanity. But the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, and make it possible."
T.E. Lawrence is received before representatives of the British delegation, and urges them to back the claims of the Hashemites, who fought in the Arab Revolt and thus directly benefited British interests in the region. But when Faisal arrives at the post-war Paris Peace Conference, 1919 to claim Syria for Arab rule, after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, he is delayed by French diplomats, uncertain of his intentions. Lawrence joins Faisal's negotiating staff despite attempts by the French and British to exclude the Arabs altogether (The only country portrayed sympathetically is the United States, with Woodrow Wilson’s dictum to let populations decide for themselves, in terms of self-government for colonial and territorial areas).
Lawrence defends Faisal’s claim to Syria by citing previous British undertakings to Faisal’s father in a "secret letter", as well as their joint triumphant march into Damascus against the Turks. Faisal's main demand at the conference is for Syria to be governed by Arabs. France has a stake there, however, and has made previous colonial agreements [that is, the secret Sykes-Picot agreement] with Great Britain which complicate matters.
[snip]
The British and French challenge the Hejaz delegation's claim to Damascus, and Lt General Sir Harry Chauvel, the Australian commander of the Desert Mounted Corps of which the 10th Australian Light Horse Regiment of the 3rd Australian Light Horse Brigade was part of his force, vouches for his regiment having been first to reach the capital and formally accepting the surrender of the city. (Lawrence in theory was the senior British adviser to Faisal's Army and under Chauvel's command-Lawrence did not see it that way.) With his cause crumbling, Lawrence beseeches the American delegation to intervene. But an aide to Wilson tells Lawrence that the President has fallen ill and cannot receive him. Even in desperation, Lawrence cannot bring himself to oblige Madame Dumont, the wife of the French emissary, who propositions him. With nothing to lose, Lawrence releases information on the secret agreement between the British and French governments. He is denounced by Lord Curzon and the leaders of the British delegation as having acted like an enemy spy. Lawrence grimly observes that control of petroleum resources in the Middle East had been the primary objective of the British and French all along. Faisal and the Hejaz delegation return to Syria, where he proclaims himself king. Meanwhile, Churchill attempts to console Lawrence, promising to work with him to make things right.
A despondent Lawrence watches a newsreel showing his exploits with Faisal during the Arab Revolt. He then makes his way to see Faisal one more time. The strain in their relationship is relieved, as the two friends embrace again. Faisal expects to be deposed soon by the French, while Lawrence ruefully recalls the newsreels that dubbed him "The Uncrowned King of Arabia." Faisal laments that it is a title that suits both of them.
As newsreel footage of Lawrence and Faisal fades to white, a postscript states that after his overthrow in Syria, Faisal was installed (with help from Lawrence and Churchill) as King of Iraq, where he reigned until his death in 1933. Lawrence receded from public view and served without distinction in the British Army and the Royal Air Force before he died in a motorcycle accident less than two years after Faisal's death.
**
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
What's your point? The 1920 Treaty of Sevres was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
Scott
Verified User
My point was that the British betrayed the Arabs, who had been led to believe that they would be left to govern themselves. Instead, they'd made a secret agreement with the French to divvy up the spoils once the fighting was done. The Treaty of Sevres was an agreement made with the Ottomans, not with the Arabs who had been busy fighting and dying in their revolt -against- the Ottomans. Can we now agree that the British betrayed the Arabs?
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
Phrases like "Appeared to contradict", and "could have been seen" ... indicate vagueness and uncertainty, not a treaty. The Arabs were part of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years.
And certainly, as a British "ambassador", McMahon did not have the authority to give away Ottoman lands, draw international boundary lines, Or deny lands to allies.
The Treaty of Lausanne was signed by " Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) "
There was no betrayal, IMO.
Last edited:
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
but you're a committed Zionist right?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I've got socks older than Candace Owens, but AOC is about the same age and she's not an idiot.
Politically conservative people of color seriously annoy me--they're all tainted with the stench of Clarence Thomas--
so I can't give an objective answer.
Politically conservative people of color seriously annoy me--they're all tainted with the stench of Clarence Thomas--
so I can't give an objective answer.
Scott
Verified User
Agreed on both counts. The statements on that Wikipedia page are rather vague and uncertain and McMahon certainly didn't create a treaty with the Arabs, but rather made promises, promises that were clearly not kept. The actual Wikipedia page on the Sykes-Pikot agreement is far less vague and shows what a profound affect Britain and France's secret Sykes-Picot agreement had in the Arab world insofar as making it clear that the British and French were not to be trusted. From the article:
**
The Sykes–Picot Agreement (/ˈsaɪks ˈpiːkoʊ, - pɪˈkoʊ, - piːˈkoʊ/[1]) was a 1916 secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.
[snip]
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It reneged upon the UK's promises to Arabs[9] regarding a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire. The agreement, along with others, was made public by the Bolsheviks[10] in Moscow on 23 November 1917 and repeated in The Manchester Guardian on 26 November 1917, such that "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted".[11][12][13] The agreement's legacy has led to much resentment in the region, among Arabs in particular but also among Kurds who were denied an independent state.[14][15][16][17]
**
Can we agree that this agreement delighted the wrong side in this middle eastern conflict?
Indeed. The British encouraged them to revolt, making big promises, but in the end, they betrayed a good part of their Arab allies.
Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry McMahon was actually the British High Commissioner to Egypt. According to Wikipedia's page on his correspondence with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, he was in fact representing the Government of the United Kingdom. Ofcourse, European governments are frequently quite fickle and the promises he made on behalf of the UK government follow this mold. From Wikipedia's page on the matter:
**
The McMahon–Hussein Correspondence[a] is a series of letters that were exchanged during World War I in which the Government of the United Kingdom agreed to recognize Arab independence in a large region after the war in exchange for the Sharif of Mecca launching the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire.[2][3] The correspondence had a significant influence on Middle Eastern history during and after the war; a dispute over Palestine continued thereafter.
The correspondence is composed of ten letters that were exchanged from July 1915 to March 1916[5] between Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca and Lieutenant Colonel Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner to Egypt. Whilst there was some military value in the Arab manpower and local knowledge alongside the British Army, the primary reason for the arrangement was to counteract the Ottoman declaration of jihad ("holy war") against the Allies, and to maintain the support of the 70 million Muslims in British India (particularly those in the Indian Army that had been deployed in all major theatres of the wider war).[6] The area of Arab independence was defined to be "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo"; conflicting interpretations of this description were to cause great controversy in subsequent years. One particular dispute, which continues to the present,[7] is the extent of the coastal exclusion.[7][c]
Following the publication of the November 1917 Balfour Declaration (a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild, a wealthy and prominent leader in the British Jewish community), which promised a national home for the Jews in Palestine, and the subsequent leaking of the secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement in which Britain and France proposed to split and occupy parts of the territory, the Sharif and other Arab leaders considered the agreements made in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence violated. Hussein refused to ratify the 1919 Treaty of Versailles and, in response to a 1921 British proposal to sign a treaty accepting the Mandate system, stated that he could not be expected to "affix his name to a document assigning Palestine to the Zionists and Syria to foreigners".[9] A further British attempt to reach a treaty failed in 1923–24, with negotiations suspended in March 1924;[10] within six months, the British withdrew their support in favour of their central Arabian ally Ibn Saud, who proceeded to conquer Hussein's kingdom.[11]
**
And so it goes- the British betrays an Arab ally and when said Arab ally balks at their betrayal, the British simply back another of their Arab allies to take them out. Clear evidence that the British don't just betray with words, they really get the knives out.
The Treaty of Lausanne was a treaty between Turkey and Europeans. Arabs had nothing to do with it.
Hopefully I've now gotten you to reconsider?
Yakuda
Verified User
Spot fucking on. This response belongs in a response hall of fame.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
so an iota of historical understanding makes one a nazi.
that's interesting, rabbi barclay.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
IMO, the boundaries were not defined and agreed upon. May I add, Syria and Greater Syria are 2 completely different things.
"High commissioner", in Britain, is the equivalent of ambassador.
While you have presented facts, I do not see any that change my mind. I have not read the 10 letters. And I have not seen any "letter" quotes that would change my mind. Is there a particular sentence or paragraph that you find especially damning ... or unlawful?
This is an opinion on a "group" of agreements. Which makes it vague.
Turkey was the last bastion and representative of the Ottoman Empire, the only true governmental authority, of which the Arabs were subjects.
In the end, the Arabs basically got all of Greater Syria except a portion of the coastline ... as agreed.
Last edited:
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Candace Owens is anti-Black, and what makes it so egregious is she wasn’t always like this. She, like Whitlock, seemingly realized there was money to be made in being the Black spokesperson for white people’s anti-Blackness, so she jumped on the train and started parroting the white supremacist rhetoric of those signing her checks.
She gained a lot of popularity behind it. There is nothing (some) white people love more than a Black person they can point to and tell the rest of us, “She agrees with us!”
There was a time when Candace Owens was actually very critical of Republicans, conservatives and especially Donald Trump. Up until 2016, she ran a website called Degree180, which bashed Trump during his 2016 run for president and even had an article questioning and mocking his penis size.
While she has up until recently been making her living denying the existence of institutionalized, systemic and individual racism in America, Degree180 wrote about these topics quite frequently, calling out people like Ted Cruz for being transphobic.
The flip-flop for Candace seemed to come along sometime in 2017; she was hired by Turning Point USA in November of that year to be their director of “urban engagement,” which is code for “we need somebody dark to talk to these darkies.”
https://news.yahoo.com/candace-owens-attempting-rebrand-herself-153553601.html
She gained a lot of popularity behind it. There is nothing (some) white people love more than a Black person they can point to and tell the rest of us, “She agrees with us!”
There was a time when Candace Owens was actually very critical of Republicans, conservatives and especially Donald Trump. Up until 2016, she ran a website called Degree180, which bashed Trump during his 2016 run for president and even had an article questioning and mocking his penis size.
While she has up until recently been making her living denying the existence of institutionalized, systemic and individual racism in America, Degree180 wrote about these topics quite frequently, calling out people like Ted Cruz for being transphobic.
The flip-flop for Candace seemed to come along sometime in 2017; she was hired by Turning Point USA in November of that year to be their director of “urban engagement,” which is code for “we need somebody dark to talk to these darkies.”
https://news.yahoo.com/candace-owens-attempting-rebrand-herself-153553601.html
ExpressLane
Verified User
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Mr.Badguy
Super lefty
She got her start by suing her school district for racial discrimination, something I'm sure she would now claims doesn't exist.
She's a hack, and of course people like you would fall for it.
Bigdog
Harris - make America a 3rd world shithole
The son of the Racist rich WHITE LIB Mayor was harassing her. The school refused to protect her from racist democrats like you.