Unicorn
Banned
Was this this the last straw that broke Watandost's back:(:(. Good, I hope you print an interview like this but you won't find it:(.
Make sure you tag me I wan't to know about their sx life and pimping
Margret Bourkes Propaganda about Muhammad Ali Jinnah
- Thread starter Unicorn
- Start date
Was this this the last straw that broke Watandost's back:(:(. Good, I hope you print an interview like this but you won't find it:(.
Make sure you tag me I wan't to know about their sx life and pimping
Unicorn
Banned
Temojin, this type of article is not for rationale people like you. I have not seen you start silly threads like watandost and your comments are fair and constructive.
Unicorn
Banned
Just for the record he was not banned because of me. He got banned because he was abusing other members supporting PTI(bigsmile)(bigsmile)
Unicorn
Banned
Putting down either I am still an Indian but no longer a Hindu. To me there is no difference among religions
WatanDost
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Thats Your SECULAR Maha AATMA GHANDI
What a SHAMELESS n LIER Leader, SECULARISM:lol::lol::lol:
گاندھی جی فرمایا کہ
"مجھے اردو زبان کے حروف قرآن کے حروف سے مشترک نظر آتے ہیں‘لہندا ہندوستانی زبان
اختیار کی جائے اور وہ بھی دیوناگری اکھروں میں۔
"مجھے اردو زبان کے حروف قرآن کے حروف سے مشترک نظر آتے ہیں‘لہندا ہندوستانی زبان
اختیار کی جائے اور وہ بھی دیوناگری اکھروں میں۔
Unicorn
Banned
(huh)(huh) I can't read Urdu:(
lol Admin why is gotti banned???
The Indian is allowed to post idiotic article here and not have the decency to debate its finer points but he isnt?? Odd....very odd.
On Margaret Bourkes. Gotti characterisation of her being an orientalist is essentially correct.
The authratative detailed biogrpahy by Vicki Goldberg (avialble in parts online) are worth reading.
She actually spent very little time in Pakistan(during her long stay in India in 47-48).
She earlier was essentially a war time propagandist who followed the Allies to Germany and profiled allied general (like Patton who she profiled extensively).
Basically a Leni Reifesthiel but for the other team. Much less talented though.
Her picture of both the liberation of Jewish death camps and later the violence of partition was essentially fetishsisation of misery for the scoop. Her methods have been source of controversy. She was known to use many shots and carefully frame her shots for maximum effect.
Not surprisingly she saw no role of the British in organizing abetting the partition violence.
Natives and their misery were just a means to an end. Props for her shots.
Hence her disgraceful attitude at Gandhi funeral. Where she had to be thrown out.
Jinnah never suffered fools. And given in her entire piece she managed only two lines of direct quotes means she was accorded limited access.Jinnah fighting death and grappling with many challenges could offer only that much.
Unlike the one given in India by Gandhi and Nehru.
She her self suffered from a deep inferiority complex and spent most of her life constructing her myth.
Suppressing any evidence her long apprenticeship with her father, whom she was distant with after he revealed to her his Jewish roots.
First hiding her Jewishness (Bourkes white is an assumed name). Having two unsuccessful marriages (where she essentially broker other marriages after affairs with married men in position of power) and two abortions.
Jinnah his stoicism, his spirituality and character would have rubbed her the wrong way.
Note her lines about Jinnah unfallable character, and last lines.
So thus her outburst. This is essentially a hit job.
The acrimony from equally troubled Mountbatten followed essentially similar lines.
Even her portrait of a dying Jinnah is probably one of the worst photos ever commissioned of him.
This is not coincidental.
Ths isnt unique actually. Life ran another photo-essay on Apartheid South Africa authored by her.
Again though technically the shots are good her framing again fall for the usual tropes of cultural oriental ism. So Blacks essentially remain perpetual victims who cant display human attributes of leadership, respect. She also included the usual ethno-fetish shots of Black in traditional garb photographed as if for some text book of taxonomy.
Margaret-Bourkes had a very successful career,but her legacy in phootojournalism circles is now mostly in questioned. Her photographs were contrived excessively staged and formulatic. Compared to her other contemporaries like Robert Cappa she her large body of work has very little that is noteworthy.
The Indian is allowed to post idiotic article here and not have the decency to debate its finer points but he isnt?? Odd....very odd.
On Margaret Bourkes. Gotti characterisation of her being an orientalist is essentially correct.
The authratative detailed biogrpahy by Vicki Goldberg (avialble in parts online) are worth reading.
She actually spent very little time in Pakistan(during her long stay in India in 47-48).
She earlier was essentially a war time propagandist who followed the Allies to Germany and profiled allied general (like Patton who she profiled extensively).
Basically a Leni Reifesthiel but for the other team. Much less talented though.
Her picture of both the liberation of Jewish death camps and later the violence of partition was essentially fetishsisation of misery for the scoop. Her methods have been source of controversy. She was known to use many shots and carefully frame her shots for maximum effect.
Not surprisingly she saw no role of the British in organizing abetting the partition violence.
Natives and their misery were just a means to an end. Props for her shots.
Hence her disgraceful attitude at Gandhi funeral. Where she had to be thrown out.
Jinnah never suffered fools. And given in her entire piece she managed only two lines of direct quotes means she was accorded limited access.Jinnah fighting death and grappling with many challenges could offer only that much.
Unlike the one given in India by Gandhi and Nehru.
She her self suffered from a deep inferiority complex and spent most of her life constructing her myth.
Suppressing any evidence her long apprenticeship with her father, whom she was distant with after he revealed to her his Jewish roots.
First hiding her Jewishness (Bourkes white is an assumed name). Having two unsuccessful marriages (where she essentially broker other marriages after affairs with married men in position of power) and two abortions.
Jinnah his stoicism, his spirituality and character would have rubbed her the wrong way.
Note her lines about Jinnah unfallable character, and last lines.
So thus her outburst. This is essentially a hit job.
The acrimony from equally troubled Mountbatten followed essentially similar lines.
Even her portrait of a dying Jinnah is probably one of the worst photos ever commissioned of him.
This is not coincidental.
Ths isnt unique actually. Life ran another photo-essay on Apartheid South Africa authored by her.
Again though technically the shots are good her framing again fall for the usual tropes of cultural oriental ism. So Blacks essentially remain perpetual victims who cant display human attributes of leadership, respect. She also included the usual ethno-fetish shots of Black in traditional garb photographed as if for some text book of taxonomy.
Margaret-Bourkes had a very successful career,but her legacy in phootojournalism circles is now mostly in questioned. Her photographs were contrived excessively staged and formulatic. Compared to her other contemporaries like Robert Cappa she her large body of work has very little that is noteworthy.
Last edited:
WatanDost
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
MUJHAY URDU ZABAN KAI HAROOF{ilfaaz** QURAN SAI MUSHTARIQ[miltai jultai] NAZAR AATAY HAIN, LIHAZA[es lieay] HINDUSTANI ZUBAN IKHTIAAR KI JAI AUR WOH BHI DEWAN-GARI AKHAROON MAI
Dont tell me now that i cant read ROMAN URDU TOO.
:lol: :lol: [hilar] [hilar]
WatanDost
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Unicorn
Banned
I got that it would be nice to have Arabic as Pakistan's only language. There is a lot of Sanskrit in Urdu(bigsmile)(bigsmile)
WatanDost
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
DECODE the Secularism of MAHATMA Ghandhi in These Words,
Lier Leaders of A Lier ENDIAN Nation:lol: :lol: :lol:
GreenMaple
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
The interview was just a month after when a new nation just emerged on the world map. There was no constitution, literally no government, no institutions, no breaucracy, and a rag-tag army. It was natural for MAJ to consolidate all powers until country stood on its feet. So in that context, I wouldn't put too much into this article.
Farooq Khan
MPA (400+ posts)
Re: Jinnah's Interview to Margret Bourke.
Dear guest this is not about gandhis personal life this is an example i wrote only 2 n half lines but you did not read i also wrote in the second post about Noam Chomsky reading or listening him will help you and finally gandhi was an indian leader so this is your right to protect him and praise him for us Mr.M.A.Jinnah is a Pakistani Leader and we have the same right.
Dear guest this is not about gandhis personal life this is an example i wrote only 2 n half lines but you did not read i also wrote in the second post about Noam Chomsky reading or listening him will help you and finally gandhi was an indian leader so this is your right to protect him and praise him for us Mr.M.A.Jinnah is a Pakistani Leader and we have the same right.
Re: Jinnah's Interview to Margret Bourke.
i have better things to do than to defend mr gandhi. i am very critical of him myself, why would I defend him. I only butted in because your crtiticism of him reflects more on you than him.
also you quote noam chomsky in one line and in the next line you "insist on your right to praise and protect jinnah"? your internal contradictions might get the better of you one day. maybe noam chomsky should also start protecting past US presidents who were his country's leaders. so much for throwing noam chomsky at me. i understand this new found fascination of the islamist mindset with the leftist ideologues. your common hatred for all things western is a huge binding force, but the internal contradictions rear their ugly face now and them.
i have better things to do than to defend mr gandhi. i am very critical of him myself, why would I defend him. I only butted in because your crtiticism of him reflects more on you than him.
also you quote noam chomsky in one line and in the next line you "insist on your right to praise and protect jinnah"? your internal contradictions might get the better of you one day. maybe noam chomsky should also start protecting past US presidents who were his country's leaders. so much for throwing noam chomsky at me. i understand this new found fascination of the islamist mindset with the leftist ideologues. your common hatred for all things western is a huge binding force, but the internal contradictions rear their ugly face now and them.
Last edited:
hans
Banned
keeping last 20 years of Pakistani history what makes u say Pakistan and Islam have in common?
r u trying to say what goes on in Pakistan is true reflection of Islam?
U mean to say SSP and LJ or Taliban represent Pakistan or even Sunni Islam?
r u trying to say what goes on in Pakistan is true reflection of Islam?
U mean to say SSP and LJ or Taliban represent Pakistan or even Sunni Islam?
miafridi
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: Jinnah's Interview to Margret Bourke.
I have never read a detailed article about Jinnah(other than his making of Pakistan). But trust me this article has only added more respect for him in my heart. Why?
Because this journalist may have a respect all over, and she presented the possible scenarios behind making of Pakistan one of which also says that may be none of these assumption are true and this is the one scenario that i believe in because a person in his 70's will strive for power? Or for other industrialists? Does it make any sense? Also We have already learned since childhood that Hindus were keeping muslims behind in all walks of life and this behavior was also shown by the congress party's biased reaction towards muslims. So jinnah decided to get a separated state for muslims where muslim will be the leaders(and the industrialist supporting this cause was a natural phenomenon because everyone want his/her business to grow and be more successful and also people have many aims at a time while doing certain things. These industrialists may be patriot as well and may be killing 2 birds with one bullet that is get a rightful place for muslims and get a state where there business will flourish. There is nothing wrong with that.)
There is also a place where the journalist says that jinnah was questioned whether pakistan needed America? I am impressed by jinnah's answer. He said America needs Pakistan(but portraying as if Pakistan need America so that Pakistan will be thankful to US and America will create a dominance over Pakistan and will use it against its rival Russia). Jinnah knew America will provide assistance to Pakistan to make it their ally against Russia.
Also i very sorry to say but your comments in red were childish and were a proof that those conspiracy creating people won. Why?
Because the journalist says that tent colony was made for minor Government officials(not common people and also to remind you whole of Karachi wasn't a tent colony, there were buildings and a mixture of rich and poor people like it is today). And jinnah went to the government office left by British officials, so what's wrong with it? He was not a common man, He had wealth of his own and was living a king's life(he didn't even needed to get separate nation for pakistanis) and no rule in Islam or any other constitution forbids a man of having or generating wealth(if he gives zakat or tax on it properly). He announced a minimum salary for himself when he was made governor general. He donated his land(his own wealth) to make the islamia College Peshawar.
He did so many great things and this article isn't a proof but a personal opinion of a journalist. And my friend go and read other famous journalists and you will see the ratio of journalists talking good or bad about him. Thank you
I have never read a detailed article about Jinnah(other than his making of Pakistan). But trust me this article has only added more respect for him in my heart. Why?
Because this journalist may have a respect all over, and she presented the possible scenarios behind making of Pakistan one of which also says that may be none of these assumption are true and this is the one scenario that i believe in because a person in his 70's will strive for power? Or for other industrialists? Does it make any sense? Also We have already learned since childhood that Hindus were keeping muslims behind in all walks of life and this behavior was also shown by the congress party's biased reaction towards muslims. So jinnah decided to get a separated state for muslims where muslim will be the leaders(and the industrialist supporting this cause was a natural phenomenon because everyone want his/her business to grow and be more successful and also people have many aims at a time while doing certain things. These industrialists may be patriot as well and may be killing 2 birds with one bullet that is get a rightful place for muslims and get a state where there business will flourish. There is nothing wrong with that.)
There is also a place where the journalist says that jinnah was questioned whether pakistan needed America? I am impressed by jinnah's answer. He said America needs Pakistan(but portraying as if Pakistan need America so that Pakistan will be thankful to US and America will create a dominance over Pakistan and will use it against its rival Russia). Jinnah knew America will provide assistance to Pakistan to make it their ally against Russia.
Also i very sorry to say but your comments in red were childish and were a proof that those conspiracy creating people won. Why?
Because the journalist says that tent colony was made for minor Government officials(not common people and also to remind you whole of Karachi wasn't a tent colony, there were buildings and a mixture of rich and poor people like it is today). And jinnah went to the government office left by British officials, so what's wrong with it? He was not a common man, He had wealth of his own and was living a king's life(he didn't even needed to get separate nation for pakistanis) and no rule in Islam or any other constitution forbids a man of having or generating wealth(if he gives zakat or tax on it properly). He announced a minimum salary for himself when he was made governor general. He donated his land(his own wealth) to make the islamia College Peshawar.
He did so many great things and this article isn't a proof but a personal opinion of a journalist. And my friend go and read other famous journalists and you will see the ratio of journalists talking good or bad about him. Thank you
Unicorn
Banned
Re: Jinnah's Interview to Margret Bourke.
Question posed to him was " would you ask US for technical assistance " :lol::lol: We did not expect a " VISIONARY " answer we got an incoherent answer.
Zardari is keeping in line with his vision he is in Palace and peasants are homeless.
Question posed to him was " would you ask US for technical assistance " :lol::lol: We did not expect a " VISIONARY " answer we got an incoherent answer.
Zardari is keeping in line with his vision he is in Palace and peasants are homeless.
miafridi
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Re: Jinnah's Interview to Margret Bourke.
Brother. to this question his answer was best. He said no matter whether he want it or not. The US will still intervene and will offer support even if Pakistan doesn't want it. The tone of the question was as if Pakistan Needs US(atleast it was the impression that she was giving to Quad-e-Azam). But he answered America Needs Pakistan(to use it against Russia). But they still won't say that they(US) need Pakistan. But they will give the impression as if Pakistan Needs them(so that Pakistan will be thankful for them even though it will benefit more US than the Pakistan).
Secondly i want to tell you that Karachi wasn't a tent colony(but only a small town was set as tent colony for those who were coming from India), People were living in there usual homes, buildings etc. We cannot blame our leader for living in a house left by British. It was his right. He was a supreme leader. To enforce this thought that Quid should have lived in a tent is like saying that all the politicians of today should get rid of all their wealth and should live in a small house like common people. He had the wealth of his own and we didn't want him to go and live in tent because even islam doesn't forbid wealth(if you give zakat on it). And if you still enforce this thinking then i suggest you to get rid of your laptop(or PC) and get rid of the internet facility and donate that money to the poor and get rid of your home and donate it to common people then raise a voice for the poor. It doesn't happen like that. To raise voice for poor doesn't mean that you should get rid of things that you have but to use those resources in their advantage which he did. He set only 1 rupee salary which was just a symbolic salary it wasn't a salary of his level. He donated his property to Islamia College peshawar which is a vast property worth billions now.
Brother. to this question his answer was best. He said no matter whether he want it or not. The US will still intervene and will offer support even if Pakistan doesn't want it. The tone of the question was as if Pakistan Needs US(atleast it was the impression that she was giving to Quad-e-Azam). But he answered America Needs Pakistan(to use it against Russia). But they still won't say that they(US) need Pakistan. But they will give the impression as if Pakistan Needs them(so that Pakistan will be thankful for them even though it will benefit more US than the Pakistan).
Secondly i want to tell you that Karachi wasn't a tent colony(but only a small town was set as tent colony for those who were coming from India), People were living in there usual homes, buildings etc. We cannot blame our leader for living in a house left by British. It was his right. He was a supreme leader. To enforce this thought that Quid should have lived in a tent is like saying that all the politicians of today should get rid of all their wealth and should live in a small house like common people. He had the wealth of his own and we didn't want him to go and live in tent because even islam doesn't forbid wealth(if you give zakat on it). And if you still enforce this thinking then i suggest you to get rid of your laptop(or PC) and get rid of the internet facility and donate that money to the poor and get rid of your home and donate it to common people then raise a voice for the poor. It doesn't happen like that. To raise voice for poor doesn't mean that you should get rid of things that you have but to use those resources in their advantage which he did. He set only 1 rupee salary which was just a symbolic salary it wasn't a salary of his level. He donated his property to Islamia College peshawar which is a vast property worth billions now.
