Conservatives Want to Rewrite the History of the Crusades for Modern Political Ends

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/28477-conservatives-want-to-rewrite-the-history-of-the-crusades-for-modern-political-ends

But the Crusades were pretty bad. Historians debate the precise extent and savagery of the violence, but we generally agree that the intensity of the religiously-motivated brutality was staggering. We argue, for example, whether there really was cannibalism during the First Crusade (probably), and whether blood really flowed up to the combatants’ ankles in the Temple of David in 1099 (probably not). But there’s no question that crusaders were sometimes driven to slaughter non-Christian civilian populations both in Europe and in southwest Asia, all in the name of religion.

Obama’s statements therefor reflect well-accepted historical knowledge. The Inquisition led to the execution of many people guilty – at most – of thought crime. Christianity has been regularly and explicitly used to justify colonization, slavery, cultural destruction and racial discrimination. These are simply undisputed facts, and if they make us uncomfortable, it’s worth thinking about why. Moreover, it’s vital to recognize that abolitionists and pacifists, just like those calling for inter-faith harmony today, have drawn strength from their religious convictions.

Reminding the public about ugly moments in the history of Christianity does not make one anti-Christian. To compare the Jordanian pilot who was burned to death by Isis militants to the public burning of Jesse Washington in Waco, Texas does not make one un-American. To acknowledge such comparisons instead gives one the moral authority to call out other acts of violence and atrocity, including those that are justified via religion.

That’s the real message of President Obama’s address at the National Prayer Breakfast. We need humility. We must recognize our fallibility, we must study the past to understand why things happen, and then we must try to do better. History – and not just the one written by the “victors” – is critical for illuminating both our present and our future; how ideologues try to rewrite it reveals the power of the stories we tell about to past to shape the future they hope to construct.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. ,

,

[kelliekat44]

2. They have already re-written black history and the Jim Crow era in America. What's new?

[Fumesucker]

3. Evidently it is now time to look backwards

Bear in mind that despite my sarcasm I recced this thread since I think Obama is correct.

I just wish he would apply the same principle to rather more recent events.

[dembotoz]

4. we can't let em

[KG]

5. drones = hi-tech crusades

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

6. It wasn't just non-Christian populations that were slaughtered by the Crusaders.

The Fourth Crusade sacked and took Constantinople in 1204, leading to the breakup of the Byzantine Empire. Although the Empire soldiered on for another 249 years, it never recovered.

Oh, and the very first thing that the First Crusade did was hold a pogrom against German Jews.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Of course history and warfare and humans all being what they are, Crusades did not happen in a

vacuum and the people attacked had not been just sitting there innocently for all time but had actually been making military incursions and occupations in Europe for hundreds of years prior. Arabic forces had taken Iberia in the 700's, sacked Rome including St Peter's in 846 using Sicily which they occupied in 820 as base to attack. Iberia (Spain, Portugal etc) was a Caliphate until 1492. Attacks were launched into what is now France.
Crusades were a combination of aggression, religion, defense and the ongoing establishment of the frontiers of Europe. So the whole thing was a two way military street. Crusades were both preceded by and concurrent with the Islamic Conquests.
I just see lots of comments about the Crusades that seem to frame them as having been suprise attacks on a faith group that had been utterly peaceful and non aggressive, when that is just not the case at all. They sacked Jerusalem, but the Saracens had sacked Rome long before. Muslim culture was heavy into conquest, not just into Europe or 'Christendom' but also in Persia, Anatolia, Mesoptamia, Africa...
So lots of war and conquest and occupation and spreading of the faith from both the Muslims and the Christians back in that era. It makes a good point to say the Crusades were brutal and fought with religion as text and pretext but that point is not really complete without mention of the Islamic Conquests which were also brutal and fought with religion as text and pretect. That way the point is made that we are talking about humanity, history and warfare and perhaps we might be able to speak out loud that both sides seem very uncomfortable with the history of our warfare and with what that says about our humantiy and perhaps even about our faiths....Been fighting since the 700's. Maybe it is time to consider a cease in hostilities?

[CANDO]

8. Isn't it time to shame all mythology(religion)

Would certainly go a long way toward mankind getting along. Although, I'm quite certain we'd just find other things to fight over.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. I think honesty is preferable to shame. I think religion has been a strong element but by no means

the entire reason for these wars. Islamic conquests were about politics, power, security and Islam. Crusades were about politics, power, security and spreading Christianity. In each case we can say 'done in the name of religion' because it was, but we can also say 'done by greedy, fearful people wanting control and power' because it was also those things.
But I do see many posters and commentators who present the Crusades as if they were the first interaction militarily between the Islamic and Christian worlds and they were not. Neither side was minding their own business, keeping to their own territory, neither side was an army of love and kindness, both sides were armies, both sides attacked the other.
Some historians say the Crusades were purely geo political and about frontiers and territories, in response to Islamic conquests and incursion into and around Europe. Christians and Muslims each were the invaders and occupiers of the other. Nobody's the victim, it's just that each side has been the loser on some occasions.

You know Slaughter House-Five' by Kurt Vonnegut Jr? Most people do. But most forget the full title of the book which is this:
Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children's Crusade

[CANDO]

13. I really must read that book.

eom

[ARMYofONE]

10. lol. I don't think anyone really cares what happened 600+ years ago

[bvar22]

14. I care what happened 600 years ago.

Out of curiosity, how much History should we care about?
How far back should we go?

*1 year

*50 years

*100 years

You must have a personal cut off point at which you believe History is irrelevant.
What is your cut-off point?
At which point should we stop caring?

[City Lights]

16. I think you're wrong.

You might not care what happened 600+ years ago, but please don't try and speak for everyone.

[ARMYofONE]

20. Again, lol. As it relates to life in 2015, which is what we're talking about here, no, people do

do not care what happened 600+ years ago. Of course, any general statement has exceptions, ans perhaps you two are just that. But the statement is accurate, whether you want to accept it or not.

[B2G]

11. It's kind of weird to make the argument that

ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, and then immediately say Christians have a history of violence too, so who are we to judge.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

12. I am no critic ,I am just not so sure the president brought to perfect clarity the point to fact

Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

in a common understandable way about it. We always need humility there is no disputing that in a point. And I do believe the president has far more on his plate regarding the presidential decision making process in view of the escalation combating isis.

Just one of many situations in the situation room.
These are after all troubled times.
And the weight to bare is tremendous.
Looking back at history is part of it, and to shape the future there must be an open road.

And to build that road the field must be plowed.
And so isis.

Is it possible what is ahead of us is more troubling than we know in the now ?

[KyleMcShades]

15. They want to rewrite history.

Period.

[MohRokTah]

17. The best part of the Crusades was when the Christians murdered other Christians to sack...

Constantinople.

They didn't give a shit about the holy land, all those Christians wanted was rapine plunder. It was easier murdering the Constantinople Christians than taking on the Muslims, so they decided fuck it and went for it.

[seveneyes]

18. Huddled in the safety of a pseudo silk kimono

The spirit of a misplaced childhood is rising to speak his mind
To this orphan of heartbreak, disillusioned and scarred
A refugee...

[Trillo]

19. Perhaps they're worried about reparations. NT