What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[JollyRoger]

Sort of like God hardening the Pharaoh's heart to justify breaking deals and smiting firstborn?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Let me throw this out here: The Japanese decision to declare war on the United States, the Netherlands and Great Britain. Standard narratives make it primarily about the need to seize the Dutch East Indies oil supply, and completely leave out how terribly the State Department mismanaged the whole affair.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That Islam will use any and all tactic's to win the eternal war, including lying.

Are you aware that there are Muslim people who are members of this forum and who post in Off-Topic?

Feel lucky that this isn't a Red Diamond thread.

 

[abradley]

Are you aware that there are Muslim people who are members of this forum and who post in Off-Topic?

Feel lucky that this isn't a Red Diamond thread.

Yes, does anybody realize there are Christians who post in Off-Topic?

Besides, when somebody sez something I feel is incorrect about the Christian religion I attempt to correct it, Muslims can't do that?

Or is this a free fire zone on Christians and a refuge zone for Muslims?

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not a comment about the Muslim religion, like you might find in Ask a Theologian. It's the sort of hate speech you find drunken skinheads spouting behind the pub. That's not acceptable against anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right - they just make ruined threads.

Given my historical interests I'd like to throw the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire into the mix, if it can be called an 'event'. The major point of misunderstanding is that anyone at the time noticed it! From a lot of what recent (ie, not Edward Gibbon) historians have found out, life went on as normal for the vast majority of people, who carried on thinking of themselves as Romans until a Roman (Eastern) army showed up and declared that it was retaking their lands for the empire from them, the barbarians.

 

[abradley]

That's not a comment about the Muslim religion, like you might find in Ask a Theologian. It's the sort of hate speech you find drunken skinheads spouting behind the pub. That's not acceptable against anyone. Two wrongs don't make a right - they just make ruined threads.

Given my historical interests I'd like to throw the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire into the mix, if it can be called an 'event'. The major point of misunderstanding is that anyone at the time noticed it! From a lot of what recent (ie, not Edward Gibbon) historians have found out, life went on as normal for the vast majority of people, who carried on thinking of themselves as Romans until a Roman (Eastern) army showed up and declared that it was retaking their lands for the empire from them, the barbarians.

I disagree, if you go to http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13989185&postcount=71 you'll see that I posted:

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.
{Snip}

'Ajidica' took offense at the post and didn't try to disprove it as I would have , rather harped on it over and over.

 

[Flying Pig]

That wasn't the objectionable part: the objectionable part was:

Islam will use any and all tactic's [sic] to win the eternal war, including lying.

Unless you're saying that 'Islam' has a consciousness and speaks independently of Muslims, that's equivalent to 'Muslims are fighting an eternal war against the rest of us and will lie to beat us'. That's hate speech.

 

[abradley]

That wasn't the objectionable part: the objectionable part was:



Unless you're saying that 'Islam' has a consciousness and speaks independently of Muslims, that's equivalent to 'Muslims are fighting an eternal war against the rest of us and will lie to beat us'. That's hate speech.

I disagree.

 

[Arakhor]

I disagree.

Clearly.

 

[aelf]

It's not offensive when you add smiley faces.



I noticed that the average quality of posts on this forum has declined sharply since September 2015.

 

[Tahuti]

Let me throw this out here: The Japanese decision to declare war on the United States, the Netherlands and Great Britain. Standard narratives make it primarily about the need to seize the Dutch East Indies oil supply, and completely leave out how terribly the State Department mismanaged the whole affair.

I'm curious what the State Department had to do with it. The US did intend to counterattack Japan if it attacked the Dutch East Indies, or did the State Department blunder into letting the Japanese incorrectly think they would?

 

[aelf]

Well, obviously we have a new challenger with even more smiley credits at his disposal compared our two veterans.

*INSERT SMILEY FACES*

CREDITS:

 

[hobbsyoyo]

haha glad you saw it before I removed it. Just didn't want to get caught up in the flame war that was sure to follow.

Which says something about the forum right now - when you have to censor yourself just to avoid getting dragged into accusations of 'incessant personal attacks and strawmanning' even though you're just trying to be funny.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Unless you're saying that 'Islam' has a consciousness and speaks independently of Muslims, that's equivalent to 'Muslims are fighting an eternal war against the rest of us and will lie to beat us'. That's hate speech.

I disagree.

So what were you saying?

 

[HannibalBarka]

...On topic, the crusades definitely present one of the most misunderstood historical events in history. As a history teacher, I am dismayed at how this topic is presented in German school books and curricula, and I assume it is similar in other countries as well. Granted, the topic must be dramatically simplified in history classes, since it is taught to the kids when they are only 12-13, much too young to understand the whole background. But nevertheless, the one-sidedness of the accounts is appalling. Our history books set out by informing the students that there were Islamic territories outside of Europe. Some books leave it there, implying that these territories were just naturally Islamic. Other books briefly refer to the "Islamic expansion", which is the most euphemistic distortion I have ever heard. What the books do not mention, is that:

blablabla... I don't really see why you'd qualify "Islamic expansion" as euphemistic distortion ?

...- the 150 years of jihad, which violently and ruthlessly spread Islam to the outskirts of the known world aside from Europe, cost an estimated 270 million lives
- in the conquered countries barbaric practises were adopted, often forcing the people to convert to Islam or be killed
- the Byzantine Empire was pretty much annihilated
- the Iberian peninsula had been completely taken over, as had parts of Southern Italy and Greece
- Muslim had attacked France to spread their religion into the heart of Europe
- Muslims had been capturing and importing millions of slaves from Europe

You really need to back up the figures you are giving here. 270m dead is just fantasy number unless you show us hard evidence. Most Islamic expansion was more a political expansion than really a religious one, and almost no “massacres” happened before the invasion of the Indian Peninsula which was the only “bloody” invasion and happened mostly much later. When Muslims conquered Egypt, the Levant, North Africa and Spain, most local people kept their original religion for a long time and the conversion happened gradually mostly because of “discrimination” and not because of obligation.
You also need to back up the “Muslims had been capturing and importing millions of slaves from Europe” as again, nothing in History validate your sentence.

In light of this background, the point can be made that the crusades were completely justified. The initial reason why they started was in fact a desperate call for help by the Byzantine Emperor, after most of today's Turkey had already been conquered, and were hence sparked by a defensive motive. The reconquest of Spain was likewise an attempt to take back the land that the culturally post-Roman Visigothic Kingdom had lost to the Muslim hordes. That Christian motives became a part of the war narrative, making the attempt to control the holy sites a prime incentive for many Christians, is an understandable development, and does not undermine the basic defensive nature of the crusades.

I don’t really understand what you mean by “justified”? are you trying to tell us that Crusader had “just” reasons to go for the Crusades ? or that they just had reasons?
I would agree with the second by the way as very few wars happened for no reason. I however do not get the first as :

1. Why would a “desperate” call from the Byzantines makes the Crusades just? Why would Byzantium be the Good guys to help against the bad “Muslims”? What makes Anatolia more rightfully the property of The Emperor not the Caliph?
2. Same wise with Spain, why would the Vizigoth, barbarian coming from thousands of km from Iberia, be more rightfully the owners of the Land than the Maures?
3. All Crusades were fought in lands that were controlled by Muslims, namely the Levant and north Africa. How do you end calling them defensives? Angles and Franks were fighting defensive wars in the suburbs of Cairo, Tunis and Jerusalem?!!

Oh and by the way, one of the worst massacres Crusaders did was not against Muslims, but they did in Byzantium.

In all cases, what was “bad” about the Crusades was not the fact that Christians did go for war against Muslims or that the land wasn’t rightfully theirs. Quite honestly, lands back than belonged to Kings not people. What made Crusades bad were the massacres committed in the name of the Cross by the Crusaders not only in the Holy lands but also in Europe itself as Crusaders very often started killing Jews at home, and often all the way to the Levant including in Byzantium.

...Instead, the history school books focus almost entirely on the violence committed by the Christians. The account which mentions that allegedly were 70.000 killed in the Al-Aqsa Mosque is an integral part of all the history books I have seen, and in some cases it is even presented as a fact. Most of the books include accounts in which Christians depict Muslims as evil creatures, while omitting the reverse perspective, or even contrasting them with accounts of tolerant, open-hearted Muslims. It is up to the teachers to correct this insane perspective of "violent, bloodthirsty Christians vs good, peaceful Muslims", but in all honesty, with a full-time job and a dozen different classes, some of which are working on their final exams at the time this topic usually comes up, the 12-13 year-olds tend to rank rather low on the scale of priorities, and teachers often just go by the book.
The devastating outcome is that when the children get older, they may forget about the details of the topic, but what sticks is the "bad Christians / good Muslims" stance, which is not only historically ridiculous, but also contributes to the inability that many people have to criticize the barbarism we still see committed in the name of Islam around the globe today. One of the most often heard response I have received when criticizing Islam for its obvious negative impacts, is "well, Christians did bad things too", or more concretely, "there's nothing worse than the crusades", as if such answers had anything to do with Islam today.

That sounds more like “far right” BS than a History teacher analysis. I really invite you to read “The Crusades seen by the Arabs”, written by Amin Maalouf, a Lebanese/French novelist. He is Christian by the way.

 

[Formaldehyde]

haha glad you saw it before I removed it. Just didn't want to get caught up in the flame war that was sure to follow.

Which says something about the forum right now - when you have to censor yourself just to avoid getting dragged into accusations of 'incessant personal attacks and strawmanning' even though you're just trying to be funny.

Gee, I don't know why I would possibly take offense at being compared to someone who typically uses two smileys in nearly every single one line response, much less what you just posted here.

 

[useless]

Hey Abradley, if we're going to judge a religion based upon what things have been done in it's name in the past, then Christianity (especially catholicism) is also equally bad for many terrible things have also been done in it's name.

Christians have also slaughtered loads of people, engaged in genocidal warfare, persecuted religious and ethnic minorities, forcibly converted people at the end of a sword or gun, if you think Islam is inherently unique in this regard you are either naive or just blind to the negative history of your own religion.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Gee, I don't know why I would possibly take offense at being compared to someone who typically uses two smileys in nearly every single one line response, much less what you just posted here.

And boom goes the dynamite!

 

[Formaldehyde]

...Granted, the topic must be dramatically simplified in history classes, since it is taught to the kids when they are only 12-13, much too young to understand the whole background.

Yet, as the "history teacher" you claim to be I bet you don't have any difficulty "teaching" them using propaganda gleaned from Muslim hate sites, which seems to occur without any supervision whatsoever. That no parents complain at what their children learned in school and brought home to proudly share with them. How odd.

But nevertheless, the one-sidedness of the accounts is appalling. Our history books set out by informing the students that there were Islamic territories outside of Europe. Some books leave it there, implying that these territories were just naturally Islamic.

Then I'm sure you can provide some examples how these supposed books don't even mention the basic facts, like how was founded by Mohammed in 610 AD. That it spread from Mecca and Medina among Arabs without hardly any "jihad" at all. That this expansion resulted in the Golden Age of Islam, while Europe was still struggling from the fall of the Roman Empire. That reading the Quron created a level of relatively high literacy among the people compared to other civilizations. How the Mongol invasions and the Black Death during the Middle Ages largely crippled it. That the Ottoman Empire was able to reclaim much of it back among Arab speaking countries along with even much of Eastern Europe.

So go right ahead. Mention some titles and specifically state what these books are teaching the youth of Germany which is such a travesty, and is significantly different than what I just posted.

Other books briefly refer to the "Islamic expansion", which is the most euphemistic distortion I have ever heard.

Because it doesn't agree with your own preconceived notions of what must have occurred?

Why is the Islamic expansion so terrible in comparison to the Roman expansion or the Christian expansion? Or the expansion of any other civilization during the history of the world? As a "history teacher" I'm sure you can find a number of similarities among them all to educate your "pupils". Right?

 

[warpus]

The introduction of emoticons has been a greatly misunderstood historical event, leading some to use them way too often, leading to douchebagness and a reduction in the quality of posts on forums around the internet.