An Example Reading Response:
Though this is in response to a set of videos, i think it captures some ideas that really tend to make a better response. The context of this paper is a student reponding to some history videos in the library.
An Example Reading Response:
My main interest before watching the videos to grasp and at least try to understand the beginnings and origins of the Crusades. I was particularly interested in the inherent paradox of Christians going off to kill “infidels” in the name of God. This paradox seems to stay throughout Christianity, as well as in other religions as well (Islam, Judaism, etc.). What makes the situation more difficult was the fact that Europe at this time was emerging from the depths of the Middle Ages, and coming together (development of nation-states, rise capitalism, secularization of knowledge) in larger forms in contrast to Medieval political and social organization. I would assume this would mean a lesser role for theological rationale per se, but instead we see the brutal consolidation of power by the Church itself. It begins to assume and absorb the political, economic, and social characteristics that were “emerging” (a term made popular by R. Williams, Marxist cultural critic), and appropriates them to its own use. Thus I really wanted to see the basis from which this terrible “genocide” could have occurred in dominion of God.
I would also like to say that I thought this series was brilliantly done both in academic content (experts from the Oxbridge axis) and in its presentation. Jones was a charismatic narrator who allowed the history to engulf him almost. His wit allowed the important context to “play” a bit in its visual presentation, along with the preciseness of his narration.
This first Volume revealed the inherent mistake involving Emperor Alexis’ letter to Pope Gregory VII, in which he asked for help (troops) to combat the Turks who were getting closer to Constantinople and annexing more land. Alexis requested troops to come and help his forces defend and repel the Turks, whom were not Christian. So here we have the dilemma. But the underhanded use of language and interpretation to manipulate the request worked both in Gregory’s benefit, and his successor, Pope Irving. Irving formed his own army to take control of the Eastern Empires of the Mediterranean. It was interesting to see also how Irving manipulated the “words” of God and Jesus to fit his necessary motives. Thus he was able to rationalize this war as a necessary duty for God, and even advertising it to the men of Europe as the chance for them to redeem all of their sins “both in this life, and in the after life.” This powerful rhetoric enlivened the political basis for action, and gave the “word” of God as the theological argument for “killing the infidels” of the East who had defamed God, Jesus, and Christians. It was a crusade to help fellow Christian brothers turn back the tide of evil. The forces mobilized were “fighting Pilgrims” to Jerusalem, which was the real goal of the crusades--to emancipate, and destroy the “other.”
But the fallout was obviously otherwise, considering that the first forces to head East were bloodthirsty mercenaries and war loving northern Europeans, Germanic in ethnicity. On their path towards Constantinople, they cut a path a death, pillage, and destruction in their own “backyards.” They were not your ideal sort of representative in the name of God. But the irony is that in attacking others, they killed people of their own heritage, race, ethnicity and religion. Thus the crusaders were killing Christians along with Turks and Arabs.
The second volume carried on with the crusaders moving through Constantinople and heading across Anatolia, going southeast. Again, the crusaders were pillaging, destroying, and killing everything in their path. But the tolls were high for them as well. Out of some sixty thousand troops, roughly twenty thousand survived the trek from Europe to Jerusalem. Along the way, they cannibalized the inhabitants of the city of Marat, took control of Antioch, and killed the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
But I would like to suspend my judgment on these acts, considering that
I have not finished the series yet, which I think will provide for a basis
form which to critique the whole rationale and motivations for these actions.
Horrific deeds tend to become blurry over time and through history; we
are seeing it now with the Holocaust, and it is interesting to uncover
the horror of the Crusades that seem to be just another random time period
in most history books.