What Is Your Middle Schooler Being Taught About the Crusades?.

[Root of Jesse]

What Is Your Middle Schooler Being Taught About the Crusades?.

By Thomas L. McDonald
Yesterday, something interesting happened: my daughter asked me to print out her 7th grade Social Studies homework, which was a lesson on the Crusades. Coincidentally, I was teaching the same subject that evening, and what I saw in my daughter’s lessons drove home the absolutely necessity of Catholics telling our own story and teaching our own history.
I’ve been teaching Church history to 8th Grade Confirmation candidates for 6 years, and I’ve developed a series of history lessons that are taught to multiple classes each year. I’ve spent a lot of time studying the controversies of our history in order to better teach them to the students. I never whitewash it. I tell my student, “We have not always been as good as we should have been, but we have never been as bad as our enemies have said.” The truth is usually in the middle of two extreme views.
In the interest of understanding what they’ve already been taught, I’ve read several middle school textbooks over the years, and found all of them deficient. Even textbooks intended for Catholic schools leave a lot to be desired. The current trend is to minimize the horrors of Islamic history (their role in the slave trade and their violent military expansionism are glossed over or left out altogether) and amplify the evils of Christians and the Church. None of this should be news to any observant Christian parent.
Yesterday’s lesson was an eye-opener, however, and I ran my red pen all over the handout that was to serve as my daughter’s source, before scribbling a final grade of “C+” at the bottom. It was a rude thing to do, since my daughter likes the teacher and she’s only working the material given her, much of which is weak in several important areas. I wrote a follow-up email explaining my problems, and she was very responsive. We’re happy with our school and our teachers, and none of this is a knock on them.
To begin with, there’s the oft-repeated lie that this was an unjust, terrible, super-wrong series of misadventure by no-good Christians to wrest control of the Holy Land from innocent, wise, and gentle Muslims in the name of greed and God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

They way I see it (as I've come away reading the history of the period), there were no "good guys" when it comes to the history of the Crusades, neither side were "the good guys", so it would be wrong to ever paint it that way. Just a lot of bad all around.

There were, however, a lot of victims. Unsurprisingly, Jews mostly. But both Christians and Muslims were victims, not just from the other, but from their own "team" as it were.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kalevalatar]

As ViaCrucis wisely notes, there's no black-and-white, Hollywood white hats vs. black hats, and our history is not black and white either.

Our middle schoolers (grades five to six, 10-12 year-olds) are taught/ expected to learn that the crusades were an economic and political venture & contest between the so-called East (Orthodox Novgorod/Russia) and West (Catholic Sweden) to conquer & capture & control the then-economic Mighty Trade Road i.e. Baltic-Black Sea. A (Christian) Crown against another (Christian) Crown, and no Muslim in sight yet still a lot of common civilian victims.

 

[ebia]

They way I see it (as I've come away reading the history of the period), there were no "good guys" when it comes to the history of the Crusades, neither side were "the good guys", so it would be wrong to ever paint it that way. Just a lot of bad all around. There were, however, a lot of victims. Unsurprisingly, Jews mostly. But both Christians and Muslims were victims, not just from the other, but from their own "team" as it were. -CryptoLutheran

And to add to that, it's really important to be aware of our failings. It's equally important not to be over aware of the failings of "them".
Even more so when "we" are supposed to be the people of God.

 

[Shane R]

The crusades cannot be taught accurately as if they were a single event, a common mis-practice I have noted. Each crusade was unique, led by different leaders and conducted in different manners. Like most issues, there is more nuance involved than the average instructor cares to discuss.

 

[Erose]

Well whatever one thinks about this era (which I disagree with the above assessments of there not being good men involved in the Crusades); if it wasn't for these wars and the sacrifices of these men, we would all be speaking Arabic and making pilgrimages to Mecca.

 

[pyramid33]

Well whatever one thinks about this era (which I disagree with the above assessments of there not being good men involved in the Crusades); if it wasn't for these wars and the sacrifices of these men, we would all be speaking Arabic and making pilgrimages to Mecca.

I don't agree with that. I don't think those that speak arabic have the gall to impress themselve's that much. You must consider the many language's and the many people that refuse to be slave's to such an organization.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I'm sure these 11 minutes of history can teach it better than the course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zudTQelzI

 

[Erose]

I don't agree with that. I don't think those that speak arabic have the gall to impress themselve's that much. You must consider the many language's and the many people that refuse to be slave's to such an organization.

And Europe refused to be slaves to Muslim Empires trying to spread Islam into Europe. Let us not forget that at one time, in a not so distant past; Spain was under Muslim control.

The Muslims were not these nice sweet charming wise folks that many want to make them out to be. These groups were conquerors; pure and simple.

The next time you want to think what you think, go find out the language and religion of the countries in Northern Africa. Europe could have very easily ended up like Northern Africa, if it wasn't for those mean and evil crusaders that are reviled so much.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't agree with that. I don't think those that speak arabic have the gall to impress themselve's that much. You must consider the many language's and the many people that refuse to be slave's to such an organization.

Are you aware that, had the Battle of Tours not been won by Martin and his army, that Europe would have been almost as much Muslim as it is today? The only difference today is that Europe forgot the wars, and opened the doors to Muslims.

 

[Albion]

And Europe refused to be slaves to Muslim Empires trying to spread Islam into Europe. Let us not forget that at one time, in a not so distant past; Spain was under Muslim control.

The Muslims were not these nice sweet charming wise folks that many want to make them out to be. These groups were conquerors; pure and simple.

The next time you want to think what you think, go find out the language and religion of the countries in Northern Africa. Europe could have very easily ended up like Northern Africa, if it wasn't for those mean and evil crusaders that are reviled so much.

While I agree with most of your thinking, it would be very difficult to argue that the Crusades helped stem the advance of Islam. It would be more correct to say that Europe survived for other reasons and despite the Crusades.

 

[lismore]

There was a smaller scale Scottish crusade called by the Bishops of Scotland, during the Scottish wars of Independence. Scotland was invaded by Edward Longshanks, a particularly cruel and aggressive English King. The result was desperation.

Perhaps many of the other crusades were defensive measures also?

 

[grandvizier1006]

So glad I found this thread! This is an interesting topic and I'd love to get my views out on it.

I HATED looking at the Crusades for the first time. I was taught lies about it, but in the other direction.

See, I was aware of academic liberalism's Islamic apologist campaign (Doesn't anybody think it's weird that liberals are working with Muslims, who are probably even more conservative socially than Christians are?), but the way this class I had to take taught it infuriated me. Why? They were responding to a double standard with ANOTHER double standard--justifying the actions of the Crusaders and distorting the facts to paint Muslims as the bad guys and Christians as the good guys.

Since life isn't a cartoon, there is no good vs. evil to be found in this conflict--pretty much the only one that has that is WWII, and maybe the Greco-Persian wars.

Let me begin by explaining that the first Crusade was actually an opportunity the Byzantines wanted to seize. Even though the Seljuk Turks had been gaining lands and threatening Asia Minor, the year at which Alexios Komnenos asked the Pope for help was one in which the Seljuks were briefly not fighting. The sultan had died, and his sons in-fighting had split the formerly large nation so that the recently-Muslim-controlled areas were now vulnerable to attack. The emperor saw this as an opportunity to get Asia Minor and maybe Armenia back, and his main hope was Antioch, NOT JERUSALEM. When he asked the Pope for some reinforcements in this matter (thinking that a fellow Christian would help), the Pope used this opportunity to coerce Catholic Europe into starting a "holy war" for Jerusalem.

The Byzantine concerns--and the promise the Pope had made that they would get all of the land conquered--was ignored. All Alexius could do was hold the empire together and secure the parts of Asia Minor that he had left.

It should be noted that in Orthodox theology, there was never an idea of a "holy war". And this ironic considering that it was the Orthodox east rather than the Catholic west was the one facing the brunt of the Islamic conquests. Personally, I find their erring on the side of pacifism to be very Christ-like and bold, considering their circumstances, while not Orthodox myself

But the Crusaders just went along and slaughtered innocent civilians "for the Lord". And in the Fourth Crusade, the West simply decide to make the Byzantines pay for basically NOT being bloodthirsty zealots, and for not deliberately endangering themselves like the Pope had wanted them to do (possibly, no one's really sure whether he wanted to conquer the Middle East and use it as a right flank against the Byzantines or if he genuinely cared). So Constantinople was sacked in the Fourth Crusade, and the Byzantines never received. Several centuries later, the Ottomans conquered them for good, making Europe vulnerable to Muslim invasion.

If anything, the Crusades made the Muslim issue worse, since it brought about the beginning of the end of the Byzantine Empire, a civilized nation which had protected Western Europe until it was basically developed enough to fend for itself. Interestingly, the Eastern half of "Christendom" was far more spiritually intelligent and culturally developed (and sent tons of missionaries) prior to the Muslim conquests.

But I wasn't taught all of this. Instead I was taught, "The Muslims were bad, and the Christians wanted to save their (not threatened) nations, and even though they might have fought unethically it was all right in the end since the Muslims (who weren't actually eyeing Western Europe to begin with) never got to invade Europe! Never mind that they made it as far as Vienna in later centuries! What? Ottoman Empire?! Never heard of it!"

Once I learned the truth about the Crusades--that it was just a stupid moment in history and a midpoint of the Middle Ages, as well as a exit for the Byzantines on the world stage, then I was able to make peace with the atrocities committed in the event.

Don't lie to your kids about history. Tell them what happened and when Christians "messed up", that they just sinned. It happens, but God is willing to forgive us

 

[grandvizier1006]

Also, to Erose: The Spanish Muslims were...unique. Once they invaded the Iberian Penninsula and were confined on one side of the Pyrenees by Martin of Tours, they became really lax and sort of got their own pseudo-multicultural society going on. Now, granted, Christians and Jews were second-class citizens, so maybe it wasn't the best time and place to live for a non-Muslim. Nevertheless, they apparently didn't do enough persecuting, and the Arabic Muslims thought they were just sissies, lol.

The Islamic world also had a brief "Golden Age" that was especially prominent in Spain, where a lot of cultural and scientific advancements occurred--although not on as great of a scale and significance as the Renaissance and nominally Christian Europe. From then on Islamic society kind of lost its importance, globally speaking.

Many Christians don't like to talk about the fact that the Muslims even HAD a golden age because they feel that by doing that it somehow invalidates the Christian faith. I thought that too for a while, but it doesn't mess up anything theologically. We Westerners "won" later on, anyway

Also, to the Finnish poster: I didn't know about that war. Sounds interesting (and a very clever way to cop-out of talking about the more controversial Crusades down south! )

 

[xTx]

What Is Your Middle Schooler Being Taught About the Crusades?.

By Thomas L. McDonald
Yesterday, something interesting happened: my daughter asked me to print out her 7th grade Social Studies homework, which was a lesson on the Crusades. Coincidentally, I was teaching the same subject that evening, and what I saw in my daughter’s lessons drove home the absolutely necessity of Catholics telling our own story and teaching our own history.
I’ve been teaching Church history to 8th Grade Confirmation candidates for 6 years, and I’ve developed a series of history lessons that are taught to multiple classes each year. I’ve spent a lot of time studying the controversies of our history in order to better teach them to the students. I never whitewash it. I tell my student, “We have not always been as good as we should have been, but we have never been as bad as our enemies have said.” The truth is usually in the middle of two extreme views.
In the interest of understanding what they’ve already been taught, I’ve read several middle school textbooks over the years, and found all of them deficient. Even textbooks intended for Catholic schools leave a lot to be desired. The current trend is to minimize the horrors of Islamic history (their role in the slave trade and their violent military expansionism are glossed over or left out altogether) and amplify the evils of Christians and the Church. None of this should be news to any observant Christian parent.
Yesterday’s lesson was an eye-opener, however, and I ran my red pen all over the handout that was to serve as my daughter’s source, before scribbling a final grade of “C+” at the bottom. It was a rude thing to do, since my daughter likes the teacher and she’s only working the material given her, much of which is weak in several important areas. I wrote a follow-up email explaining my problems, and she was very responsive. We’re happy with our school and our teachers, and none of this is a knock on them.
To begin with, there’s the oft-repeated lie that this was an unjust, terrible, super-wrong series of misadventure by no-good Christians to wrest control of the Holy Land from innocent, wise, and gentle Muslims in the name of greed and God.

Good post. We need more of this sort of posts.

I dug into this stuff by accident whilst doing my Masters, and I discovered that without the Crusades, non of us would be here. No Christians. Period.

Am a masters degree holder now. Praise be to God.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I wonder what the modern muslim's perspective is upon the Arab conquests? Is it similar to what Christian's tend to have of the crusades? A lot of Christians seem to view the Crusades in a unlikable perspective in hindsight. Is it the same?