########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
When we don't like what history tells us, we accuse it of being "revised". And, of course, there are different interpretations of history (often understaken to suit diverse interests) and each one thinking their their (version) is more truthful than the other. Check out http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=60179 It's another version on "What the Crusades Were Really Like (Part 1)". Quote: "The Crusaders were not unprovoked aggressors, greedy marauders or medieval colonialists, as portrayed in some history books. In fact, Thomas Madden, chair of St. Louis University's history department and author of "A Concise History of the Crusades," contests that the Crusaders were a defensive force that did not profit from their ventures by earthly riches or land." You've got to be skeptical about what you read, but that's probably best left to each one's judgement. Let's see how the historians would respond to Madden's work, but then there have been so many defensive attempts to simply push the inconvenient facts under the carpet. Talking about being defensive, one can be pretty certain that quite a few rioters in Gujarat-2002 and the Germans under Hitler felt they were just defending themselves from large enemies, real or imagined. FN
