It is said that history is written by victors. What later generations read and learn about regarding history is a particular point of view. Other equally valid points of view are either ignored or suppressed. In an earlier post, I talked about the importance of history. Here I want to talk about how the same event is viewed by the various protagonists and how that view changes over time.
Perhaps one of the best places to start in this regard are the Crusades. These were a defining event in the history of Christian and Islamic interactions. From the Christian and Western perspective, the crusades were events of enormous importance. The Crusaders were fired by the religious polemic of Pope Urban II who urged them to liberate the holy land from the clutches of the infidel. The Crusades resulted in the establishment of Christian states in the Levant area. The interaction with the scientifically and culturally more advanced Muslim civilization galvanized West European thought and laid the foundation for the so-called Enlightenment period.
This perspective of the Crusades: that they were events of seminal importance is the one that has become what may be called accepted wisdom. What was the perspective of the other side regarding the Crusades? As it turns out, initially very different. Amin Maalouf in an excellent book (The Crusades Through Arab Eyes) has gone back to primary Arab sources to reveal what the Muslims living at that time thought of the Crusades. The perspective on the other side initially was not that of a religious war unlike the view of the Crusaders. Originally, the Westerners (or Franks as the Arabs called them) were viewed as another set of conquerors similar to the many such conquerors who had come before. The Crusades were essentially viewed as a land grab and the Outremer (as the Crusader states that were established as a result of the First Crusade) was quickly incorporated into the politics of the region. It was only gradually and primarily as a result of the sustained religious fervor of the Franks that the Muslim population came to view the struggle with their opponents as something religious. It should be noted that this view was not sustained after the Crusader states were destroyed and the Franks driven out. So from the Muslim perspective at the time and for a long time thereafter, the Crusades were not viewed as a majorly important event. So what caused Muslims to also view the Crusades as a seminal event? In a word: colonialism.
People in the West (and here I use West as a convenient shorthand for the states that established colonies including the US) in general do not appreciate the impact that colonialism had on the rest of the world. Generally speaking, most conquerors were militarily strong, culturally weak entities that occupied militarily weak, culturally strong entities. In cases where the occupied peoples were also culturally weak, they tended to get wiped out. Another feature of most conquerors was that the area they captures was generally contiguous. Not only that, the conquered became part and parcel of the state that the conquerors established. Western colonialism was different. The conquerors were militarily and culturally strong. They established overseas empires i.e. territory that was not contiguous and the conquered lands and people were generally speaking not considered to be part of the mother country i.e. the country of the conquerors. Also the conquerors almost invariably considered the culture of the conquered as inferior. Not only that, the former were convinced that they had a "civilizing" mission. The result was that the Western colonial powers tried their best to raise a generation of natives who were essentially divorced from their own culture and steeped in a foreign one. After independence, these natives formed the elite of the new states and specially in the beginning tried to stamp out local culture (which they regarded as inferior). So one effect of colonialism was not just loss of independence. It was also what can be considered as loss of soul. Part of the reason why a generation of third worlders is angry is that this generation feels a loss and disconnection in a way that their parents and grandparents did not. It is in this context that the Crusades were eventually reconstructed in the Muslim world as a fight between Christianity and Islam. Ironically, this view, which was the motivating factor for the original Christian protagonists, was by this time being downplayed in the West. So, one set of events; two completely different perspectives.
Perhaps one of the best places to start in this regard are the Crusades. These were a defining event in the history of Christian and Islamic interactions. From the Christian and Western perspective, the crusades were events of enormous importance. The Crusaders were fired by the religious polemic of Pope Urban II who urged them to liberate the holy land from the clutches of the infidel. The Crusades resulted in the establishment of Christian states in the Levant area. The interaction with the scientifically and culturally more advanced Muslim civilization galvanized West European thought and laid the foundation for the so-called Enlightenment period.
This perspective of the Crusades: that they were events of seminal importance is the one that has become what may be called accepted wisdom. What was the perspective of the other side regarding the Crusades? As it turns out, initially very different. Amin Maalouf in an excellent book (The Crusades Through Arab Eyes) has gone back to primary Arab sources to reveal what the Muslims living at that time thought of the Crusades. The perspective on the other side initially was not that of a religious war unlike the view of the Crusaders. Originally, the Westerners (or Franks as the Arabs called them) were viewed as another set of conquerors similar to the many such conquerors who had come before. The Crusades were essentially viewed as a land grab and the Outremer (as the Crusader states that were established as a result of the First Crusade) was quickly incorporated into the politics of the region. It was only gradually and primarily as a result of the sustained religious fervor of the Franks that the Muslim population came to view the struggle with their opponents as something religious. It should be noted that this view was not sustained after the Crusader states were destroyed and the Franks driven out. So from the Muslim perspective at the time and for a long time thereafter, the Crusades were not viewed as a majorly important event. So what caused Muslims to also view the Crusades as a seminal event? In a word: colonialism.
People in the West (and here I use West as a convenient shorthand for the states that established colonies including the US) in general do not appreciate the impact that colonialism had on the rest of the world. Generally speaking, most conquerors were militarily strong, culturally weak entities that occupied militarily weak, culturally strong entities. In cases where the occupied peoples were also culturally weak, they tended to get wiped out. Another feature of most conquerors was that the area they captures was generally contiguous. Not only that, the conquered became part and parcel of the state that the conquerors established. Western colonialism was different. The conquerors were militarily and culturally strong. They established overseas empires i.e. territory that was not contiguous and the conquered lands and people were generally speaking not considered to be part of the mother country i.e. the country of the conquerors. Also the conquerors almost invariably considered the culture of the conquered as inferior. Not only that, the former were convinced that they had a "civilizing" mission. The result was that the Western colonial powers tried their best to raise a generation of natives who were essentially divorced from their own culture and steeped in a foreign one. After independence, these natives formed the elite of the new states and specially in the beginning tried to stamp out local culture (which they regarded as inferior). So one effect of colonialism was not just loss of independence. It was also what can be considered as loss of soul. Part of the reason why a generation of third worlders is angry is that this generation feels a loss and disconnection in a way that their parents and grandparents did not. It is in this context that the Crusades were eventually reconstructed in the Muslim world as a fight between Christianity and Islam. Ironically, this view, which was the motivating factor for the original Christian protagonists, was by this time being downplayed in the West. So, one set of events; two completely different perspectives.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a7467fea-937d-491b-965b-a6a0350b339c)
No comments:
Post a Comment