The fact that people here decided to now demonize the crusaders is just as telling.
The truth has a liberal bias, Colbert said.
I don't care to demonize individuals from the 11th century who were behaving as people tend to do when given leeway to kill others and told there were bad people within swords' reach. It's ugly but that's human nature. I don't think it's too much to ask to have an honest discussion of the facts and history of the Crusades without being accused of "demonizing" individuals for not taking an unrealistic sunshine-y view of an ugly episode in human history.
My ancestry is Ashkenazi Jewish. A lot of my ancestors' relatives were surely killed by crusaders--maybe some direct ancestors themselves if they were old enough to have children.
The very fact that you wished to lump the Crusaders into one category is demonization and a stereotype. I blame multiple parties, but there were people fighting for good things. These people were not exclusive to one religion. You can kindly kiss my Catholic rear end.
Sorry if "the good things" aren't obvious to me and that you prefer confrontation to reasoning. If you could make the case for the awesomeness of the Crusades while acknowledging the bad things, that would be a start--or you could just tell people to kiss your ass.
Protecting pilgrims and others
The Templars and others that actually worked together with Muslims in order to have peace
Stopping the encroachment of Muslims into Christian lands
Protecting their own people
Some did work with Christians for the purpose of peace
Protecting their lands
Just three things with two different perspectives of the top of my head...
Many people would not dream of hurting anyone unarmed and even cringed at the thought of having to kill in battle. These people are being lumped together with those who have committed acts against unarmed people and thought they were going to Heaven for it.
