Do we misinterpret history?

As one studies history, at some point it because rather obvious that some level of interpretation is required in order to make sense of a time when there was no internet, no computer, no phone, not many civilizations or peoples making use of writing, not much in the way of helpful tools in understanding just what took place.  But the question to be asked is a question in which we begin to question just what historians such as Strayer are saying with regard to the civilizations of history.  One clear example which comes to mind is Stayer’s history -- no pun intended -- of misrepresenting religions, namely the Christian religion.  In previous chapters, Strayer would seem to misinterpret the teachings of Paul as they pertain to the understanding of women in the church -- such that they were required to be quite.  However, these passages are not fully interpreted in their original context -- something that many who might be more apt to discriminate the church in a modern sense tend to do.  

Furthermore, if we are to consider current chapters such as chapter 10 in which discussions of the Crusades take place, we see once again, that Christendom is placed into a negative light and subsequent connotation.  A notion which is relatively revolutionary but is, at the same time, novel, is the notion of considering what is Godly to remain Godly and what is worldly is to remain worldly.  While many civilizations attempted to raise themselves, or certain peoples to the level of being gods, the problem historians seem to face is understanding that Christianity does not allow for such occurrences.  And when the occurrences take place, they are dealt with swiftly and harshly as can be evidenced in many stories told in the Bible.  

As such, the Crusades are a prime example of misinterpretation of what God has said in the Bible.  As Stayer puts it the “notion that God wills it” evidences this point rather clearly in that the Bible clearly deals with battles and wars, but at the same time, does not give dramatic license to simply running down one’s neighbor is they happen to not be Christians.  The notion of loving one’s neighbor as oneself plays into further plays into this concept.  As a result, it would seem as though we shine a harsh light on Christianity instead of isolating those who decided to be more human and fall into what would be considered human nature.  This also plays into the notion of all having their judgement day as the Bible would allude to, without regard of nationality, religion, or similar designator that humanity might first pass judgement on.  

The Crusades deserve far more than simply 500 words in order to truly understand just what occurred and why it occurred.  Obviously, Catholicism played a large role in being the driving force of the Crusades, yet at the same time, the human nature of conquering peoples with their respective religion builds into what can be thought of as the cyclical cycle of history in that the Crusades were surely not the first time a civilization attempted to lay ruin to another, regardless of religious ferverosity.  One final thought to leave this posting is to consider the events that lead up to the pilgrimage to America by the Protestants from English.  The events leading up to this defining moment in history stem from the growing animosity towards Protestants by the Catholics -- both of which are within the realm of Christendom.  Would it be fair for modern society to pass judgement on the protestants simply because they are considered Christian?  This is where the line has to be drawn when considering the events of the past, context is everything when brought to bare with interpretation, and as such, we must strive to not stereotypically assume when drawing such interpretations.