He uses some very reactionary language such as calling the Crusades a restoration.
Madden will be most to your liking of the writers on the crusades, but this is pretty mainstream, not 'reactionary' at all. The black legend of the Crusades is basically only dominant among ignoramuses. Same for the black legend of the Inquisitions. Few know that the Inquisition in Spain prevented execution of witches, because it judged accusations to be spurious.
When the globalist theocracy is waging a war on reality, how is truth not radical?
What are your criteria for judging 'truth'? For many, I worry that it's just what suits them politically.
Whether you like it or not, and I don't, "everything is political" is the world that has been foisted upon us by the total state. His opinion may be mainstream within medieval studies, but progressives also want to cancel medieval studies for being racist. History has a reactionary bias.
Whether you like it or not, and I don't, "everything is political" is the world that has been foisted upon us by the total state
But then especially you must guard against believing things simply because they are politically convenient, rather than because they are true.
His opinion may be mainstream within medieval studies, but progressives also want to cancel medieval studies for being racist.
That does not make medieval studies either racist or reactionary. That's really accepting their framework.
History has a reactionary bias.
History has no bias, that's the best part. You can cite many facts that put 'reactionaries' in a bad light, and progressives, and conservatives, and everyone.
Every history book has a self-evident bias inherent in the author's choice of language. Thucydides has a clear, although still critical, bias towards Athens and democracy.
But you talked about history itself, what actually happened. That has no bias. Individual books can have worse than just biased language. As for your claim regarding all of history. It would show that 'reactionaries' were right on some things, and wrong on some others.
Madden will be most to your liking of the writers on the crusades, but this is pretty mainstream, not 'reactionary' at all. The black legend of the Crusades is basically only dominant among ignoramuses. Same for the black legend of the Inquisitions. Few know that the Inquisition in Spain prevented execution of witches, because it judged accusations to be spurious.
What are your criteria for judging 'truth'? For many, I worry that it's just what suits them politically.
Whether you like it or not, and I don't, "everything is political" is the world that has been foisted upon us by the total state. His opinion may be mainstream within medieval studies, but progressives also want to cancel medieval studies for being racist. History has a reactionary bias.
But then especially you must guard against believing things simply because they are politically convenient, rather than because they are true.
That does not make medieval studies either racist or reactionary. That's really accepting their framework.
History has no bias, that's the best part. You can cite many facts that put 'reactionaries' in a bad light, and progressives, and conservatives, and everyone.
Every history book has a self-evident bias inherent in the author's choice of language. Thucydides has a clear, although still critical, bias towards Athens and democracy.
But you talked about history itself, what actually happened. That has no bias. Individual books can have worse than just biased language. As for your claim regarding all of history. It would show that 'reactionaries' were right on some things, and wrong on some others.