To Copy an Artist- My Take on Edel Rodriguez's "Unamed Bangladesh Genocide" Piece

Here is my painted image that I created attempting to copy the original artist. Please see the original image at the end of the post.

From March 26th to December 16th, 1971, a genocide was committed against the Bengali, Bihari Muslims, and Hindu peoples in East Pakistan. The genocide lasted almost nine months and it is estimated that between 300,000 to upwards of 3,000,000 were killed, became refugees or displaced peoples, or survived genocidal war crimes- these numbers are disputed with some independent researchers suggesting that the number of deaths was closer to 500,000 while the higher number is accepted and put forth by the current Bangladesh government. The perpetrators of the violence came from a few groups of peoples; the Pakistan armed forces, supporting Islamist militias which included Al-Badr and Al-Shams, and members of the Muslim League. This genocide came about during a war for independence and is thought to have started with the planned military intervention called Operation Searchlight, which was carried out by the Pakistani army to try and curb some of the nationalist groups fighting for an independent state. The Indian army joined in the fighting after tensions along its border with India erupted with Pakistan declaring war on India. When the Pakistani army surrendered unconditionally to Indian forces in December the genocide ceased and the remaining Pakistani soldiers became prisoners of war.

This genocide has had some long-lasting effects both on the country and its peoples. The independent state of Bangladesh was created out of parts of Pakistani territory, along with a full constitution that mirrored some aspects of the Indian Constitution. As many of the targeted attacked during the genocide affected students and the intelligentsia of the country, these murders led to vacancies in important positions both in government and higher education. In the aftermath of the genocide, famine, malnutrition and the extremely high number of displaced people/ refugees needed to be addressed. Cold war tensions increased around the world as the Soviet Union became aligned with independent Bangladesh’s ally India. The current Bangladesh government has instituted an International War Crimes Tribunal and laws have been introduced to make genocide denial a hate crime, but there are some critics who suggest that these laws are being used to punish political dissidents rather than the participants in genocide.

This artwork was created by Edel Rodriguez who is a fairly prolific Cuban-American artist. His illustrations and artwork have been found in children’s books, on popular magazine covers, art galleries, etc… This particular piece was published with an op-ed article titled “The Politics of Bangladesh’s Genocide Debate.” I was unable to uncover the name of the piece nor any mention by the artist on his motivation for its creation. What I see in it is a strong hand pressing down on the skulls of the dead… expressing the power that a few had over the lives of the many who then lost their lives according to the desires of that power. I also see the hand as it pushes down on the bones of its victims as an act attempting to silence them and hide the evidence of death and genocide. While this piece of art is relatively simple in its black and white coloring and lined images, it evokes the emotions and horror that acts of genocide bring to the surface.

Sideswipes of Ideals and the Clash of Life, Experience and Hope: Malcolm X

With the exception of knowing the name- having heard the title many times in my life, I knew almost nothing about Malcolm X. So as I sat in class and the lights were dimmed I was prepared (I thought) for learning and to discover more about the man that I knew so little about- a shame as a historian, but I will admit I am woefully inadequate on almost any topic on American history; that is semi intentional and a long story. I have seen a documentary by Spike Lee before and found it phenomenal. And each film that I have seen in class has provoked so much thought that I wondered what I would gain from this one besides a better understanding of the man's life. Here are my thoughts...

The start of the film with the burning flag was a really potent image. The flag- whether it is a stamp, a name, a picture, iron on art, etc... makes a very specific statement. It is a loaded image that creates a picture no matter who looks at it and in many cases makes a political statement as well. For some, the flag is a symbol of pure nationalism- some love America to the point of blindness and the flag symbolizes this feeling... the feeling of power and strength, the assumption of God's blessing on this, the best country. Even that God fits a profile- white, Christian, silent and unchanging through the years. For others the flag is a symbol of a country that they love and feel loyalty for, but they are also able to recognize that America and its flag can also be seen in very negative ways not only by some of those who are protected by its laws, but by many around the world. The image of the flag is seen for what many see as its true colors... the symbol of oppression towards many in the world... it's citizens, other states...anyone that isn't useful or in line with what 'America' wants. It's hard to attack these ideals and governmental policies, so people attack it's image... and that is the flag. There are many ways to insult or desecrate the flag, but burning appears to be one of the most popular. By total destruction as flames quickly like over the sewn threads and they vanish into smoke that is pulled up towards the sun. So, as I watched this image, I felt the pull of both sides of the argument.... those that I know who cannot see anything but their idealized vision of the world and those who have felt the pain and oppression that is the flip side of nationalism. And there is no middle ground- because individuals will force you be be part of one side or the other. I do not allow myself to use the flag or its images on anything. I do not use it on stamps, hang it on the wall, or even use decorations that use the colors or patterns that suggest or remind. I have been told by people that my dedication to that 'idea' is treasonous and that I am ashamed of my country, but I see a very fine distinction between love of my country and it's ideals... and the reality of what it truly is. What is truly does... and what it has done in the past. So I felt that pain and that anger as I watched the flag... and as it slowly began to burn, I didn't need to hear the world to feel the suffering, the pain and the anger. I could see it grow and build as the flag burned... a flame of heat that might never be extinguished...even though its object has vanished into smoke and ash.

So many times I heard the word 'boy'... and finally I got it. When I was in high school I used to call male classmates 'boys' if I thought they were immature or acting that way. One of them was black and the few times I called him a boy, my kind teacher would pull me aside and tell me I couldn't do that because it was racist. And I would walk away really confused and frustrated. I have never considered myself a racist and I couldn't see how the word boy could be racist... The N word, yes... but boy no. I see it now. More than twenty years later I understand and I am really horrified by my lack of understanding. As a silly white girl, I didn't get it and as an older but still silly white women I know see a glimmer of understanding and I am filled with the shame and remorse. Tyler, I never meant to really hurt you. I never saw myself as being racist or making any comment about your skin at all. I saw myself standing up for myself and calling out immaturity when I saw it. I am truly sorry. I wish I could take those words back and I will admit I do not use them anymore. Since I couldn't understand why they were racially offensive, I just didn't use them anymore. I learned new words that were probably more effective and I still use those. I know of no way to make amends for my ignorance and foolishness; in fact, I suspect that my new understanding shows how immature I was and what a small child mentally. I ask for your forgiveness and hope that whatever pain I caused was small and hopefully gone.

Elijah Mohammed : The question is -who are you?

All of us ask this question to ourselves at some point in our lives... and how we answer it determines our whole lives. His choices changed his life and the lives of many. Just as our choices change our lives. I know a few people who seem lost and I am unclear if they can answer the question that Elijah Mohammed asked. Sometimes I am not sure that I can honesty answer that question. There are times when I feel very confident of the answer, but the jargon that spews forth from my mind is a list of labels and if you think about it.... no person can be summed up in labels nor should they. Aren't labels really a way of wording or acknowledging a trait; a piece of the whole, but how can a label or lots of labels encompass the whole? I am a woman, used to be a wife, a religious observer, a writer, a mother, a celiac... and yet, none of those labels tell you much or give you a clear image of who I am, what is important to me.... anything. What a powerful individual Malcolm X was... to question and question and to work to really understand himself and develop his ideas. The self awareness and control that requires is something that many people never develop- it is certainly not one of my strong suits.

"Whites can help us, but they can't join us. There can be no black/white unity until there's first some black unity. We can not think of uniting with others until we have first learned to unite with ourselves. We can think of being acceptable to others until we have first proven acceptable to ourselves..."

This is a really strong statement and a hard reality. Back at the beginnings of the women's movement, many of the leaders that we are able to look back to realized that women would never be able to get any rights as long as any men were also denied rights. That is one reason that many feminists worked and fought for civil rights for African Americans. Malcolm X understood something very essential. Until we can look and work together in our smaller groups, we can easily be divided. Look at any group of people – your church congregations, family, school mates, etc... How easily they are challenged and develop divisions, cliques, and outcasts. Look how easily the American government talked the country into going to war with Iraq – You're with us or against us, patriot or traitor, etc... no middle ground. When those that are in power want something, it is easier to distract and the less powerful majority with other things and such definitive statements. It crushes dissent, freedom of expression and gets many of us to focus on things that are not really important. It's how many of us use our votes to help people enter government who will actually make choices that hurt us and our families... we are distracted by other things and issues that keep us chasing our own tails. We can see this disunity now between not only the races and genders, but between those with economic disparity, health issues, religion, etc...

"I told you to look behind the words and dig out the truth...locked us in chains, 100 million of us, broke up our families, cut us off from our language, our religion, our history.... "

My last thought is not a comfortable one. As I sat and watched the life of Malcolm Little unfold to the adult Malcolm X to the close of his mortality, I found the same question running through my mind. Martin Luther King Jr. was a wonderful man and did some great things. I mean no disrespect to him by my next question. I wonder why we as a nation celebrate Martin Luther King and his achievement... and gloss over Malcolm X. My thoughts as to why we as a nation do that are not very polite or politically correct. I wonder if we celebrate King because we feel more 'comfortable' with him. He is easy to like and his message while hard came through a man who in many ways was nice and easy.... Malcolm X can not be seen in rose colored glasses very well. If you put both the men side by side, Martin Luther King is much more palatable for a white audience- he was Christian to boot. And so we celebrate him and what he stood for and forget some of the things that he did that we wouldn't find acceptable such as his womanizing. (Malcolm X was clearly a more responsible and focused family man.) I guess I wonder if we accept him more because we are trying to turn MLK into a 'good black person' or make him more 'white'. That is not possible to do with Malcolm X... and so as a culture we push him aside. I wish I knew more people of color so that I could ask them: What are their feelings on both men and which one do they feel more comfortable with? Which one matters more when they look at history? And which man do they think was right? A long time ago, I heard the story of the first black mayor of some city whose surname if I recall was Ford. He said that in his job, he had to be 'fairer than fair' and couldn't just try to balance things. He had to always make sure that the balance card leaned more towards his 'white' voters so that they didn't feel he wasn't caring for them and choosing the 'black' population only. How many of our politicians (mostly white) worry about that? Malcolm X was accused of being a black supremacist and a racist and I cannot agree with those labels- He didn't want to destroy or damage the white race... he only wants the black race to have the same choices as the white race.... and the same consequences. It seems that even in our modern, tolerant world.... we haven't changed as much as we would like to think. I feel a bit like a small child again and the world looks different and stark and harsh. I wonder if we will ever be able to get past race in America.... I wonder...

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part II: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Islam

This post is the second part of some brief paragraphs on different aspects of the medieval world and the people and religions that helped to create the world we enjoy today. I hope you enjoy....

It was during the medieval time that the Islamic religion rose to greater prominence. Islam actually has the same roots as Christianity and Judaism as these three religions can be traced back to the Patriarch Abraham. Islam was a family-oriented religion stressing ties to family over ties to clan and giving men the ability to have more than one wife. This helped protect women in this society that had not had a male protector and probably also helped increase the birthrate helping create more expansion internally for the religion itself. The religion of Islam as well was born with both political and religious arms which would make it harder to eliminate and giving it sufficient 'room' for rapid expansion... In contrast, Christianity had several centuries of persecution and discrimination due to its religious only status until Christianity was able to gain a political foothold as well. Another explanation for the rapid expansion could also be the rapid military expansion of the Arab empire soon after the death of the founder and prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Another positive quirk about Islam is that its leaders rarely felt the need to force people to convert and areas ruled by Muslim leaders tended to have a high degree of religious tolerance- a far cry form what we may sometimes see today in Muslim communities... and may also be why the areas that Islam originally 'conquered' stayed Muslim from that time until today as conversions were sincere and not necessarily forced on the populations around them. That said, religious tolerance was not absolute and while Islam was a minority, Islamic rulers would tax members of all other religions living in their communities and cities. It also should be noted that Islam and Christianity have a few similar doctrines, such as one God and a strong moral code, which were very attractive to people during that time. Also, Islamic leaders tended to keep many things about their population's day to day life the same. The Byzantine empire didn't change a lot under their leadership as the leaders kept much of the previous culture and just used and defined it on their own terms.

There are almost too many intellectual gains made in the Muslim world during this time to list! It is a fact that the Arab societies in the Eastern part of the empire became places of learning and scientific advancement... achieving far more in these areas than anything in the western portion of the empire. Many advances in medicine and science that we have learned about from the medieval time period came from the eastern empire... not the west. Many of the ancient texts that both scientists and historians study for knowledge were preserved and saved in the Eastern empire- the western empire was more likely to burn or destroy ancient texts rather than save them. This was brought about by the needs of the new Arab leaders who needed to try and control populations with diverse languages and cultures. It was due to these challenges that the need for translations began in earnest so that the rulers of the empire and the local governments could have access to the knowledge that they felt they needed. By the mid eighth century, Muslim communities were flourishing and these communities were growing and thriving in knowledge in the areas of education, literature, science, mathematics and even medicine. An example is that the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would have been made accessible to anyone in the eastern empire due to the widespread reading and translation of his works, but at the same time the West had changed so dramatically and become so dependent on surviving that very few people would have even heard of Aristotle or his work- education really can't be considered important if you can't feed yourself. Education was prized and the oldest university that is still functioning today is over 1100 years old and is called the Qarawiyyin in Morocco. And it was mostly from Islamic Spain that the Western world would slowly begin to get this knowledge and intellect.

The Merovingian dynasty that controlled the Frankish throne had been struggling with the chaos caused by its civil wars for several years by the time that the Carolingians arrived on the scene. However, a unique position in the Merovingian government gave the Carolingians an edge in their quest to control the aristocracy and control the throne. This unique advantage was a position within the Merovingian court called the 'mayor of the palace'. When the position had been created early in the dynasty, it was filled with the man who would be in charge of the king's household and the 'mayor' was also responsible for managing all royal affairs in the king's name- this also included granting land and other favors to the noble classes to keep them loyal to the king. But over time the power of the kings weakened and the monarchy became less secure and absolute. It was in this climate that the individual in this position gained more power... and this power would eventually be greater than the power of the king he served. Many of the individuals in this position were Carolingians and this position tended to be passed down from one Carolingian to another. It was using this position that the individuals in this position would use the prestige and powers it contained to make the nobles and the aristocracy loyal to them and not the king. And it was a man in this position as 'mayor of the palace' named Charles Martel that would eventually increase the size of the kingdom and win his heirs the right to the kingship by defeating the advancing Muslims in 732 AD. His win for Christendom was able to win him the support of the Pope and the Catholic church who then helped establish his legitimacy as the ruler. Charles Martel's son, Pippin the Short was then named King on his father's death... and the Merovingian dynasty ended with a quiet 'sigh'....


Charlemagne, another member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

It was very important to Charlemagne to connect himself to the good legacy of the Roman empire. Some parts of it, such as education, the use of Latin, the Christian church, and even the peace and unity that were known and romanticized about the thoughts of the Roman empire. He stressed the traditions of this time and saw value in education and classical knowledge. In fact, Pope Leo III called Charlemagne a 'great and peace giving emperor' at the later's coronation...giving Charlemagne a symbolic title and beginning the time we now call the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Charlemagne's new title of Holy Roman Emperor gave him the respect of the Byzantine Emperor. He was also an admirer of the knowledge held by the eastern empire and copied the eastern architecture for buildings and attempted to start a large educational system. It is also known that Charlemagne at one point has hopes of adding the Byzantine empire to his territory and tried to marry one of the royal women in the eastern empire to strengthen his position. As the emperor of the eastern part has ambitions to also own the 'western' lands again, the relationship between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor must have been fairly tense and distrustful at times. At one point, the tension came to actual warfare, but for the most part, both of these empire co existed peacefully after an agreement was reach between both emperors.

Charlemagne's relations with the Islamic empire are actually a little complicated. The Islamic Empire had control over the pertinent parts of Africa and of Spain. Charlemagne's agreement and ceding of some land to the Byzantine Empire gave this ruler a large empire that had no access to the Mediterranean sea and was surrounded by the Byzantine and Islamic empires. The Islamic empire when looking at a map appears to have been bigger than both Charlemagne's empire and the Byzantine empire combined... and the Islamic empire had a lot of wealth and resources. Much thought and care was given by Charlemagne to a 'buffer zone' between his empire and Spain to try and keep peace between these two kingdoms. The main reason that Charlemagne didn't have to fight the Islamists in his time was that Charles Martel had stopped their continued aggressive conquests of Europe in the land known as France several years before the reign of Charlemagne. His approach seemed to be to mostly to try to leave them alone and try to be prepared in case they didn't.

Brief Views on the First Crusade... and the Major 'Players'

Almost anyone these days with even a small background in history or religion has heard of the Crusades... and it goes without saying that many people hold strong views on the subject. But very few people really know more than a few basic facts: that the Catholic church started Crusades to remove heretics and 'Christianize' the Muslims, etc... What is clear is that without the idea and experiences that we now call the First Crusade, there would not have been any more of this particular brand of religious battle. The First Crusade is really a blend of religious fanaticism, political shrewdness and expediency, greed, desperation and human frailty.... and not simply a religious war. This post will cover some of the basics of the First Crusade and the people in power who created this difficult and deadly conflict. From the idea that Jesus himself led the Christian armies into battle and the reality that the majority of the deaths were actually caused by Christians against fellow Christians... this war is not a simple two dimensional vision.

The beginnings of this war actually started about twenty years before in the Eastern Roman empire. Over this period of time, groups of Turks moved into a part of the territory ruled by Byzantine Emperor Alexis. He eventually decided that he wanted to kick out the Islamic Turks, but Emperor Alexis didn't feel he had enough resources or soldiers to be successful in his attempt. It was also economically prudent for him to remove the Turks as the lands that had been taken over were rich in resources and potential military members. So Alexis decided that he would write the Pope/Bishop in Rome to try and get some help. His desire was based on an inappropriate assumption that the Pope or Bishop of Rome was a high ranking Byzantine official and so the emperor expected that what would happen was that this official would work to help raise some funds and hire some soldiers for him. Unfortunately for the world itself, this assumption was truly incorrect.

The true nature of the Roman Catholic Pope and his church was not really as simple as the idea of the Pope being a 'Byzantine official'. In reality, the Pope was truly an ambitious politician who was hopeful of building himself and his lands into a superpower. The last few 'Bishops' of Rome had worked to create huge and radical reforms for the position of 'Pope' giving themselves more political power. It was hoped by these churchmen to make one 'greater church' that would control and supervise all churches and other churchmen and all Christian souls on earth- a very ambitious goal indeed. Popes had begun to demand that Bishops should be free from pressure from secular leaders, but under the firm authority of the Pope... that men in armor were ultimately ruled by God... and therefore the Pope as God's representative on earth... and other very extreme demands. All of these demands were for the ultimate goal of making the Pope the true head of a state – the state of Christendom- and truly changed the nature of the papacy itself. This would also allow the Pope to have authority over all other secular leaders on earth who were Christian... which was quite a large swath of people. :)

The Pope at this time was Pope Urban II. When he got the letter that had been written by Emperor Alexis, Urban II used this letter as an excuse to create and raise his own army to conquer the 'heathen' East. What he meant by liberation wasn't 'liberation' in the sense that we think of that word. What the Pope meant was that the lands and people in the Holy Lands should be brought under the political, physical and spiritual control of the papacy.... which certainly isn't the same as 'liberation', is it. ;-) Pope Urban gave a speech on November 27, 1095 complaining about the Turks and their 'perceived' ill treatment of fellow Christians in the Holy Land- he might have stretched the truth quite a bit. But in the end, his speech could be summed up in one sentence- “God wills it!”

To be a Christian knight (then and now) was to live in a difficult quandary of the mind. A knight is a hired warrior- a man who is hired to kill other people and to do so at the whim of his sovereign, the man who pays his salary, etc... Sometimes they were admonished to kill every member of the enemy's family as well. As a job it was physically dangerous and emotionally and psychologically exhausting. However, being a believing Christian adds a whole other level of difficulty to this job. Jesus Christ, the savior and the first leader of the Catholic church, was very specific about killing... it was wrong, period. You were to turn your cheek to your enemies, love your enemies, be meek to enter the kingdom of God, not practice unrighteous dominion... to name a few of the savior's sayings. How a person was able to deal with this dichotomy was and still is a personal endeavor. Pope Urban solved that dilemma by stating that Jesus Christ only meant that you followed those creeds with other Christians... and that war against non Christians was not only OK, but it was holy, and necessary. The Pope's speech pretty much equated war with penance such as prayer and devotion … the sacraments that would save your soul. In essence, it was good to 'kill for God'. In fact, it was almost a 'get out of hell free' card. If you went out on this fight, then you were absolved of all your sins in this life and the next. No worries about purgatory for you. :)

The Crusade would never have been able to happen without the cooperation and volunteering of ordinary people and the 'warrior' aristocracy. One reason that people were so willing to do this was that the church had a power over people that they did not truly understand. People believed in an actual heaven and hell... and that these places were very close and simply a breath away. They believed that the Pope was God's mouthpiece on earth and so that when the Pope spoke, he was speaking God's commands... that the judgment day was coming, that hell was at hand.... and hey, lots of treasure to be gained from the infidels as well. Many hoped to gain positive eternal life in heaven, many wished for earthly treasures and wealth, as well as earthly status and fulfill earthly needs. The majority of the volunteers were peasants who didn't really have any stability or way to fulfill their basic daily needs so the idea of a Crusade gave them hope. The inspiration to do what 'God wills' was not a small motivation at all and the gift of a direct ticket to heaven must have been a very strong inducement. The pope didn't just raise the army that he had hoped for- he sparked a mass migration! (I need to state that there isn't a problem with the belief in heaven and hell and its literal existence... I believe in it myself actually.)

As people headed toward the Holy Land and Jerusalem, people looks for inspired leaders to follow. One leader of small note was the divinely inspired goose that led a group of people for a short period of time towards the goal. :) Another important leader was an eccentric tramp known as Peter the Tramp or 'Peter the Hermit'. Peter gathered almost 15,000 people to follow him to the Holy Land... some historians suggest that he may have given speeches which might have also caused the first crusade to happen. These groups traveled over four months towards Constantinople with no planning and preparation for the trip at all. The pilgrims would become thieves in their quest for food and needed supplies such as shoes and clothing; in fact, many were willing to fight the local people in the places they were traveling by for the goods the pilgrims felt they needed. These needs of the pilgrims could backfire... sometimes causing large amounts of casualties and riots... certainly not 'civilized' behavior. By the time Peter the Hermit showed up to the city of Constantinople, he arrived with around 60,000 people. The Emperor Alexis found this mass of people a 'headache' and he advised Peter the Tramp to not march on to Jerusalem until the Pope's real army arrived, but Peter insisted on continuing. When his group arrived on the shore towards their goal, the crusaders couldn't get in the city fortress and so a large group tortured and murdered and plundered the goods of the people of Nicea. Unfortunately for the goals of the crusaders, all the victims were Christian. Others in the group went on to try and conquer other cities with various levels of effectiveness until most of the members of these groups were massacres or sold as slaves by the conquering Turks. Peter the Hermit did a good job at unifying and inspiring people, but he did not have good planning and contributed to the failure and death of most of his followers. His group is also called by the name of the 'Peasant's Crusade.'

It should come as no surprise that the Pope's words condemning pagans could be construed as to condemning Jews as well and contributing to the entrenched anti-semitism in Europe. After all, it is true that the Jews were not part of the group that was currently accused of 'torturing' Christians... but they (the Jews) were the group that killed Jesus Christ. How could the pagans be any worse than the group that martyred the Savior? And to add to this unfortunate rationale, it must be noted that the Turks and the Holy Land was three thousand miles away... while Jews tended to be in all the villages in Europe so you didn't have to go very far to find them. All you had to do was wear a cross... So people who were unscrupulous and looking for easier targets closer to home began to slaughter local Jews and taking the 'spoils' from these heathens. This attitude caused massacres of whole Jewish communities- and the first pogrom during the First Crusade is sometimes called the first 'holocaust'. And it was in this way that anti-semitism was made almost a permanent institution in Europe. And any time a Crusade was called for in the future, pogroms would happen in Jewish communities. We can see that this 'disease' hasn't yet been eradicated as the massacres of Jews in the 1940's during WWII in the state of Germany and beyond their borders can testify to.

The Peasant's Crusade was an abysmal failure... not really sure there is another way to describe it. It was a great crowd led by Peter the Hermit and a few others. As mentioned above, almost no planning had been put into this project and was really very much almost an emotional movement. Most of the members of this 'movement' were peasants- they had no goods, hadn't been well fed at any recent time in their lives and almost all had never fought in any kind of battle before. Many of the members were women and children- certainly children were probably not the best soldiers. Thousands of people- as many as 60,000- traveled the thousands of miles to first reach Constantinople. Without supplies, they were forced to steal or beg the required provisions from towns and villages along the way... and this did not always happen peacefully or without difficulty. Upon finally getting to Constantinople, Emperor Alexis was fairly dismayed- at least not pleased- to see this army and after warning them about the Turks, he quickly helped the 'pilgrims' across the waterway and on their way toward Jerusalem. (It is known that he did warn Peter the Hermit that the 'group' should wait until the Pope's main fighting forces arrived to engage the enemy.) After crossing the waterway, some groups divided off ethnically from the larger total group and attacked nearby towns causing great death and devastation to the inhabitants of the towns (who appear to have been all Christians) or causing their own death and devastation by the Turks who offered them death.... or the opportunity to convert to Islam and live as a slave. (That was a bit of an irony.) Peter the Hermit no longer had much control as the groups divided and so they were easily divided and conquered. By the end of all of this, including a successful trick and ambush by the Turks, the peasant's crusade was over with very little loss of life on the part of the Muslims and near total annihilation of the Christian Crusade participants.... only a couple of thousand people lived to be able to share their story of the Peasant's Crusade.... one of whom was Peter the Hermit. I imagine Alexis breathed a sigh of relief in some ways.

It was the Pope's original intention to have Adehmar, bishop of Le Puy lead his 'army' in the crusades. The Pope's official forces were led by a few different individuals who were meant to combine their troops and work together. Hugh of France was the first to arrive at Constantinople with his army. Raymond, Count of Toulouse led almost 15,000 troops. Duke Godfrey of Lorraine came to Constantinople with around 20,000 foo soldiers and with most of his property sold and mortgaged to the church to pay for his 'ticket' to ride. Bohemond of Taranto led an Italian and Norman army with his nephew Tancred. Emperor Alexis was fairly pleased to see these armies, but also was intelligent enough to recognize that they came at a risk to his rule and also might not give him the land they conquered... if they managed to actually conquer it! So emperor Alexis would quickly move the arriving army across the waterway so that the armies wouldn't all be sitting in his city at one time- certainly a prudent move after some of the behavior from the earlier peasant groups. :) Alexis also had each of these leaders swear an oath to him that any land that the crusaders were able to conquer was his (Alexis) as well as an oath of allegiance. It must be said that the emperor still didn't trust them because after the crusaders had fought off all the defenders of the city of Nicaea, and were going to attack the next morning, Emperor Alexis came into the city through the nearby waterway and convinced the city's inhabitants to surrender to him. For these concessions, he would protect the city from the Crusaders- the city took the deal and the Crusaders themselves were angry and not pleased at this turn of events... (suggesting Alexis was right not to trust them.)

If nothing else is looked at about the Crusades but sheer numbers, it is clear to see that the power that the Catholic Church had over the inhabitants of most of Europe was HUGE! Look at the massive numbers of people who simply left and headed to the Holy Land in the Peasant's Crusade alone (60,000)... to the numbers that came with the 'official' army from the pope (60,000+). The First Crusade also opened up more information about the East to Europe and helped reopen some trade and knowledge that had been lost over time from the collapse of the Roman empire. Even with all the death and savagery of the crusaders with little gain, this 'war' was considered a success in Europe... setting the stage for more calls in the future for Crusades by future Popes.

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.