How about raise of "post-empathy" history? Author like this, are so self absorbed into their mantras, they can not even see major flaws in their arguments.
What happens if we apply this analogy about crusaders to modern times?
>> What happens if we apply this analogy about crusaders to modern times?
That's precisely what the author is doing. He’s drawing a parallel between “appealing storytelling” history and “rational analysis” history as applied to the crusades, to 21st century interpretations of 20th century history.
What major flaws would you assert the author has made?
> than his predecessor, for whom the Crusades were essentially a series of barbarian invasions—the sacking of the refined and cosmopolitan East by the uncouth and venal younger sons of minor French lords
The "barbarian invasion" is quite easy to prove. Crusaders destroyed Byzantine empire. Hell, they even sacked christian cities at Dalmatian coast on the way there.
He's not saying it's false, but he's referring to the fact that the religious dimension of the Crusades has been occulted by a lot of 20th century historiography as incomprehensible and necessarily false. It was rather presented as an excuse, and the Crusades were even considered by some a precursor to European colonialism, driven by economic gains, overpopulation etc.
This unbalance is the historiographical mistake, as would be (according to the article) the lack of attention for the Baltic or Albigean Crusades, hitherto considered not-much-more-than-local events which were given a religious stamp of approval for various political and financial reasons and thus not "real" crusades.
His argument, not that I necessarily agree with it, seems to be that “the Crusades” aren’t a useful category insofar as they exclude other religiously motivated campaigns at the time that would have been considered equally important.
The Crusades were indeed horrible, and did long-lasting damage, but this wasn’t because Europeans were more “barbaric.” They were poorer, and so it’s assumed often that that would have something to do with it, but war has been a humanitarian catastrophe forever, and the medieval Europeans were no exception, but they weren’t any more or less cruel than anyone else. Armies in premodern wars were not only extraordinary destructive when they got to their destination, but also along the way—for many reasons, including the need to eat, but this wasn’t true everywhere, not only in Europe.
History is about facts, not feeling. How bad it makes someone feel is irrelevant. Pretending that things were different to make someone feel better is wrong, in the same way as making someone pay for their ancestors’ ancestors acts is wrong. We should be able to discuss facts and understand why they happened rather than use history as a tool in an ideological fight.
Empathy is more important in the way History is vulgarised (to avoid glorifying or victimising people who have nothing to do with what happened) than in History itself.
Passport are also needed for deportation. I can not see any reason, why police would burn their documents. It creates a lot of extra paperwork and headaches.
Destroying passports is a normal practice for illegal immigrants. It extends their stay in EU by several years. Most countries are considered safe, and it is hard to claim you are from Syria with Egyptian passport.
What happens if we apply this analogy about crusaders to modern times?