I, apparently, suck.

[xp_daytripper]

Just got a batch of links from my mate Charlie. Seems the Burning Times is another one of those myths, like that Pope Joan. Yes, witches [1] were tried and burned and tortured, but it wasn't a wholescale genocide sort of thing. At least, not during the times courts kept records. Of course, that only goes back to the age of the printing press and doesn't cover what happened to the Druids when Britain was invaded by the Romans, but then again, unless I work out how to summon the ghost of Magic Users Past, that's probably just another myth too.

So, you're all right, I'm wrong (again) and I'm going to stop attempting to be clever and go play with Meggan.

Edit: The links, since you lot obviously don't understand the words "I got it wrong":

http://www.cog.org/witch_hunt.html
http://www.wiccaweb.com/suck_misconceptions.php
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_burn1.htm


There.

Edit 2: [1] or perfectly non-magically adept people who for whatever reason were called witches.

Comments

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

Even that is a bit confusing because the Sacred Order of the blah blah Inquistion wasn't in charge for most of the Spanish Inquistion, the Spanish Church and government was.

[x-crowdofone.livejournal.com]

And this is why I'm not majoring in history.

Um, probably. At least not right away.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

This would be a good time to mention that I actually had a professor friend who enjoyed far too much giving a lecture series he called "The Spanish Inquisition: Not as Bad as You Think!"

Though there were no comfy chairs that I know of.

[x-crowdofone.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a fun lecture series. As long as the actual chairs in the actual auditorium or classroom or whatever were comfy.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

Well, I heard it in his living room, so yeah, it was pretty comfy.

[x-kitten.livejournal.com]

Being less bad than you think doesn't mean it was a good thing. But hey, points to your prof for the chipper tone regarding the attempt to wipe out an entire culture.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

Well, his point wasn't that it didn't suck. He's a historian not an ethics dude. The right and wrong of it wasn't his concern. But believe me, he definitely got across that point and didn't downplay at all the severity of the anti-semitic culture. His point was that historically, the brutality displayed was less than it was later portrayed to be. 4000 people dead over the course of 400 years is rather less than most people would expect and that it didn't need exaggeration to make it horrific.

[x-kitten.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It was horrific, so it doesn't need defending.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

It also doesn't need exaggeration.

He used the title as a way to hook people into coming. Then they got a detailed look at the way the Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition worked and what went wrong in the case of the Spanish Inquisition. His defense, if there was one, was of the Vatican not of the culture of persecution that existed in Europe (supported, yes by the Church.)

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

It doesn't need defending, no. But like any other historical event, it does deserve to be more comprehensively understood.

A lot of the worst episodes in history happened because people oversimplified things. It's one of the reasons to study history in the first place - to break one's self of the habit of doing that.

[x-kitten.livejournal.com]

I've got nothing at all against properly understanding history. My problem is that it seems like everytime these conversations get started (and, note, I'm not talking about just here, I'm talking about all over) you've got the people yelling about how terrible it was, and then you've got people saying "Look, it wasn't that bad", only they never add in the bit where it was still pretty fucking terrible. I've got no problem admitting that the general belief is it was way worse than it was, but I'm tired of getting told that "It wasn't that bad". Cause, you know, us semites and our semantics, "it wasn't that bad" =/= "It was bad".

And no, I'm not saying you or Lorna or anybody here thinks that. I'm just tired of it all.

[x-polarisstar.livejournal.com]

Except that I did. And my professor did.

The truth of the Inquisition was that their realm of inquiry was limited to Christians. The problem in Spain was that, because of the persecution of the Jews (having already run off the Moors), many had "converted" to Christianity as a way to hide their religious beliefs thus opening themselves up to being questioned.

If a man was brought before the inquisition for matters of heresy and said, "but I'm Jewish" they'd pretty much say "thank you and good night." If they said "I'm Christian." then they'd get questioned (but not tortured)

See, this is why it was a whole lecture series.

Suffice it to say, there wasn't any implication that it was "not bad"

[x-cable.livejournal.com]

Semantics aside, aren't the people who should be insulted by being told that what they suffered was 'not that bad' long dead?

All right, so that was more or less a rhetorical question. As I see it, what you're asking for here is for people to have more respect for your emotional involvement with history. Which is fair enough, and I'm inclined to respect it - I think at the very least I've cluttered Amanda's journal enough tonight - but perhaps it would be best not to try and couch it in intellectual terms.

[x-kitten.livejournal.com]

As I see it, what you're asking for here is for people to have more respect for your emotional involvement with history.

Mine, and Amanda's too. Amanda posts, admitting that she's been wrong about something she's long believed and has as much of an emotional tie to as I do, then gets pounced on for not being wrong enough without any consideration for the fact that it's not just an itellectual, factual question for either of us.

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

As I see it, what you're asking for here is for people to have more respect for your emotional involvement with history. Which is fair enough

I officially will claim this as validation that no one has any call ever to drag me out of the lab again. "Emotional involvement with history". I seriously hope you were being sarcastic.

[x-kitten.livejournal.com]

I am willing to not jump down your throat for that, but I would very much like to know what you mean by that, Forge.

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

Simple - history's just information. If it didn't happen to you, why are you upset by it? I honestly don't get it. It's like Dani and her occasional crusade to take the Evil White Men to task for stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. No reason to it at all.

[x-mirage.livejournal.com]

I am ignoring you.

[x-sanfuaiyaa.livejournal.com]

Wow. For a genius, you sure are a fucking idiot.

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose I should have expected that from the guy who thinks of himself as an entire country instead of an individual.

[x-sanfuaiyaa.livejournal.com]

It's from the guy who sees himself as one part of a family, a culture, an empire. (Well, a democracy, but we still have an Emperor, even if he is a figurehead.) You should read Confucius. Maybe you'll be enlightened.

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

I get that - but I can't help but see that as restrictive. I know that it gives you a sense of identity, but I've always had that just from being myself. Different strokes, and all that.

[x-sanfuaiyaa.livejournal.com]

I am just myself. But my self also includes the selves of the others who came before me and paved the way for me. They do not restrict me. They are me, so I establish my own boundaries.

[x-cassidy.livejournal.com]

There're times that I wish everyone thought like that.

And then I think about what we'd lose if they did.

Who or what inspires you, Mr Forge? Who do you want to grow up to be like? Or surpass?

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

Who or what inspires you, Mr Forge? Who do you want to grow up to be like? Or surpass?

Everyone, really. It's inevitable.