Although the Crusades are popularly viewed as religiously inspired campaigns to recapture the Holy Land, students should recognize them as a result of the social and economic events in Europe between 1000 and 1200. Religious and secular leaders seeking to end the fighting among feudal lords seized upon the Crusades as a means of redirecting that aggression. Feudal knights who would not be inheriting their family properties eagerly enlisted in the Crusades as a way to win wealth or status. The idea of the pilgrimage was a powerful one, and the Crusades were basically armed pilgrimages to the Holy Land. The various Crusades ultimately failed. The sack of Constantinople was a fitting denouement to the whole concept. The interaction with the East brought to Europe not only Arabic translations of Greek texts, but also original Arabic and Iranian scientific and philosophical works.
Oh thats easy; its <u>Buddhism.</u>
Elitist because they were the one that had more power
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
False.
Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916, becoming the first Democrat to serve two consecutive terms since Andrew Jackson.
