You are in a discussion with four or five strangers that seem to have at least a passing interest in history. Without openly discussing the twins of politics and religion, you want to learn more about your new companions and how they think. You decide to start a discussion about a historical topic and hope that it will prove more interesting than the current conversation about the weather. Hopefully, you will learn something interesting about each participant. What historical topic, if discussed, would be the most illuminating of a person’s political and historical biases?
The topic you choose needs to be well-known enough that the average person can discuss it. Ideally, it is recent enough to have primary sources with recorded opposing views and that any current disagreements reflect broader socio-political-religious differences.
After giving this a little thought, I’d shift discussion from the weather to the Crusades. Depending on a person’s understanding and biases, the Crusades range from a noble Christian salvation of a holy land, an unsuccessful wealth grab with a weak religious pretense, or a destabilizing intrusion of western forces and Christendom into a budding Muslim Seljuk Empire.
The Crusades have everything.
The disputes surrounding the Crusades mirror the disputes in political and religious thought today. What role should the West have in the development of the Middle East? What place should religious institutions have in government? How important is a Holy Land; is it worth protecting? Is Western Christianity a net positive? Is Western history “good”? Is it possible to separate religion and politics?
Even the name “Crusade” is charged and should evoke a response. I bet that even those with limited knowledge of the Crusades will show their priors because they will lean on their beliefs concerning Christianity or Islam or share the version of the Crusades they were taught in school.
Please let me know if you have a better recommendation.
Polly Wanna Math 