Dehumanization, part one of three

I don't think I have enough time this semester to devote to blogging. But I promised to post about the theme of dehumanization appearing in all three of my classes last, so here goes part one in what looks to be a three-part post.

In my Tuesday class the history of the crusades, we started talking about the different perspectives of the participants (willing or not) in the crusades. One of the assigned readings, "The Crusaders' Perceptions of Their Opponents," by Margaret Jubb, discusses the labels used by (Latin) Christian chroniclers. She asserts, "It is significant that the term 'Muslim' is absent from medieval sources. Instead, the crusaders' opponents are variously described by the chroniclers as 'infidels', 'Gentiles', 'enemies of Christ/God', and above all, 'pagans'." [This is on page 228 of the book, Palgrave Advances in the Crusades, edited by Helen Nicholson. Someday blogging will advance enough to allow a respectable footnote.] This is an interesting observation, but it would have been more interesting had her article discussed more than just the crusaders' Muslim opponents. How did chroniclers label other opponents? Did they also insist on ignoring evidence that contradicted their views of their other opponents the same way that they ignored evidence about Muslims' religious practices? (Jubb points out how the chroniclers ignored evidence of Muslims' monotheistic and aniconic religion. - p. 229) By comparing the use of labels, I think her argument regarding the use of the "other" to define themselves would have been broadened, strengthened, and enabled to ask more probing questions about medieval perceptions of the "other."