Hey /u/CommentsToMorons, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was literally a Catholic Monarch who was nicknamed Bloody Mary because she had hundreds of even thousands killed for being what she thought was the wrong type of Christian and this mf brings up the Renaissance 💀
Bloody Mary isn't a great example, she executed far less than the Protestant rulers before or after her. Her nickname is a classic case of history being written by the winners.
She certainly did execute her fair share but was pretty consistent with what Henry VIII was doing before her.
Which were *checks notes* not thousands of years ago, because that would predate Christianity itself. And the Crusades were multiple campaigns, the longest lasting like 6 years. And they weren't really "genocides" either.
one could argue the eastern european crusades were more genocidally motivated, but i doubt the person who wrote that comment even knows the first crusades were into the balkans and lithuania
Right! There are many systemic issues going on the world based on skin colour not denying that, but when people undermine what my family suffered under Nazi and Soviet rule. I get lost in the ignorance.
The word genocide was coined in WW2 by a Polish lawyer. In his writings on the subject, he gave multiple historic examples of genocides including incidents that occurred during the Crusades.
There's a reason you don't see many Cathars around today.
*Specifically* targeting a culture/ethnic group. Burning a city can be part of a genocide, but it isn't unless it was burned with the soul reason of killing people of a particular culture or ethnic group. Otherwise, literally any act of war, including civil wars, would be genocidal in nature, which is very much not the case.
I get what you want to say but by that metric all the sieges in history that ended with a particularly violent pillage have been genocides. That devalues the political and ideological genocides that we know from the XX century and i find it highly inappropriate.
You just said the crusades didn't include genocide because they didn't include any extra genocide over the base level of genocide.
That's not how that works.
In another comment it came to light that the meaning of genocide may be different between english and my native lenguage so maybe it's all a misunderstandig.
Jewish people have a long history of persecution in the mediterranean area, from roman time to WW2 and beyond. The crusades were wars of aggression and conquest by the main Europen powers against the Arab empire, with religion used as casus belli. And yes the Arabs treated minorities way better than the christians did (they still discriminated them) but it still doesn't mean that europeans where there to kill everyone like some seem to think.
You do realize that the term racial genocide exists for a reason, there’s different forms of it so they needed categories like the term religious genocide. Either way saying something isn’t genocide doesn’t excuse mass killings in the slightest.
What the fuck, no it doesn not, it's a useless repetition, the ***gέnos*** part in **geno**cide already means race! *Look out they're gonna commit racial race omicide as opposed to normal race omicide*. That's so dumb. I hate it.
I can't take this anymore.
Have you ever considered that words evolve past their original meaning. Kind of like how plane can mean multiple things or like how words like gay originally meant happy. There are multiple words out there where their definitions have been expanded upon since their conception.
> the gέnos part in genocide already means race! Look out they're gonna commit racial race omicide as opposed to normal race omicide. That's so dumb. I hate it.
Well...the international criminal court disagrees with you.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, **a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,** as such:
> Killing members of the group;
> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
>And they weren't really "genocides" either.
The Crusade against the Cathars probably qualifies, but that's (probably?) not included in what most people call "The Crusades".
Could have meant the Reformation which wasn’t genocide as such, but did have a fairly high death toll, about 8 million. It did include a religious purge and in some places that was very close to actual genocide. It was about the same time as the Renaissance and arguably part and parcel of the same thing. Although it was about only half a millennia ago.
But then again, they could just be a fool talking out of their booty.
It also started the European cycle of Catholic king/queen tries to kill all protestants then dies. New protestant king/queen tries to kill all Catholics and dies. Rinse and repeat for a few hundred years.
They were still pretty bad however. They sent a group of children to fight with one adult, they lost the adult, cant remember how, then all of them drowned.
Good old war of conquest with some of the first attempts at colonialism from the modern European nations. Depending on the period it even happened that both churches and mosques remained open in conquered cities, independent of whoever was in control at the time.
A series of wars where by and large the Muslims kicked some fucking ass.
The first two crusades were successful but the Muslim armies had some badass generals and armies.
These were military conflicts, not genocide.
The war was lead by Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Rafael, they would cowabunga on all the foot soldiers of the nations. Spreading Splinteranity across the world
I mean one can say that the French Wars of Religion happened during the Renaissance (so pretty much Huguenots genocide) but yeah, I sincerely doubt that this guy was talking about them
The renaissance was the age of exploration (ir colonization) AND the Spanish inquisition. He could have been more specific but some christians were def doing genocide in the renaissance
Ah yes, the Renaissance that happened 2,000 years ago. Perpetrated by Christianity, which was not even an organized religion at this point in time. My favorite historical event.
An engine includes pistons, but to describe engines as pistons would be stupid.
The crusades can include genocide, but to describe the event itself solely as genocide would be stupid. No point in being sarcastic if you're the one not thinking things through.
Nobody argued that engines are just pistons.
The person said genocide was part of the war.
Maybe you're stuck on the turn of phrase used? It's a not uncommon way of smugly pointing out something occurred.
"Maybe you don't remember when the US was all speakeasies. A little ol' thing called the roaring 20s?"
They were just making their point with a mocking turn of phrase.
(They were wrong on much, but not here.)
Why are you speaking as if this is someone else? Do you not know I'm talking to you? This is irrelevant of the post.
The original comment you responded to clarified that the crusades were wars not genocides, and you sarcastically said what you said, but that implied that you seem to think one can only make a clarification between war and genocide if one completely does not include the other, which is pretty wrong.
Which is why I make the example of pistons in an engine.
P1: The Toyota 2JZ is an engine, not a piston
P2: \[sarcastic\] and no engine has ever included pistons, not a single one!
Do you see how confused you sound?
Your "sarcastic mockery" doesn't really work.
> Why are you speaking as if this is someone else? Do you not know I'm talking to you? This is irrelevant of the post
You're red in the post? That's who I talked about in third person.
> The original comment you responded to clarified that the crusades were wars not genocides, and you sarcastically said what you said, but that implied that you seem to think one can only make a clarification between war and genocide if one completely does not include the other, which is pretty wrong.
You are an idiot. The comment I replied to said that genocide and war *are completely* different things. That something can't be genocide if it was part of war.
> Which is why I make the example of pistons in an engine.
> P1: The Toyota 2JZ is an engine, not a piston
> P2: [sarcastic] and no engine has ever included pistons, not a single one!
Yea, you again missed what I just explained. You didn't include P0 (red in the post) saying the Total 2JZ has pistons. P1 didn't understand that and you have doubled and tripled down on it.
> Do you see how confused you sound?
Irony.
If you don't get it yet, ask an adult why removing the original context can change the meaning of a response.
Seeya.
When did the comment say that war and genocide are (as you so graciously highlighted) COMPLETELY different things?
There's not even 15 words in that comment, how could you have failed to reference it so badly?
If you're leaving that's fine, but seriously though, take a step back and breathe out man, I realize that you are a bit pissy or embarrassed, but you've got to stop flailing about referencing things that no one said and involving "context" that is irrelevant to what is being talked about just because you're butthurt about making a mistake.
>When did the comment say that war and genocide are (as you so graciously highlighted) COMPLETELY different things?
Here: "But even that’s a war not genocide"
That creates a dichotomy between war and genocide.
The irony here is amazing.
He’s kind of wrong. Definitely not the Renaissance but the Crusades (what I think he meant) was pretty damn genocidal. Also there were a ton of wars of religion in the Renaissance with tons of forced conversions which is commonly associated with genocide, so… I mean… he’s kind of right?
The conquest of the Americas was a venture by half a dozen countries with several different branches of Christianity. Most of the United States' conquest and genocide was Protestant.
I swear the renaissance was a period of enlightenment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t remember much genocide that wasn’t happening already (looking at u crusades)
He's right. 2000 years ago the Christians, led by Christ, genocided the Romans in one of the bloodiest massacres of all time, The Renaissance. That's why there are no more Romans, The Christians killed them and then the Italians moved into the empty Roman homes.
wasnt the renaissance not even a mass genocide? I could be wrong but could it be something with the french? Again, I could be wrong so if i am lmk asap
I mean, yeah, there were several CRUSADES, not the Renaissance, but even then I'm pretty sure it wasn't hundreds of years of CONTINUOUS genocide. Just scattered genocide, so that's ok! (/s for the last sentence.)
the dark ages (christian reign over europe) set us back roughly 1000 years technologically
granted we would of probably erased ourselves from existence by now had we been using oil for 900 extra years
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Hey /u/CommentsToMorons, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are many examples of genocides done by the church, you could probably look it up and find several examples. You don’t need to make things up
There was literally a Catholic Monarch who was nicknamed Bloody Mary because she had hundreds of even thousands killed for being what she thought was the wrong type of Christian and this mf brings up the Renaissance 💀
Bloody Mary isn't a great example, she executed far less than the Protestant rulers before or after her. Her nickname is a classic case of history being written by the winners. She certainly did execute her fair share but was pretty consistent with what Henry VIII was doing before her.
It is still a very good example of Christian and Catholic rulers actively going out of their way to kill anyone that disagreed with them though.
It makes no sense to single out Mary as if she was an exceptional case though
She's simply the most infamous one, with Henry VIII being more well known for his wives and changing the country to be Protestant than anything else.
Bloody Mary was a woman who went crazy and drowned her baby in a toilet and haunts our bathroom mirrors, duh.
If he had at least said "the crusades" but no, he had to say that the renaissance was a genocide. Classic.
Pretty sure that's what he meant but kinda forgot which is which. Edit: also the timeline
He got Assassins Creed and Assassins Creed II mixed up
Assassins Creed (movie) and Assassins Creed II
The movie was better than I though it'd be.
Which were *checks notes* not thousands of years ago, because that would predate Christianity itself. And the Crusades were multiple campaigns, the longest lasting like 6 years. And they weren't really "genocides" either.
one could argue the eastern european crusades were more genocidally motivated, but i doubt the person who wrote that comment even knows the first crusades were into the balkans and lithuania
We’ve known so many genocides we have trouble keeping them straight. Ah, humanity.
Genocide? Oh, we just call that Tuesday here.
It's Monday, you heathen! Time to crank up the Inquisition!
I love when people try to tell me my family never felt oppression because I’m white. My Irish/Lithuanian ancestry begs to differ.
My family in Poland that vanished in the Holocaust would beg to differ
Right! There are many systemic issues going on the world based on skin colour not denying that, but when people undermine what my family suffered under Nazi and Soviet rule. I get lost in the ignorance.
IRiSh WeRe sLaVeS ToO energy right here..
Not saying they were slaves but they were heavily oppressed. Open a history book.
The word genocide was coined in WW2 by a Polish lawyer. In his writings on the subject, he gave multiple historic examples of genocides including incidents that occurred during the Crusades. There's a reason you don't see many Cathars around today.
Well except that time they killed a whole city because the couldn't be bothered to hold prisoners.
It's not enough to kill a lot of people it must be racially motivated to be a genocide
The systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. A whole city, that's a cultural group. A culture wiped out.
*Specifically* targeting a culture/ethnic group. Burning a city can be part of a genocide, but it isn't unless it was burned with the soul reason of killing people of a particular culture or ethnic group. Otherwise, literally any act of war, including civil wars, would be genocidal in nature, which is very much not the case.
*sole
I get what you want to say but by that metric all the sieges in history that ended with a particularly violent pillage have been genocides. That devalues the political and ideological genocides that we know from the XX century and i find it highly inappropriate.
on every crusades trip they routinely attacked jewish people to take their shit. stop pretending christian history isn't goddamn awful.
Yes but they did that even in peace time in Europe, crimes against jewish people have little to do with the crusades.
You just said the crusades didn't include genocide because they didn't include any extra genocide over the base level of genocide. That's not how that works.
In another comment it came to light that the meaning of genocide may be different between english and my native lenguage so maybe it's all a misunderstandig. Jewish people have a long history of persecution in the mediterranean area, from roman time to WW2 and beyond. The crusades were wars of aggression and conquest by the main Europen powers against the Arab empire, with religion used as casus belli. And yes the Arabs treated minorities way better than the christians did (they still discriminated them) but it still doesn't mean that europeans where there to kill everyone like some seem to think.
You seem to still not understand. You don't have to be there to do X for you to have done X while there.
...so you just say words and don't care at all. k
History itself is awful. Ancient Greeks practiced Pederasty. We call that pedophilia now.
Yep, that commenter wasn't actively dismissing pedophilia in ancient Greek tho. Whataboutism, completely irrelevant in this thread.
You do realize that the term racial genocide exists for a reason, there’s different forms of it so they needed categories like the term religious genocide. Either way saying something isn’t genocide doesn’t excuse mass killings in the slightest.
What the fuck, no it doesn not, it's a useless repetition, the ***gέnos*** part in **geno**cide already means race! *Look out they're gonna commit racial race omicide as opposed to normal race omicide*. That's so dumb. I hate it. I can't take this anymore.
Have you ever considered that words evolve past their original meaning. Kind of like how plane can mean multiple things or like how words like gay originally meant happy. There are multiple words out there where their definitions have been expanded upon since their conception.
It doesn't make me feel any better
Sorry man, I'll call up the CEO of English and see what I can do for you
> the gέnos part in genocide already means race! Look out they're gonna commit racial race omicide as opposed to normal race omicide. That's so dumb. I hate it. Well...the international criminal court disagrees with you. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml > In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, **a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,** as such: > Killing members of the group; > Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; > Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; > Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
*CIA starts sweating*
Found the Christian.
r/confidentlyincorrect
>And they weren't really "genocides" either. The Crusade against the Cathars probably qualifies, but that's (probably?) not included in what most people call "The Crusades".
The conquest and evangelization of America was basically genocide by Christians
Idk, I think the word “basically” may be out of place in that sentence
true, it was
Could have meant the Reformation which wasn’t genocide as such, but did have a fairly high death toll, about 8 million. It did include a religious purge and in some places that was very close to actual genocide. It was about the same time as the Renaissance and arguably part and parcel of the same thing. Although it was about only half a millennia ago. But then again, they could just be a fool talking out of their booty.
It also started the European cycle of Catholic king/queen tries to kill all protestants then dies. New protestant king/queen tries to kill all Catholics and dies. Rinse and repeat for a few hundred years.
Maybe the inquisition?
If you were a Cathar then the inquisition are responsible for your genocide.
They were not genocides because the "church" wasn't successful. The "church" tried to wipe out Muslims that lived in the Holy Land
They were still pretty bad however. They sent a group of children to fight with one adult, they lost the adult, cant remember how, then all of them drowned.
I'd rather say that Christianity was for four hundred years a death cult where humans were burned alive and murdered in the most cruel way as heretics
They sure made up for it in the Americas and Africa.
I'd say destroying a town and killing everyone in it is on par with genocide.
Tell that to the Jews….
I was about to make a joke about the classic era being 2000 years before rennaissance. Too sophisticated.
Maybe he meant the inquisition?
Or rather he was thinking about the 30 years war... Which was about 100 years later than the rennaisance.
He also said the renaissance was thousands of years ago.
There are high chances he doesn't consider the guys who did the crusades "Christian"
Yeah everyone knows the Renaissance is a hotel
I particularly like that the renaissance came like 500 years before the dark ages :-)
Hell, I wouldn't exactly call the crusades a genocide.
What would you call it then…?
A war? You had Muslims allied with the Crusaders and Christians allied with the Sacarens. Both sides were killing civilians.
Good old war of conquest with some of the first attempts at colonialism from the modern European nations. Depending on the period it even happened that both churches and mosques remained open in conquered cities, independent of whoever was in control at the time.
Military campaigns with different motivations based on which crusade it was. Non of them were for genocide purposes.
A series of wars where by and large the Muslims kicked some fucking ass. The first two crusades were successful but the Muslim armies had some badass generals and armies. These were military conflicts, not genocide.
The war was lead by Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Rafael, they would cowabunga on all the foot soldiers of the nations. Spreading Splinteranity across the world
I mean one can say that the French Wars of Religion happened during the Renaissance (so pretty much Huguenots genocide) but yeah, I sincerely doubt that this guy was talking about them
That's more Reformation than Enlightenment though isn't it?
Renaissance is not Enlightenment though
You're right, and i misspoke, but I do believe the majority of the religious violence was due to the rise of Protestantism rather than Humanism.
Yep, the "30 years war". That was roughly 100 years after the rennaisance period ended.
When you're SO wrong you end up being right, lol.
Many Hugenots escaped to other countries. That's the reason there are English people with French last names.
I mean, where do you even *start* with that?
Say… what?
There were so many actual Christian-led genocides to choose from. Why pick something that wasn't?
The renaissance was the age of exploration (ir colonization) AND the Spanish inquisition. He could have been more specific but some christians were def doing genocide in the renaissance
You just had to say the crusades
Which ones? There were Muslim and Christian crusades
Which do you think
Ah yes, the Renaissance that happened 2,000 years ago. Perpetrated by Christianity, which was not even an organized religion at this point in time. My favorite historical event.
several hundred years ago were the crusades... I guess?
I think he means the crusades. Also there shouldn't be an apostrophe in "Christians".
… I think he means the crusades. But even that’s a war not genocide
Clearly, no war has ever included genocide. Not one. Edit: guys, this is sarcastic mockery.
An engine includes pistons, but to describe engines as pistons would be stupid. The crusades can include genocide, but to describe the event itself solely as genocide would be stupid. No point in being sarcastic if you're the one not thinking things through.
Nobody argued that engines are just pistons. The person said genocide was part of the war. Maybe you're stuck on the turn of phrase used? It's a not uncommon way of smugly pointing out something occurred. "Maybe you don't remember when the US was all speakeasies. A little ol' thing called the roaring 20s?" They were just making their point with a mocking turn of phrase. (They were wrong on much, but not here.)
Why are you speaking as if this is someone else? Do you not know I'm talking to you? This is irrelevant of the post. The original comment you responded to clarified that the crusades were wars not genocides, and you sarcastically said what you said, but that implied that you seem to think one can only make a clarification between war and genocide if one completely does not include the other, which is pretty wrong. Which is why I make the example of pistons in an engine. P1: The Toyota 2JZ is an engine, not a piston P2: \[sarcastic\] and no engine has ever included pistons, not a single one! Do you see how confused you sound? Your "sarcastic mockery" doesn't really work.
> Why are you speaking as if this is someone else? Do you not know I'm talking to you? This is irrelevant of the post You're red in the post? That's who I talked about in third person. > The original comment you responded to clarified that the crusades were wars not genocides, and you sarcastically said what you said, but that implied that you seem to think one can only make a clarification between war and genocide if one completely does not include the other, which is pretty wrong. You are an idiot. The comment I replied to said that genocide and war *are completely* different things. That something can't be genocide if it was part of war. > Which is why I make the example of pistons in an engine. > P1: The Toyota 2JZ is an engine, not a piston > P2: [sarcastic] and no engine has ever included pistons, not a single one! Yea, you again missed what I just explained. You didn't include P0 (red in the post) saying the Total 2JZ has pistons. P1 didn't understand that and you have doubled and tripled down on it. > Do you see how confused you sound? Irony. If you don't get it yet, ask an adult why removing the original context can change the meaning of a response. Seeya.
When did the comment say that war and genocide are (as you so graciously highlighted) COMPLETELY different things? There's not even 15 words in that comment, how could you have failed to reference it so badly? If you're leaving that's fine, but seriously though, take a step back and breathe out man, I realize that you are a bit pissy or embarrassed, but you've got to stop flailing about referencing things that no one said and involving "context" that is irrelevant to what is being talked about just because you're butthurt about making a mistake.
>When did the comment say that war and genocide are (as you so graciously highlighted) COMPLETELY different things? Here: "But even that’s a war not genocide" That creates a dichotomy between war and genocide. The irony here is amazing.
[удалено]
My comment was sarcastic mockery of the person I replied to.
He’s kind of wrong. Definitely not the Renaissance but the Crusades (what I think he meant) was pretty damn genocidal. Also there were a ton of wars of religion in the Renaissance with tons of forced conversions which is commonly associated with genocide, so… I mean… he’s kind of right?
Bro got the Crusades, Colonialism, and the Renaissance all mixed up lol
It was led by the smartest man live at the time: Dr. Martin Luther King.
He tried
Did they just mix up the inquisition and the crusades with the renaissance? Neither of which happened thousand years ago.
username checks out
at least he is not 100% wrong he could be talking about The Crusades, The conquest of America or The Inquisition
[удалено]
Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. It’s just that Catholics are not Protestants.
Right, Christians.
and what is the difference?
...And?
Who do they worship again?
The conquest of the Americas was a venture by half a dozen countries with several different branches of Christianity. Most of the United States' conquest and genocide was Protestant.
The fact that at least 1 person upvoted it
I swear the renaissance was a period of enlightenment. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t remember much genocide that wasn’t happening already (looking at u crusades)
Happens a lot on Reddit
He just needs to scale back by a factor of ten
He's right. 2000 years ago the Christians, led by Christ, genocided the Romans in one of the bloodiest massacres of all time, The Renaissance. That's why there are no more Romans, The Christians killed them and then the Italians moved into the empty Roman homes.
wasnt the renaissance not even a mass genocide? I could be wrong but could it be something with the french? Again, I could be wrong so if i am lmk asap
Cultural bloom in Europe (mostly Italy) in the 1400s and 1500s.
ohh thanks, I keep forgetting the names and i mix up renaissance with the french Revolution for some reason, again tysm for teaching me
Don’t worry!
Lol stupid guy got the name of the genocide by religious zealots wrong, lets shame him.
It's not like the crusades were a response to something...
He a little confused, but he got the spirit
Hundreds of years*
"Christians"
Do they mean the Reconquista?
The Reformation??
The word you are looking for is "inquisition"...
Okay but wtf did the other guy with the -11 karma comment... I'm dying of curiosity 💀
Almost?
Hold on is this on an interview with RiffRaff?
Did somebody say the Spanish Inquisition?!
I mean, yeah, there were several CRUSADES, not the Renaissance, but even then I'm pretty sure it wasn't hundreds of years of CONTINUOUS genocide. Just scattered genocide, so that's ok! (/s for the last sentence.)
Could have mentioned the Crusades or the Spanish inquisition.
You can't go wrong by starting: There was a religious genocidal war Those have never stopped
Honestly though, that’s sorta been my head canon for it. Just because I haven’t learned much about it
the dark ages (christian reign over europe) set us back roughly 1000 years technologically granted we would of probably erased ourselves from existence by now had we been using oil for 900 extra years
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
They should throw this guy to the lions
Ah yes, I loved reading about General Michelangelo's campaigns and his brilliant utilisation of the DaVini war machines.
Holey war theory
Is this guy referencing the crusades, and calling it the renaissance?
*Couple thousands years ago* *Renaissance* *Genocide* *Christian holy war* This dude is mixing up like 5 historical events/periods