Loewen vs. Bentley and Ziegler

Loewen makes a really compelling argument about Christopher Columbus. He clearly expresses his disdain towards the teachings that students have recieved while young about Columbus's heroic actions. 

Columbus was a founder of half of the world. This is not true. There is evidence of vikings finding their way into North America prior to Columbus. There's evidence that Chinese and other countries have made their way to the Americas prior to Columbus. There are also groups called Native Americans. However, Columbus did popularize the travel between the eastern and western hemispheres.

Columbus went against popular "fact" and said that the earth wasn't flat and proved it on his brave expedition. I don't know how much more incorrect it could get. Irving did a good job at bringing this lie into the textbooks. Hardly anybody believed the idea that the earth was flat at the time. So Columbus wasn't really being extremely brave and risking falling into the void of space (if only space travel was so easy); he was just travelling in an unknown direction. And Columbus was not some scientific genius for discovering that the earth was flat.

Loewen does a good job at showing the Eurocentric teachings that have been spread to us. He's very passionate about it; perhaps a bit too passionate. Loewen rants in this selection about how everyone is wrong about Columbus. I believe Loewen, but he just goes on and on. Perhaps it's a bit better to remain concise, but still present your idea. Bentley and Ziegler's approach is much easier to grasp. There's very little bias, and it's concise. Then again, Loewen and Bentley and Ziegler are trying to present two different things revolving around the same person. Loewen is trying to convince his readers that the way Columbus is presented by America is wrong, Eurocentric, and full of lies. Bentley and Ziegler just say what Columbus did in 2 brief paragraphs.

Muslims and Christians

Based on the Christian documents, it does not seem possible for them to have had a more positive relationship with Muslims.  William of Tyre, the archbishop of Tyre, had nothing positive to say about the Muslims.  He seemed to have antagonized them at every given opportunity.  In Tyre's story of the Muslims blaming the Christians for placing a corpse of a dog in a Muslim temple, Tyre expresses his dissatisfaction against the Muslims; they threatened to slay every Christian for the action of a Muslim infidel.  This situation seems like a reasonable one to express his dissatisfaction of the Muslims.  However, in his first statements, he claims that Muhammad is not some proclaimed prophet.  Rather, he is an infidel who is the Son of Satan.  This antagonization of Muslims had no specific event to inspire it.  It was simply said, from what I know, from frustration.  And something coming from someone as high as an archbishop has the power to influence many others.