Charles Martel The Hammer

[longly]

I was wondering, during the era of DEI, would a statue of Charles Martel erected in France be considered racist and xenophobic and torn down? Maybe you don’t know who Charles Martel was—he was a Frankish warlord who drove the Muslims out of France and saved Western Europe for Christianity. He was a brilliant military leader, but he was an individual of his time—very brutal, very vicious, and very successful. If someone wanted to erect a statue of him in a Muslim neighborhood as a statement of 'This is France,' would you consider it objectionable? There are already several statues of him across France.

I'm being transparent with you other posters—I’m letting you all know what I’m up to. I’m not trying to bait anyone; I just want to gauge how well you all understand history.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Erect statues of him anywhere in
France

 

[longly]

Sometimes I agree with the left, and sometimes I agree with the right. However, when it comes to history, it seems to me that conservatives have a better understanding of it—whether or not they've ever heard of the term 'zeitgeist.' I don't know how common this opinion is among the left, but I recall an individual once suggesting that the Washington Monument should be renamed for someone more deserving than a slave owner, that Washington's image should be removed from the $1 bill, and that Washington, D.C., should be renamed. The problem is that individuals like this often have a poor understanding of history. They might know historical facts and dates, but they fail to grasp the mindset of the times, which is crucial to understanding the lessons of history.

 

[BackAgain]

“ Charles Martel was—he was a Frankish warlord who drove the Muslims out of France and saved Western Europe for Christianity”

Damn. Long overdue for a statue.

 

[longly]

“ Charles Martel was—he was a Frankish warlord who drove the Muslims out of France and saved Western Europe for Christianity”

Damn. Long overdue for a statue.

It's a French decision. What do you think? Does he deserve one in every city?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's up to the French.

 

[BackAgain]

It's a French decision. What do you think? Does he deserve one in every city?

Every city in France. Heck. Every city in Europe.

In fact, we should put a few up in America, too.

 

[longly]

Every city in France. Heck. Every city in Europe.

In fact, we should put a few up in America, too.

Every city in France. Heck. Every city in Europe.

In fact, we should put a few up in America, too.

I think you're right. If one stops and considers it, Charles Martel did not only save the Frankish Kingdom (France) and Western Europe but also the Western world. If not for his courage, skill, and abilities, we might be Muslim today, and we would not have the religious tolerance that we now enjoy. So, you're right—we should have statues of him in our country as well, even in Dearborn, Michigan, to demonstrate to the Islamic residents there that they are now part of the Western world, where religious tolerance is expected.


The Battle of Tours (also called the Battle of Poitiers) took place on October 10, 732 and was a pivotal moment in European history. It was fought between the Frankish forces, led by Charles Martel, and the Umayyad Caliphate, led by Abd al-Rahman al-Ghafiqi.


Key Aspects of the Battle

• Tactics Used: Charles Martel relied on his heavy infantry, forming a strong defensive position against the Umayyad cavalry. His troops maintained their formation, resisting repeated cavalry charges.
• Outcome: The Franks emerged victorious, and Abd al-Rahman was killed in battle. The Umayyad forces retreated, marking the end of their expansion into Western Europe.

Consequences of the Battle

• Stopped Muslim Expansion: The victory halted the northward advance of the Umayyads into Europe, preventing further incursions beyond Spain.
• Strengthened Frankish Power: Charles Martel’s success solidified his control over the Frankish kingdom, paving the way for the rise of the Carolingian Empire.
• Shaped European History: Many historians view the battle as a defining moment that preserved Christian dominance in Western Europe.

 

[Zebra]

Sometimes I agree with the left, and sometimes I agree with the right. However, when it comes to history, it seems to me that conservatives have a better understanding of it—whether or not they've ever heard of the term 'zeitgeist.' I don't know how common this opinion is among the left, but I recall an individual once suggesting that the Washington Monument should be renamed for someone more deserving than a slave owner, that Washington's image should be removed from the $1 bill, and that Washington, D.C., should be renamed. The problem is that individuals like this often have a poor understanding of history. They might know historical facts and dates, but they fail to grasp the mindset of the times, which is crucial to understanding the lessons of history.

Zeitgeist is a good German word

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

for maga

zeitgeist​

noun​

zeit·geist ˈtsīt-ˌgīst ˈzīt-

often capitalized
: the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era

 

[longly]

It might be somewhat simplistic for me to say this, but right-leaning conservatives seem to have a better understanding of the zeitgeist—the spirit of the times—and, in other words, a deeper grasp of history. My impression is based solely on what I’ve observed in online discussion boards. Among the posters I’ve noticed, whether left- or right-leaning, it’s predominantly those on the right who appear to demonstrate a stronger historical awareness.

Of course, I admit my perception could be wrong, and I’m not aware of any academic studies that prove or disprove this idea. I do know that Afrocentric perspectives often align with the political left, and in my view, they tend to be way off base most of the time.

An example of misrepresentation or false impressions often found on the political left online: If you listen only to left-leaning voices, you might come away with the impression that during slavery in America, all slave masters were like Simon Legree. But that’s not how it was. People are far too complex to be reduced to stereotypes like that. Slave masters ranged across a spectrum—from those who were almost angelic, to those who were strictly businesslike, to those who were outright demonic.

Similarly, among the enslaved, experiences varied widely. Some were treated extremely well, almost like members of the family. Others were seen simply as workers who labored in exchange for food and shelter. And some were regarded as beasts to be used up. That’s the nature of any system where people hold power over others.

I’ve also noticed that many Black leftists Almost never criticize communism, despite its history as an insidious form of slavery. How is that reconciled?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The conservatives have almost no concept of zeitgeist at all.

Longly has no real grasp of D.E.I. either.

 

[longly]

The conservatives have almost no concept of zeitgeist at all.

Longly has no real grasp of D.E.I. either.

That doesn't coincide with what I remember. Back when we had a race forum. There was a discussion where a left-leaning poster claimed that whites went to Africa, kidnapped Blacks, and brought them back as slaves. It was the right-leaning conservative members of the board who were quick to point out that, at the time, whites didn’t have the Military technology and power to do that. But that fact didn’t seem to matter.

As far as DEI is concerned—why do we need a program for something that should come naturally? Just treat people as individuals.

If you're choosing an upside for a baseball game, you're going to pick the players you think give your team the best chance of winning—regardless of race, identity, sexuality, or ethnicity. That’s a microcosm of life and how people should be treated.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Longly writes three paragraphs and fails.

 

[longly]

Longly writes three paragraphs and fails.

How do you figure that? Let's simplify it.

The liberal posters seemed to believe Africa was a land of peaceful, helpless people—easy prey for European colonizers who could simply round them up like rabbits. But the conservative posters present a clearer picture: Africa wasn't composed of submissive populations. It was home to tough, warlike societies that Europeans could not easily overpower.

Especially in the early stages of the transatlantic slave trade, European slave traders arrived with limited military capability—often armed only with matchlocks, which were nearly useless in tropical conditions. There was no need for Europeans to launch full-scale invasions to capture slaves. Many African groups were already engaged in warfare and were willing to sell their enemies into slavery, they were not kidnapped but purchased. The choice was often stark: sell them or kill them. Leaving enemies alive risked future retaliation.

The mindset in many parts of Africa at the time was not one of pan-African brotherhood, but of tribal and regional hostility. In some areas, that legacy of division persists even today.

 

[longly]

How do you figure that? Let's simplify it.

The liberal posters seemed to believe Africa was a land of peaceful, helpless people—easy prey for European colonizers who could simply round them up like rabbits. But the conservative posters presented a clearer picture: Africa wasn't composed of submissive populations. It was home to tough, warlike societies that Europeans could not easily overpower.

Especially in the early stages of the transatlantic slave trade, European slave traders arrived with limited military capability—often armed only with matchlocks, which were nearly useless in tropical conditions. There was no need for Europeans to launch full-scale invasions to capture slaves. Many African groups were already engaged in warfare and were willing to sell their enemies into slavery; they were not kidnapped but purchased. The choice was often stark: sell them or kill them. Leaving enemies alive risked future retaliation.

The mindset in many parts of Africa at the time was not one of pan-African brotherhood, but of tribal and regional hostility. In some areas, that legacy of division persists even today.

 

[Mac-7]

I was wondering, during the era of DEI, would a statue of Charles Martel erected in France be considered racist and xenophobic and torn down? Maybe you don’t know who Charles Martel was—he was a Frankish warlord who drove the Muslims out of France and saved Western Europe for Christianity. He was a brilliant military leader, but he was an individual of his time—very brutal, very vicious, and very successful. If someone wanted to erect a statue of him in a Muslim neighborhood as a statement of 'This is France,' would you consider it objectionable? There are already several statues of him across France.

I'm being transparent with you other posters—I’m letting you all know what I’m up to. I’m not trying to bait anyone; I just want to gauge how well you all understand history.

Muslims have France by balls

The french would never be allowed to honor Martel

 

[Litwin]

Charles Martel

Charles Martel

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Longly defines what liberals think wrongly.

And there are statues of Charles Martel in France. Of course there are.

Here is one in the Versailles.

 

[longly]

I wonder if the Islamic residents of Seine-Saint-Denis know that the Hammer, an enemy to some at least, is interred in a cemetery within their community. I also wonder if the Islamic residents of that area demanded his removal—would the French government comply?