I don't follow what you're trying to say. Are you talking about the author of the book? He's called an "Imperial scholar." It doesn't matter what race he is. He/ she obviously is representing the empire's interests, particularly in the last paragraph that directly addresses the Thalmor with a milk-drinking apology on behalf of the empire.

You mention stormcloak supporters, then conclude "that is the nature of racism." If that is not what you meant, your wording is extremely poor.

It's meant to show your own rhetoric in different context.

Unfortunately the knowledge of simple english doesn't save you from reading comprehension.
Congratulations for repeating the same accusation that was also addressed below the post that has you fuming. Now if you could work past the term "holocaust denier"...

If I took your interpretation it would still mean both stormcloak and imperial apologists. I started with sentence on stormcloaks supporters, then what does the "visa versa" mean I wonder?

It is apparent the tone used in the "The Bear of Markarth" is very opinionated. But I take issue with the interpretation of the piece after establishing that. There is more than one way to interpret it:

A. Book is trying to tack blame on Ulfric Stormcloak and his rebellion due to the current ongoing war.

B. The book doesn't actually state when it was published; so its entirely possible the account could be written right after the Markarth incident before the beginning of the civil war in skyrim. Noting the piece never makes a mention to "Stormcloaks" other than Ulfric's name. Then, if the stormcloak rebellion is not a factor, what is the interpretation ?

(Note : The markarth incident happened in 4E 176; There's no mentioned date when the rebellion was officially established, but high king Torygg was not killed until 4E 201 some 25 years later)

Then its entirely possible the piece can be taken as criticism and account of Ulfric Stormcloaks possible actions during the incident.

Or, if you like, propaganda for the empire to distance itself away from the actions of Ulfric that may infuriate the public.

I would be most grateful if you provided sources on "fact that every other book about them notes that they perform human sacrifices, murder everyone that isn't forsworn, and surrender their mental faculties to hagravens." or at least; the specific passages you are deriving your conclusion from.

"Obviously" is not just your bias is it?
The necessity of the "White-Gold Concordat" is still up for debate last I heard.

Correction -> stormcloak supporters; visa versa; expanding to the nature of racism, where people are "Obviously" what your preconceived conclusions are.
I'm just not going to take full responsibility for poor wording if you can selectively ignore words altogether.

The decision to make Ulfric a scapegoat for the Markarth Incident was made shortly after the events- when he and his men were imprisoned. His rebellion didn't start right away because he was in prison for ten years. I don't interpret the book as a response to his rebellion, but as part of a CYA effort to the incident itself.

Whatever. You could try stating your points more simply.

Whatever. Read more carefully

Who exactly saids "decision to make Ulfric a scapegoat for the Markarth Incident was made shortly after the events" ? and the ten years figure ?

Where was it conclusively proven that Ulfric was only a scapegoat and not the instigator in fact?

Could you elaborate more on your sources? Since it doesn't look like its something in the texts.

reason why alot of peopel get the impression that its implying that the book is scapegoating Ulfric for the situation to me at least was i actually heard about the event from the jarl himself of markarth, stating that they hired ulfric to take back the city which eh did with his men in return of a safe place to worship talos "this is before he became a jarl, so he didnt have windhelm at his back or Ulfric's people might have been the surrounding Nords in that area so he does his duty and gets the people of the area a protected area of Talos worship...dunno coulda happen we dont knwo who Ulfirc's peopel are oringinally when he took the city..or we migth and i just dont know..can happen i dont knwo everythign lol". back tot he case, Ulfircs get hired to take city, does his job but when the Thalmor finds out, the jarls states that they ratted Ulfric out to save the Empire form getting into another war before it was ready. OKayyy, BUT political people cans ee the meaning behind it and semi-intellegent people cans ee the reason behind it, but in a country when honor is held above everythign to the common masses...that incident coulda caused a huge backlash on the popularity of the Empire in Skyrim, hell id be willing to bet that if Ulfric wasnt imprisoned for 10 years but escaped and formed his rebellion then which is the basis of which he rebells, U might have found a Skyrim alot more supportive of Ulfric seeing how during that time there was alot of feelings of betrayal and loss for participating in a war that saw the mighty Empire give up a whole providence AND ban the worship of a man who was so great he became god type of thing...ya i see the backlash being very very very bad for the empire then.


so as far as scapegoating the wording trys to imply that the empire wanted the city back BUT didnt ask for the inhuman bloodshed of Ulfrics actions and men in retakinging...

evidence---Ulfric goes to jail for 10 years and escapes, the Jarl who hired Ulfric still sits on his throne in the same city that Ulfric retook for him.

anyone else here done the foresworn specific quest?

hagravens explain a real lot about the foresworn, the way they dress and the way they fight and reason.

'nuff said.

Ulfric killed all of the leaders of the rebellion when he had to march against Markarth... the story is written from Foresworn witness accounts to an Imperial story teller and is written by an Imperial. What I said before is if you read it and remove the facts that are less evidently true, you have something that Ulfric likely did... and like sparing the life of Jarl Balgruuf, he didn't have the option.

I helped their leader escape from jail at the penalty of my own freedom (for a short time, admittedly) and he told me to watch my back because the Foresworn show no loyalty and will have their land back at any cost. Doesn't sound like sparing their lives would have been the best choice Ulfric could have made... all things considered.

sometimes if it's me or them it's gonna be them 'cause... well... just 'cause.

And you could also avoid throwing inflammatory terms around. Godwin's law and all that.

Igmund is my source. He admits they asked Ulfric to retake the city, then threw him and his men under the bus when the Thalmor found out about the deal that had been struck to allow Talos worship. He's both an eyewitness and admitting blame, so I consider him more credible than a book that's blameshifting for the empire.

Timeline: It has been some twenty years since the Markarth Incident (various Markarth residents). A loading screen says Torygg was killed "recently." The ten year figure, that's something I've seen on the forum and I'm not sure where it comes from. It might even be conservative, since the civil war seems to be in its early stages but it's been twenty years since the event that Ulfric claims was his turning point.

The book also doesn't refer to Ulfric's rebellion, hence why I say it's damage control for the Markarth Incident rather than a response to the civil war.

Note also that not everybody blames Ulfric for the Forsworn problem. Bothela is sympathetic with the Forsworn, for instance, but just says "they break her heart" and doesn't mention atrocities. She's been around a long time and would have been a witness.

http://www.imperial-library.info/content/legend-red-eagle


http://www.imperial-library.info/content/holds-skyrim


http://www.imperial-library.info/content/red-eagles-right



PGE 1 paints them in an even less kind light. But that one's been retconned so many times that I won't use it as another source.