The (Jesuit) College of Holy Cross, whose mascot has been Crusaders for about a century, is under pressure to change its name like several other universities with the same mascot. While the College has decided to maintain its name due to tradition, the politically correct campus paper has unilaterally decided to change to
The Spire.
It is no coincidence that colleges who have this nickname have been under pressure to change. A couple have caved in. The word "crusader" in itself can mean many things, a crusader for civil rights, for example. In Holy Cross' case, it is clear that the mascot is related to the Crusaders sent out by the Vatican to wage war against the Muslims centuries ago (The Crusades). I am no expert on the Crusades, but I think it is safe to say there was much combat and senseless killings on both sides. Muslims remember it while most other people don't care much about it one way or another.
Many schools and sports teams have nicknames that suggest power and violence. Look at the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Detroit Tigers, New York Giants, etc. You don't see many teams called canaries. On the other hand, you have younger universities that deliberately choose names designed to be gentle, like the UC Santa Cruz Banana Slugs or the UC Irvine Anteaters. The whole thing about nicknames is getting ridiculous though I can certainly understand why Native Americans find the name (Washington) "Redskins" objectionable as well as Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indian mascot who is being put into retirement in 2019-thanks to pressure by Rob Manfred, the MLB commissioner who was gently reminding the Indians that the All Star game just happened to be scheduled for Cleveland in 2019. That could easily be shifted to another city if the Indians refused to listen to reason. By the way, the Atlanta Braves have had a similar logo for many dexcades which from year to year has appeared on their uniforms. I look for that to be the next to go.
As for the "Crusaders", just who is it offensive to? The answer is Muslims and, of course, their leftist allies. Even the term, "Holy Cross" is offensive to some Muslims. To keep the Crusader moniker would be tantamount to "Islamophobia". As we all know, Muslims must be accommodated in their demands. Bad things can happen if they aren't, such as lawsuits and maybe worse. Of course, I don't mean to lump all Muslims here. But it only takes one organization like CAIR to file a lawsuit or one deranged individual who sees it as a call for jihad.
Holy Cross has always been the Crusaders, and I am glad they are not caving to pressure. Too bad the student newspaper caved in to political correctness.
All this reminds me, however, that back in the days of ancient Rome, Christians were fed to the lions in the Colosseum. Maybe some Christian organizations can pressure the Detroit Lions to change their offensive name.
3 comments:
I think that the problem with "Crusaders" is that the whole point of the Crusades (and Crusaders) was to attack Muslims and Muslim lands. Was it a long time ago? Sure. But I don't think that calling a college team "The Nazis" will be a good idea 800 years from now despite how much time will have passed.
I generally agree with you about "Islamaphobia". It's a term that we need to retire, and we need to distinguish between anti-Muslim bigotry (which is bad) and legitimate criticism of an ideology/religion.
But with this? "Crusaders" just sends the wrong message. I don't think that your comparison to the Detroit Lions is apt. Maybe if they were the Detroit Colosseum Lions you'd have something. (Or the Detroit Jihadists?)
Though I'm not an expert on the CRusades I believe the Crusaders were sent to recapture lands taken by the Muslims in the Holy Land. Remember that Islam was born in present day Saudi Arabia and spread out by conquest. At later times, they were fighting Muslims in southern Spain, the very gates of Vienna and southern France among others. I would say that neither side was covered in glory especially since the Christians also killed a lot of Jews during the Crusades.
You are correct about Islamophobia. It is a term concocted by Islamist activists who want to silence all criticism and discussion of Islamic terror. It is wring to hate all Muslims as people because most are not terrorists. On the other hand we don't see Muslim armies marching against the terrorists with the exception of those military armies sent to fight by their rulers in places like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc. The real problem is Islam itself, which is no religion of peace. It is violent, intolerant and hateful and its teachings are still very relevant today.
My reference to the Lions was mostly in jest, but you get the point. Actually, it is more relevant than comparing Crusaders to Nazis.
But Gary, Aslan is a lion, THE Lion. Are you going to pressure C.S. Lewis PTE to rewrite all the Chronicles of Narnia?
Although I'm not an expert on the Crusades, I have written a few published reference entries on the subject, and did have to read a good deal of primary literature. The Byzantines had lost a lot of territory to the first four Caliphs, and the Umayyads, without western Europe lifting a finger in protest. Byzantium had held off several attacks by the Umayyads on its own. Fast forward 400 years or more (think about how old the United States is right now)... the Umayyad dynasty had been supplanted by the Abassids, and after many successions that dynasty had become weak, dominated by the leading generals of the Turkish warriors they had imported from central Asia, Seljuks and then Ottomans, who took over the caliphate for themselves. All these centuries, Christian pilgrims had freely come and gone to and from the holy sites around Jerusalem. But things got a little nastier under the Turks, plus Byzantium was a little weaker, and yelped for help. Pope Urban saw reasons to respond. The Crusaders did a lot of things, including sack Byzantium, which started to feel like the sorcerer's apprentice when they saw the rude, crude hordes they had called out of western Europe. They took Jerusalem, slaughtering Muslim, Christian and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately. They set up a few little kingdoms on the coast, which lasted 100 years or so. Not a terribly glorious episode, unless seen from a great distance.
Post a Comment