|
Post by HCFC45 on Mar 10, 2017 7:54:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 10, 2017 8:03:01 GMT -5
Say it ain't so, Phil
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 10, 2017 8:46:16 GMT -5
This is absolutely insane. Political correctness will destroy our society if we do not rein it in.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 10, 2017 9:08:40 GMT -5
Once again people on a quest to find things to be offended about.
I can't speak for the paper, but the alumni office is well aware that changing the mascot will have serious financial repercussions as many older alums will stop giving.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Mar 10, 2017 9:26:53 GMT -5
I wrote several years back on this very board that "Crusaders" will be gone at some point. Honestly, I'm surprised we've kept it this long given the political environment on campuses. My bigger concern about HC is that our admin/faculty has become increasingly homogeneous in thought and hyper-politicized.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 10, 2017 10:29:24 GMT -5
So, to be sure of this, if we find something like the name of a school paper or a college masco we don't like, all we need to do is to find some other group (no connection is needed) that is offensive and uses the same name and we can get what we dislike removed. In NJ the Archdiocese of Newark once published the Advocate (a monthly paper). It was pointed out that the gay community had a paper also taking the name the Advocate. The Church then changed the name of their paper to the"Catholic Advocate." At least they kept part of the original name. PC is running amok. Can common sense please find a place here?
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Mar 10, 2017 10:32:53 GMT -5
I just sent this message to some friends in the Development Office and shared it with the Executive Committee of the Friends of Crusader Football . . . with the emphasis on Crusader: I recently saw these paragraphs in a commentary that ran in the Worcester Telegram. The college's use of "Crusader," meanwhile, may also be up for debate. Last June, for example, Holy Cross' president, the Rev. Philip L. Boroughs, acknowledged in a letter to the campus that "members of our community, on- and off-campus, would like us to consider the appropriateness of the 'Crusader' mascot in light of our commitment to interreligious understanding."
In a statement issued Thursday, the college said: "While discussions over the student newspaper's name and college's mascot are challenging and difficult, (Rev. Boroughs) is committed to exploring the history and meaning of 'The Crusader.' " That topic will be the focus of two events on campus this spring: a lecture by historian Kevin Madigan on the Crusades on March 23, and a panel discussion on Holy Cross' use of the Crusader nickname on April 11. Both events are free and open to the public, according to the college. www.telegram.com/news/20170309/effort-afoot-at-holy-cross-to-change-student-newspapers-nameI shudder to think that Holy Cross is going to fall in line with the prevailing pervasive political correctness that strikes me as crippling our nation and the real true personal leadership that our younger brethren need. I am all for acknowledging any shortcomings or wrong doings of the past but have no interest in cowering to those who would dictate what each and every symbol truly means. I may just have to come to Worcester on April 11th and voice my opinion. Should I put off my getting my tattoo of the HC shield? I am actually likely going to get a tattoo of the Greek letters η ΤΑΝ Η ΕΠΙ ΤΑΣ which mean "with it or on it" in regard to that shield. I think we need more of that than the political correctness that we recently witnessed at Middlebury. I love breaking my brothers' balls who went there over that. I guess I should not be surprised that this day has come but when is enough is enough. This is all you needed, right? Feel free to share my message with anybody whom you may want. Happy Friday, gentlemen!! LD
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 10, 2017 10:36:26 GMT -5
we can be against eliminating the Crusader mascot, without a diatribe on political correctness. we can get more supporters to our cause with less invective, just using tradition and love of school (i am against most political correctness causes)
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 10, 2017 10:37:22 GMT -5
OK, to stay current, why not honor the current protestors whose complaints can seem limitless. To that end, I would suggest the College of the Holy Cross "Snowflakes." If we decide that a symbol, any symbol, can be defined by someone who has no direct connection to that symbol, we are in real trouble as a society. At least at HC, this discussion is being held in house. Hoops, Your statement was quite positive in regard to this touchy subject. However, it seems that those who raise objections are not bound by rules of civility. I can hold a serious conversation with anyone on almost any topic, but when there is no clear need to do something I think an obligation to make a fair argument for a change falls to those desiring it. Just saying, in effect - change it because it offends me - is not a very strong argument. Forming committees and having dialogues has already advance the cause of change by setting the argument for change on an equal footing with the tradition/symbol that someone is trying to eliminate. DEUS VULT
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Mar 10, 2017 11:26:06 GMT -5
"Crossmen" "Crosswomen" Logo: Man and Woman standing with large Cross behind them at the middle (Much more direct attention to the essence of HC without puerile reference to unfortunate 13th century history.)
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Mar 10, 2017 11:31:02 GMT -5
'Sota can u repost a Muslim incursion of europe over time map that you posted in past.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 10, 2017 12:03:39 GMT -5
My two cents:
1. Blaming a misdirected letter for possibly changing the newspaper name is lame. If you want to change the name because you find it offensive, show some guts and change it for that reason.
2. I know I have read that the "Tomahawk" name was given up decades ago because it evoked images of a "whooping savage" that some deemed offensive. (Need Father K, God rest his soul, at a time like this.) Therefore, it looks to me like HC was ahead of the pack on recognizing that words matter.
3. While many alums might threaten to withhold contributions over a name change, others would be inclined to give because of it. Not that any of that should matter. If the name is offensive, it should go.
4. While the College belongs, in some sense, to all of us because we are alums and/or loyal fans, the principal consistency of the Board of Trustees and the administration are the students and faculty, not us. If the students overwhelmingly want a name change, that should hold a lot of weight. If they are split, that should suggest caution on the part of the decisionmakers.
5. For me, I don't need the name to change. I think it is appropriate to explain what the choice of name means---that our athletes are courageous in the field of battle---to place it in a historical context, and to restate the commitment to religious freedom.
6. Leadership requires guts. The College did not show it in the lame, splitting the baby, decision regarding Father Mulledy. Let's hope that they show it here. While I am happy to keep the name Crusader, I am not going to lose sleep over a thoughtful decision to change it at the behest of a significant part of the College community.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 10, 2017 12:06:08 GMT -5
Writing that post made me miss the good old days.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 10, 2017 12:06:24 GMT -5
The next thing you know, our PL brethren down in Bethlehem will decide their mascot isn't sufficiently inclusive of students who aren't engineering majors and change to a bird not commonly found in PA
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 10, 2017 12:29:49 GMT -5
"Crossmen" "Crosswomen" Logo: Man and Woman standing with large Cross behind them at the middle (Much more direct attention to the essence of HC without puerile reference to unfortunate 13th century history.) I am not sure any reference to the current mascot of Holy Cross is either childish or silly to those who make it. If so, "puerile" may not be an appropriate term to describe it or its place in history. Are you aware how offensive the symbol of a "Cross" in any form is to some? I won't post a silly or childish list of those who are so offended, but it might not be better than the current situation. Offense can still be taken.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 10, 2017 12:35:46 GMT -5
My two cents: 1. Blaming a misdirected letter for possibly changing the newspaper name is lame. If you want to change the name because you find it offensive, show some guts and change it for that reason. 2. I know I have read that the "Tomahawk" name was given up decades ago because it evoked images of a "whooping savage" that some deemed offensive. (Need Father K, God rest his soul, at a time like this.) Therefore, it looks to me like HC was ahead of the pack on recognizing that words matter. 3. While many alums might threaten to withhold contributions over a name change, others would be inclined to give because of it. Not that any of that should matter. If the name is offensive, it should go. 4. While the College belongs, in some sense, to all of us because we are alums and/or loyal fans, the principal consistency of the Board of Trustees and the administration are the students and faculty, not us. If the students overwhelmingly want a name change, that should hold a lot of weight. If they are split, that should suggest caution on the part of the decisionmakers. 5. For me, I don't need the name to change. I think it is appropriate to explain what the choice of name means---that our athletes are courageous in the field of battle---to place it in a historical context, and to restate the commitment to religious freedom. 6. Leadership requires guts. The College did not show it in the lame, splitting the baby, decision regarding Father Mulledy. Let's hope that they show it here. While I am happy to keep the name Crusader, I am not going to lose sleep over a thoughtful decision to change it at the behest of a significant part of the College community. alum, Well put. However, as I posted elsewhere, we need to remember that the Cross itself is offensive to some. (Remember the push for removal of crosses and other religious symbols at Georgetown, demanded by Muslim students, among others.) We celebrate "difference through diversity" in many ways, and then seem to want to strike out anything that marks someone or something as "different." Doesn't that seem to go against the desire for diversity?
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 10, 2017 13:09:19 GMT -5
RGS
When we were discussing the Mulledy affair, I expressed that I thought that in considering this, as Georgetown also had to do, we had to ask ourselves if the positives outweighed the negatives taking into account the times in which Father Mulledy lived. Georgetown clearly needed to take his name off of the building, in my mind, because his decision to sell the slaves was completely interwoven with the reason he was admired---for rescuing the College's finances. In evaluating his legacy at HC, we did not have the exact same problem. Our decision had to be whether his actions at Georgetown were so egregious as to taint his tenure in Worcester. Had I had a vote, I would have said, "yes," but I realize that it is a closer call, although as I expressed above the compromise was wrong. If his legacy was bad enough to make a change, make a change. I think Yale went through the same thing with Calhoun College. Clearly John C. Calhoun was not the only slave owner in Congress, but he was a leader and a staunch supporter of slavery. I think that outweighed his other contributions to the nation and to Yale.
So, in considering the "cross" as a symbol of oppression to some, I would try to use the same process. Has Catholicism done more harm than good? EDIT I would answer this in the NEGATIVE and I don't even think that it is close. Therefore, I don't have a problem with keeping it. It is appropriate to acknowledge the wrongs that have been committed (and continue to be committed) in Christ's name, but I don't see the need to banish him and don't think that it is inconsistent with respect for diversity.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Mar 10, 2017 13:30:22 GMT -5
This is a case of a tired issue raising its unwanted head yet again. As I've said in other posts, the "Crusader" name should be no more offensive than the use of "knights" by a large number of colleges and high schools. These men were a collection of thugs in armor who committed in Europe the same kind of massacres and robberies that took place in the Holy Land during the Crusades. (Personally, I don't much care what some of the current students think. Like we were, they are just passing through. They don't own the place. The same goes for the faculty whose opinions reflect the trendy thinking of the times.)
On the Mulledy issue, the key difference was that his sale of the slaves was harshly criticized by his contemporaries. And a major problem with Yale's Calhoun College was that the name is no hold-over from the pre-Civil War era, but originated during the 1930s as part of the rewriting of the history of the Civil War, which accorded a sort of moral equivalence to the Union and Confederate causes despite the fact that the latter were fighting to preserve a society based on human slavery.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 10, 2017 13:44:26 GMT -5
Clarification: The Georgetown issue I raised had nothing to do with the building named Mulledy. I was referring to the demand by non-Catholic students (chiefly Muslims) that all Christian symbols be taken down on campus - especially all Crosses (I believe their chapel was exempt, but I am not certain).
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Mar 10, 2017 14:17:40 GMT -5
For the umpteenth time......my suggestion to replace "Crusaders" with "Crossmen" has absolutely nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with HISTORICAL Correctness. Some of you seem to be intellectually incapable of understanding that distinction.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Mar 10, 2017 14:43:10 GMT -5
Clarification: The Georgetown issue I raised had nothing to do with the building named Mulledy. I was referring to the demand by non-Catholic students (chiefly Muslims) that all Christian symbols be taken down on campus - especially all Crosses (I believe their chapel was exempt, but I am not certain). I recall reading about that issue. In the end, I seem to recall they solved it by having crosses as rendered by different cultures in the individual classrooms. As for "political correctness," my post, and probably many others, did not relate to Sarasota's position about of the "historical incorrectness" of the "Crusader" name, but to what is believed to be the the motivating factor behind the views of some current HC students and faculty. At the time of the Lord Jeff protests at Amherst, I strongly suspected that the students who opposed the name didn't know very much about American colonial history in general and the French-and-Indian War in particular. Similarly, it would not surprise me if certain HC students are largely unaware of the ugly realities of Medieval European social, political, and military history. (According the College's website, students need only take one course in "historical studies.")
|
|
|
Post by purple1 on Mar 10, 2017 15:15:00 GMT -5
The faculty has too much free time on their hands and wish to cause unrest where it is not welcome. The obvious non-attendance by faculty to athletic events is the complete opposite to what occurred during my time on campus. A true polarization has happened on campus to the detriment of the Holy Cross spirit and togetherness..... Go Crusaders !!
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Mar 10, 2017 15:29:36 GMT -5
Since our Crusader mascot is named "Iggy", why don't we just go with "The Iggies"?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Mar 10, 2017 15:52:02 GMT -5
Clarification: The Georgetown issue I raised had nothing to do with the building named Mulledy. I was referring to the demand by non-Catholic students (chiefly Muslims) that all Christian symbols be taken down on campus - especially all Crosses (I believe their chapel was exempt, but I am not certain).This is the absolute height of insanity. This makes as much sense as the pacifist students at West Point or Annapolis demanding that the schools stop teaching military strategy. The non-Catholic students who do not like symbols of Catholicism should simply choose to attend a different college.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Mar 10, 2017 15:56:03 GMT -5
The Crusaders committed atrocities as did the fighters of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski. But they were fighting defensive battles against the jihadis of an earlier time. Hail the Crusaders!
|
|