|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 20, 2017 14:46:26 GMT -5
What a colossal waste of time. Who is more likely to attend an event like this: an SJW who is "offended" by "Crusader" and is likely craving attention to display how intelligent and advanced they think they are, or someone who is disgusted with the whole process and sees no reason why the name should be changed (and have far better things to do with their time)? I would fear that despite the actual number of alums in the latter category being exponentially larger than the SJWs, the attendance at these things may be the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 20, 2017 14:49:52 GMT -5
The first one is in a time slot where only a college professor would be able to attend, not a working stiff like me. I will try to make the second if possible.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 20, 2017 15:29:13 GMT -5
Interestingly, if I have my schedule correct, the second one conflicts with the basketball game against Harvard! The first is an important conflict that I should not even attempt to get out of but normally us retired, non-working stiffs, might have been able to make. The students and faculty could be there though. Come to think of it, since they don't generally go to basketball games, they could probably go to the second one too. Forgive me ignorance, what is "SJW?"
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 20, 2017 15:29:41 GMT -5
What a colossal waste of time. Who is more likely to attend an event like this: an SJW who is "offended" by "Crusader" and is likely craving attention to display how intelligent and advanced they think they are, or someone who is disgusted with the whole process and sees no reason why the name should be changed (and have far better things to do with their time)? I would fear that despite the actual number of alums in the latter category being exponentially larger than the SJWs, the attendance at these things may be the opposite. Apparently there's more opposition to the Crusader than I thought. Rumor mill from the hill says the on-line surveys have been showing 98 percent opposed to changing the mascot. I would not have guessed that 2 percent would actually be in favor of a change
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 20, 2017 15:34:46 GMT -5
Interestingly, if I have my schedule correct, the second one conflicts with the basketball game against Harvard! The first is an important conflict that I should not even attempt to get out of but normally us retired, non-working stiffs, might have been able to make. The students and faculty could be there though. Come to think of it, since they don't generally go to basketball games, they could probably go to the second one too. Forgive me ignorance, what is "SJW?" The definition from Wikipedia sums it up quite well: "Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights,multiculturalism, and identity politics.The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signallingThe conflict with the basketball game is just too perfect.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 20, 2017 15:36:49 GMT -5
But, but, but . . . . we should not be offending both of those people! Time for a change. How 'bout the Holy Cross Impalers? Now lest you think that is a swipe at the modern day jihadists, the primary definition of "impale" is actually: "to join (coats of arms) on a heraldic shield divided vertically by a pole." I am sure only Phreek would know that and possibly RGS.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 20, 2017 15:40:05 GMT -5
Student to Coach Carmody or AD Nate Pine: "I'm sorry, I really wanted to go to the game and cheer on the team, honestly, but I am so upset about our politically insensitive school mascot that I had to express my objection in the Brooks Concert Hall." Uh-huh!
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Oct 20, 2017 16:17:53 GMT -5
I don’t feel as strongly on this issue as a lot of you. I basically think it’s silly political correctness, but a change will not change my affection for HC or make me less likely to contribute. What I do feel strongly about is the process that is being followed. When I got the original email and saw the composition of the “working group” I responded the the president. I pointed out that it would be appropriate to have more alumni representation, especially alumni who weren’t on the payroll. As I remember I used the term “bag job”. And now the scheduling of these meetings is absurd. I live resonably close to HC and know that I can’t make either of these sessions because of work or family commitments. It’s the process and the failure to take into account the options of a lot of people who have an emotional investment in the Crusader. I don’t really. But both sides should have input and that isn’t happening. And it’s a done deal.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 20, 2017 16:49:52 GMT -5
I don’t feel as strongly on this issue as a lot of you. I basically think it’s silly political correctness, but a change will not change my affection for HC or make me less likely to contribute. What I do feel strongly about is the process that is being followed. When I got the original email and saw the composition of the “working group” I responded the the president. I pointed out that it would be appropriate to have more alumni representation, especially alumni who weren’t on the payroll. As I remember I used the term “bag job”. And now the scheduling of these meetings is absurd. I live resonably close to HC and know that I can’t make either of these sessions because of work or family commitments. It’s the process and the failure to take into account the options of a lot of people who have an emotional investment in the Crusader. I don’t really. But both sides should have input and that isn’t happening. And it’s a done deal. I'm in your camp, spenser. I'm not going to abandon Alma Mater if (when) they change the mascot, nickname, whatever else to placate to the SJWs, but I will feel a lot less strongly about the place if they continue to display such a total lack of leadership and spine from anyone in Fenwick with activities like this nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by sader87 on Oct 21, 2017 21:10:28 GMT -5
What a colossal waste of time. Who is more likely to attend an event like this: an SJW who is "offended" by "Crusader" and is likely craving attention to display how intelligent and advanced they think they are, or someone who is disgusted with the whole process and sees no reason why the name should be changed (and have far better things to do with their time)? I would fear that despite the actual number of alums in the latter category being exponentially larger than the SJWs, the attendance at these things may be the opposite. Apparently there's more opposition to the Crusader than I thought. Rumor mill from the hill says the on-line surveys have been showing 98 percent opposed to changing the mascot. I would not have guessed that 2 percent would actually be in favor of a change I know I will totally get destroyed on this thread (most people with different views do), but I'll speak my peace and then go away so I don't get abused. I would have hoped for a far more open minded discussion and some reflection from liberal arts graduates about the "Crusader" name, rather than just assuming ALL people who think a change may be appropriate are just "SJWs." I don't consider myself to fall under that term, but I am willing to acknowledge that the Crusader may have a VERY different image to many, many others in the world. That doesn't mean I am just marching to the drum of political correctness or that I think I am more advanced or intelligent. I find that EXTREMELY offensive - wow, talk about judging people one doesn't know, putting them all in one box and essentially accusing THEM of being stupid as if they are robots to the PC wave. Sorry, I call me "trying to be understanding, thoughtful, reflective" - whatever. Is that so bad? Apparently "Yes." I've heard comments from my Jewish friends here when I tell them where I went to school of how offensive they find the mascot - not the school, but the mascot name. As a comparison, I was extremely interested in the Confederacy when I was a kid because of where I was born and my parents went along with it. I realize now that walking around the beach with my Confederate flag in the 70's (not long after we had to pass a Civil Rights Act to give people rights) probably negatively impacted others and I wouldn't do it today. As another example, back in the 90's when Soviet symbols were common on clothes, I remember an Eastern European immigrant in Chicago pointing out what the "CCCP" on my shirt meant to him - he said it was like me wearing a Swastika if he were Jewish. All I ask is that for those you who consider yourself Irish, ask yourself, would you be excited about a British team coming to town called the "Cromwells?" Go ahead now and beat the living stuffing out of me like many of you do to anyone who expresses a different opinion on these threads.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 21, 2017 21:22:35 GMT -5
Apparently there's more opposition to the Crusader than I thought. Rumor mill from the hill says the on-line surveys have been showing 98 percent opposed to changing the mascot. I would not have guessed that 2 percent would actually be in favor of a change I know I will totally get destroyed on this thread (most people with different views do), but I'll speak my peace and then go away so I don't get abused. I would have hoped for a far more open minded discussion and some reflection from liberal arts graduates about the "Crusader" name, rather than just assuming ALL people who think a change may be appropriate are just "SJWs." I don't consider myself to fall under that term, but I am willing to acknowledge that the Crusader may have a VERY different image to many, many others in the world. That doesn't mean I am just marching to the drum of political correctness or that I think I am more advanced or intelligent. I find that EXTREMELY offensive - wow, talk about judging people one doesn't know, putting them all in one box and essentially accusing THEM of being stupid as if they are robots to the PC wave. Sorry, I call me "trying to be understanding, thoughtful, reflective" - whatever. Is that so bad? Apparently "Yes." I've heard comments from my Jewish friends here when I tell them where I went to school of how offensive they find the mascot - not the school, but the mascot name. As a comparison, I was extremely interested in the Confederacy when I was a kid because of where I was born and my parents went along with it. I realize now that walking around the beach with my Confederate flag in the 70's (not long after we had to pass a Civil Rights Act to give people rights) probably negatively impacted others and I wouldn't do it today. As another example, back in the 90's when Soviet symbols were common on clothes, I remember an Eastern European immigrant in Chicago pointing out what the "CCCP" on my shirt meant to him - he said it was like me wearing a Swastika if he were Jewish. All I ask is that for those you who consider yourself Irish, ask yourself, would you be excited about a British team coming to town called the "Cromwells?" Go ahead now and beat the living stuffing out of me like many of you do to anyone who expresses a different opinion on these threads. It is not my intent to "destroy" anyone...ever. Clearly, being "understanding, thoughtful, reflective" is not "bad" at all. However, there may be opposition from other reflective, understanding, reflective people who disagree with your point of view. Our mascot currently looks to me like a poor imitation of "Marvin the Martian" of Warner Brothers cartoon fame. I have no strong feelings either way about the silly character he portrays. Do the folks you spoke to dislike "Iggy" that much? You may mean the school's nickname, rather than the mascot's name. My issue is that if you let others define what they believe a symbol means, there may be no stopping. That sort of reaction could strip away "Cross" or "Holy" or even the color Purple. Did you know the color refers to both spirituality and passion/lust? C.G. Jung might have something to say about that. (I have long used colors, art, and symbols in my post-trauma and grief counseling.) If over 85% of student surveyed at HC do not want the Crusader nickname changed, but three faculty members do, I can understand how some see that as bowing to a PC trend. We'll see how this plays out. PS: Thank you for sharing your opinion. The thoughts of all HC alums should be heard.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Oct 21, 2017 22:17:58 GMT -5
My issue is that if you let others define what they believe a symbol means, there may be no stopping. AMEN! How great would it be if instead of framing this discussion as whether or not we should eliminate the Crusader, we took this as an opportunity to have the HC community define what it means to be a Crusader and what makes being a Holy Cross Crusader special?
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 21, 2017 22:44:27 GMT -5
School is quickly spiraling out of control....one thinks of Nero and I attended HC well after Greek and Latin were mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Oct 22, 2017 9:39:46 GMT -5
I found it very interesting that during last evening's dinner there was never a mention of "crusader". Typically when referring to generous alum you would hear "John Doe is a very loyal Crusader". Last evening it was "John Doe is a very loyal Holy Cross alumn". Not sure if they were trying to stay away from using the term as it is a hot subject right now, but I noticed it was never mentioned. Hopefully we can have the discussion to say we had a discussion, keep the Crusader, and move on. We have many more important things to deal with than this noise.
|
|
|
Post by spenser on Oct 22, 2017 10:00:16 GMT -5
I’ve said this before and your information from last night bolsters my point. This is a done deal and despite all the emotion that will be expended until and after the decision is made in the spring it’s time to move on. This reminds me of the controversy regarding co-education which was raging during my student days. The same types of objections were raised then as are being raised now. Holy Cross survived, moved on, and prospered. This should not be taken as being for or against the dropping of the Crusader, merely an acceptance of reality.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 22, 2017 11:04:36 GMT -5
Actually, no. I would likely take advantage and make some irreverent jokes. Also I would cite it as an example of why people shouldn't get all worked up about most team names
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 22, 2017 11:28:00 GMT -5
87 said: Let me address the last highlighted portion first. Being a descendant from the last high king of Ireland and strong suspicions that at least some in the family tree were in the IRB, a forerunner of the IRA, I couldn't give two hoots if a British team called themselves the Cromwells. To me, that's ancient history and I dare say the Crusades were ancient, ancient history relatively speaking.
Pat McCarthy said it best about what a Crusader means to us in this day and age: "somebody who's fighting for others, for a cause, for a purpose" and as I previously posted "with zeal and enthusiasm."
I also am quite willing to acknowledge that there are some who might be offended by the term or logo of a Crusader. Does any of them truly believe that the Holy Cross Crusader is looking to kill, maim, rape or injure today's Jews, Muslims or anyone else? Any more than a lion, panther, bear or knight, raider, etc., etc. are trying to maul or cause harm to anyone?
How the heck was Ike able to write "Crusade in Europe" without being crucified? Oh, that's right, that was a different time when people were not so sensitive.
As I have posted before, I spent two years after retirement doing volunteer work at a middle school that while being non-denominational, is run by a bunch of Irish Catholics and the most diverse student enrollment you could imagine including a lot of Muslims and Jews besides the many black, white Asian and Latino students. The faculty and staff were also very diverse. No one had any problem getting along. The kids, faculty, staff and the parents all knew I was a Holy Cross Crusader, sometimes wearing HC gear. No problem.
I truly respect that others can have a different opinion and it is probably good to discuss and re-evaluate the meaning of the Crusader and whether or not he should be kept.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 22, 2017 12:57:00 GMT -5
Here's another thought on the Crusader: keep or kill.. We often hear posters on this board talking about the HC "brand" and how to build it. To refresh everyone's memory I'll repeat that a good definition of a "brand" is something that "is differentiated from competition and relevant to the consumer". Here's my proposal: after a thorough study of the Crusader name and mascot and after soliciting input from all interested parties, HC should keep things as is--no changes whatever-- and initiate a strong PR campaign to bring the story to public view. That could build and enhance the brand image as consumers conclude "Holy Cross?? Yeah, that's the great school that REJECTED the whining of the SJW's (99% of whom had no association with the college) and kept its long-time mascot. Holy Cross didn't bend to political correctness. I like that. Finally we see someone standing up against the nonsense. That must be quite a college!!!" Thus, differentiating Holy Cross from competitive institutions, and making it even more relevant to target consumers you build the HC " brand" for long lasting benefits to the college and its mission. SJW protests??!! Great! Can we get news coverage of them?
|
|
|
Post by ts1970 on Oct 22, 2017 20:21:37 GMT -5
Very intelligent concept, thought process and analysis. Agree 100% this would benefit the college in every way. Hold the line.....don’t cave....... STAND UP for a purely and innocently conceived, long held college tradition.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 23, 2017 13:01:25 GMT -5
A few things to the Crusader-as-offensive mascot counter-pointers:
You have no right to be un-offended, at all times. We should not be looking under every stone to remove any semblance of offensive or uncomfortable literature, symbolism, language, or history. That is the gripe I have with the so-called SJWs. They think that there is some greater, altruistic motivation to remove these prickly items from the world... but that is not what real life is.
Real life is going to have you come across uncomfortable language, bigoted people, hatred, war, misunderstanding, close-mindedness, and ignorance. You may come across those things just as much as love, kindness, generosity, empathy, understanding, tolerance, and charity. Again, there are no guarantees.
The real question then is how best do we teach or train or examine or study or aspire to navigate those instances in history, in fiction, in creative works, and life after/outside the college. Will that be best accomplished with the elimination of anything that bothers us, or worrying about what bothers every faction on earth? Or rather, will that be accomplished in an environment where ALL ideas are allowed to bubble up, and compete for the hearts and minds of students and faculty and the community at-large, with those best argued, believed, thoughtful, and touching the values that we would collectively acknowledge as "good" winning the day?
To use the sports corollary, I think that good opponents bring out the best in a talented team. This PC, SJW, BS (pick your acronym) essentially says, "This topic is tough and makes me feel bad," and seeks to get rid of it most simply by failing to acknowledge it. What's left are scores of young people that we fail to adequately teach and train, who are easily railroaded by bombastic, nonsensical hate-filled positions, with no recourse other than to bitch and moan and say "Don't say that, it hurts my feelings." They have no intellectual capacity or emotional strength to listen, observe, and tactfully and logically UNDRESS the opposing viewpoint.
We can't kick the bully's ass, or beat up the bad guy. We want there to be no bad guys because this is a perfect world. Well what happens when that bad guy and bully comes around the block?
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 23, 2017 13:25:50 GMT -5
I also am quite willing to acknowledge that there are some who might be offended by the term or logo of a Crusader. Does any of them truly believe that the Holy Cross Crusader is looking to kill, maim, rape or injure today's Jews, Muslims or anyone else? Any more than a lion, panther, ber or knight, raider, etc., etc. are trying to maul or cause harm to anyone? Christians were fed to the lions. As a Christian, I am offended. Whenever I see someone wearing a t-shirt with a lion on it, I tell them what it was like for my religious ancestors to whom I have no blood relationship to be mauled by them two-thousand years ago, and how that hurts my feelings. A black bear once wandered down from the Bear Mountain area to a local Italian restaurant that my family has been eating at for years. It went into the dumpster looking for food. Not only is it gross and appalling to have to watch something eat out of the garbage-- YUCKY!-- but its grunting and groaning was quite offensive while we tried to eat. Completely uncalled for and offensive. Knights not only monopolized the use of precious resources like steel (look at all that armor!) for war, but were instrumental in the socioeconomic disparity between the haves, and the have-nots. And the fact that Pakachoag Phreek likely was a knight, or had some family member 46-times-removed that was a knight, but nobody in MY family was a knight (I think my Uncle Carlo was a fan of Michael Knight, if that counts... he did have a cool car) and I am offended that they flaunt their superior training, resources, and nobility in my face. They get unfair benefits from the royalty while the rest of us toil in the fields. OFFENSIVE. And whenever I see a pirate flag outside of a t-shirt shop at the Jersey Shore, or on a school mascot, or any other Jolly Rodger mascot/symbol use, I think of the cruel treatment of indigenous Caribbean populations, violent treatment towards the navies of England, France, Spain, and Portugal-- by the way, we should COMPLETELY BAN Columbus Day here in the US-- not to mention the absolutely ABHORRENT approach to dental hygiene by failing to brush, floss, or eat enough Vitamin C to prevent scurvy. Abusing alcohol, abusing wenches, and sailing under the influence? I know someone that got into a hit and run with a drunk sailor and the insurance company has STILL not fixed their dinghy. OFFENSIVE!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 23, 2017 15:23:23 GMT -5
WCHC, You're on a roll...keep it up!
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 23, 2017 16:39:14 GMT -5
I like to practice my satire on a day I had to skip work to appear for federal jury duty. But I make the obvious point: where do we (somewhat arbitrarily) draw the line at where we will "offend," and to whom we will listen regarding being offended?
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 23, 2017 16:43:33 GMT -5
I find it offensive that you're multi-tasking while serving on a Federal Jury.
Just kidding, your post was probably the best use of my Tax dollars in some time.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 23, 2017 17:03:37 GMT -5
Puh leeez. My 'family' were not mere knights.
My cousins Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy; Stephen II, Count de Blois; Robert II, Count of Flanders (later Robert of Jerusalem) financed three of the armies that went on the First Crusade. All told, they paid for at least a third of the crusader army. Joining them was another of my cousins, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux (he of the Bayeux tapestry). Odo, was once the second richest man in England, after the king. He was released from prison, and was thus able to join the crusade. Why imprisoned? He planned to march on Rome and have himself installed as Pope.
Postscript:
Robert Curthose returned to Normandy, found himself at odds with his younger brother Henry I, King of England. The two had a little war in Normandy, Robert Curthose lost. Henry then imprisoned Robert for 28 years, the rest of his natural life.
Stephen returned home after reaching Antioch. His wife, who became St. Adela, chastised him for not fulfilling his vow to go to Jerusalem. A chastened Stephen then organized and led the Minor Crusade of 1100-1101, and was killed in battle in 1102 trying to reach Jerusalem. St. Adela seems to be a thoroughly remarkable woman, and a blood relative. Stephen was merely an in-law.
Robert of Jerusalem returned home, and was subsequently killed in a battle fighting against the son of Stephen, count de Blois.
Odo died enroute, in Italy.
My family skipped the Second, The Anarchy required all their attention and resources. Went on the Third as a member of Richard the Lionheart's household.
Thankfully missed the Fourth, so I need not defend them.
And, as loyal Plantagenets, went on the Ninth, under Prince Edward.
|
|