|
Post by ncaam on Oct 13, 2017 8:03:29 GMT -5
Allow me to propose three options:
1. Get rid of the Cross, the Jesuits and the Crusader. Go totally secular. Pakachoag Hill College, the Rockets.
2. Allow the two professors to teach whatever they want subject to academeic rigor. They are free to criticize the Church, the Jesuits, the Crusades, the Inquisition to their hearts content.
3. Allow the professors to make a presentation critiquing all above at a select time or place.
When we have guilt for the Holocaust it seems option one is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 13, 2017 8:37:13 GMT -5
Religion&Ethics
The Jesuits are famous for their role in the Spanish Inquisition, though contrary to popular opinion the Jesuit order did not begin it. The inquisition was set up in 1480, 60 years before the Papal bull that formalised the creation of the Society of Jesus.
The Spanish Inquisition was originally overseen by members of the Dominican order, though members of the Jesuit brotherhood were involved at a later date.
Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition was not formally disbanded until 1834, though its influence had significantly dwindled prior to that date.
The Inquisition was famous for its use of torture to elicit confessions from accused 'heretics'. It was believed that confessions extracted after torture must be true, an idea that was later dispelled.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 13, 2017 9:05:13 GMT -5
Debate? I’ll bite. It all started with Adam taking a bite of the ol’ Apple. (Source: OT)
Abu Ghraib happened. Is George Bush to blame?
My Lai happened. Is LBJ to blame?
Are we collectively all to blame. Is HC to blame for having an ROTC program?
We know things go wrong when the dogs of war are loosed.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 13, 2017 9:17:33 GMT -5
The intellectual challenge is to not only be able to embrace the positive symbolism of The Crusader as it applies to Holy Cross, but also recognizing the negative, without discarding the symbol entirely. The world in which we live is not black or white, but rather many shades of gray. Trace any word, concept, or ideology back, and you can find something offense about it. Absolutism is too easy of a way out. Phreek, this is another example of where statistics and factoids from history fall short. Data can support or refute a scientific argument, but this is an intellectual and theological discourse. If there is indeed more than a smattering of people who would like the moniker changed, these individuals should organize and fight for what they believe in. I would be perfectly open-minded to their argument. However, the only group I see with any passion are those resistant to a change. Other than a handful of contrarians, I see not even the faintest hint of an organized movement, and on this basis there is insignificant justification for change.
What individual or group, I ask, is championing this Crusade against the Crusader? Or is there no crusade at all.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 13, 2017 10:30:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 13, 2017 11:01:11 GMT -5
We're still talking about the same topic here, right? I'm not looking all this crap up. You read it, then make an argument that a normal person can follow in 3 paragraphs or less, as to why The Crusader should be eliminated. Choose your sources carefully and make a case. Don't give all of us busy work.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 13, 2017 11:03:03 GMT -5
To PP's request for a "rebuttal," let me not do that but bring up again my point that we make a mistake of judging the excesses of the Crusades against Muslims and Jews in terms of 21st Century morality. Never excusing that two wrongs make a right, killing "others" goes back well before the Crusades and was perhaps even more pervasive as the Jewish people, when in a position of dominance, also slaughtered others in God's name or by His command - or so they thought: www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islamIbid "Man is predisposed to violence." I am not a denier that the Crusaders were not all pious, defenders of the faith but neither were they worse than most others of their day and their purpose was to defend Christianity. Life now or hundreds of years ago is/was complicated and that is why we use symbols - to stand for and simplify things. The Crusader, while not perfect, symbolizes the defense of Christianity, a "warrior for Christ." That's good enough for me. KEEP THE CRUSADER!
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 13, 2017 11:25:11 GMT -5
An action later than Adam.
In 1066 Granada massacre took place on 30 December 1066 (9 Tevet 4827; 10 Safar 459 AH) when a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, in the Taifa of Granada,[1] crucified the Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela, and massacred much of the Jewish population of the city.
Pp not sure where your ancestors were at this time but did Trumps forget this?
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Oct 13, 2017 11:45:49 GMT -5
For a Jewish view of the Crusades. www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2617029/jewish/The-Bloody-Crusades.htmThere are several factual errors in the narrative presented, but the larger conclusion is one that should be addressed: the persecution of the Jews that began with the First Crusade culminated in the Holocaust. That is the belief of the world's largest Jewish organization. The source is Chabad Lubavich, who are Orthodox; Jared and Ivanka are members. Anyone care to offer a rebuttal? I enjoy that you overlook the factual inaccuracies but accept the "larger conclusion" that, but for certain terrible events 800 years earlier, the Holocaust would not have happened because it never would have occurred to Hitler to try to exterminate all Jews had he not gotten this idea from a chapter in a textbook regarding the Crusades that he read about as a young boy. Catholics murdered Jews 800-1000 years ago. Jews murdered others in the name of God. Muslims murdered others in the name of religion. If we are going to wipe away any association with unfortunate events from that long ago, we really should stop identifying as Jesuit or Catholic. Americans have done lots of horrible things during war as has every other group that has ever engaged in war. Should we stop calling ourselves Americans? A lot of those events were a lot more recent than the Crusades and are more likely to trigger a real emotional reaction in real humans living today than something that happened during the Crusades. Let's focus on all the good so many have done in the name of the Holy Cross Crusaders and the Catholic Church in the last 100 years and move on from this fabricated nonsense. The people who are spending so much time wringing their hands about this should do something positive like join the upcoming Crusade against Cancer 5K in honor of an HC student who lost his battle with cancer in June. Or might that be too offensive to support given the name? It would be nice if Fr. B took the podium at the end of the race and announced that this is what a Crusade looks like in 2017 and we are not changing our name, mascot or anything else because this is what Holy Cross Crusaders always have been, are today and forever more shall be.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Oct 13, 2017 12:51:41 GMT -5
Trying to draw a line from the Crusades to the Holocaust is a problematic exercise. Medieval persecution of the Jews derived from religious beliefs: they rejected Christianity and were falsely characterized as Christ-killers. Hitler's motivations were political and racial. In fact, he despised religion. He and like-minded Germans believed that the Jews were a destructive force within Germany (they were disproportionately represented in law, banking, and business) and that they were not, nor could they ever be, real Germans. Influencing him were the crackpot racial and eugenic theories that arose in the nineteenth century and pan-German nationalism.
|
|
|
Post by beaven302 on Oct 13, 2017 13:05:06 GMT -5
I can remember when people weren't concerned or offended by cartoons, nicknames and mascots, etc. FYI - The Minnesota Vikings are not real Vikings. The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are not real buccaneers. These things were never meant to be taken seriously. I wasn't aware of this until recently but it looks like the Hofstra Flying Dutchmen are now the Hofstra Pride. Some people have too much time on their hands and/or need to get a life. Amen! It might be one thing if Muslim groups were protesting the Crusader moniker. The fact that the College has not mentioned any such protesters leads me to believe that there are none such. If that's the case, this is nothing more than an absurd exercise in internal navel gazing designed to assuage some unknown assumed guilt for I know not what. Absurdity to the nth degree. It might be worth mentioning that at the time the Crusades were happening, they drew little notice in the wider Muslim world. The territory involved constituted only a small strip of the Muslim lands and then as now followers of Islam were far more concerned about the Shiite-Sunni rivalry. (As for homicidal destructiveness, the Turco-Mongol invasions of Timur the Lame make the Crusaders look like amateurs.) Despite the sometime use of the word "Crusaders" to describe American forces in the Middle East, how likely is it that that any modern Muslims have a major problem with a long-ago invasion that was eventually defeated? Their real resentments derive from the European takeover of most of the Muslim Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and the East Indies in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and the current political situation.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 13, 2017 14:44:40 GMT -5
My great, great........great grandfather was Charles Martel, so I am slightly familiar with Muslim hordes invading Europe. Charles' son, Pepin, so loved the church that he invaded Italy, defeated the Lombards, and created the Papal States which he gave to the Pope as a gift.
I'll pass by Pepin's son, only to say he disliked the flavor of Catholicism practiced by the Irish. This tribal enmity against the indigenous Irish by the Franks and then the Normans seems to have persisted for 350 years, subsiding when the Anglo-Norman king Henry II, with the blessing of the Pope, invaded Ireland, violently put down the Irish, and brought the Irish church into communion with Rome. This is the same Henry who would do away with meddlesome priests.
Robert Curthose, the eldest son of my ancestral second cousin, William the Conqueror, led a large force of Normans in the First Crusade, and reached Jerusalem. His brother-in-law, Stephen, Count de Blois, led another large French contingent; he returned home after reaching Antioch and leading the council of war there.. The following year, he set out again as the leader of the Minor Crusade of 1100-1101, and was killed. I have yet to find any Irish who went on the Crusades. 'We' Normans did the heavy lifting.
Stephen was pious, his wife was canonized. Robert, not so much. I look at the medieval crusades and the medieval crusaders as a mixed bag. I will note that unlike the viking, pirate, buccaneer, minutemen, cavalier, Spartans, Trojans, knights, dukes, conquistadors, lancers, grenadiers, generals (and other ranks), raiders, only the medieval crusader represents a religious.appellation. I will further note when the NCAA went on a 'crusade' against Indian nicknames, one of defining characteristics for nicknames that should be changed was a "hostile" nickname.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 13, 2017 14:45:52 GMT -5
On the undercard I vote for Pedro the Cruel. The only reason I don’t have him up with Hitler is because he was later called Pedro the Just.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 13, 2017 15:23:31 GMT -5
But I bet if anyone could, it'd be you. I'd hate to see your Ancestry.com bill!
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 13, 2017 15:56:03 GMT -5
My great, great........great grandfather was Charles Martel, so I am slightly familiar with Muslim hordes invading Europe. Charles' son, Pepin, so loved the church that he invaded Italy, defeated the Lombards, and created the Papal States which he gave to the Pope as a gift. I'll pass by Pepin's son, only to say he disliked the flavor of Catholicism practiced by the Irish. This tribal enmity against the indigenous Irish by the Franks and then the Normans seems to have persisted for 350 years, subsiding when the Anglo-Norman king Henry II, with the blessing of the Pope, invaded Ireland, violently put down the Irish, and brought the Irish church into communion with Rome. This is the same Henry who would do away with meddlesome priests. Robert Curthose, the eldest son of my ancestral second cousin, William the Conqueror, led a large force of Normans in the First Crusade, and reached Jerusalem. His brother-in-law, Stephen, Count de Blois, led another large French contingent; he returned home after reaching Antioch and leading the council of war there.. The following year, he set out again as the leader of the Minor Crusade of 1100-1101, and was killed. I have yet to find any Irish who went on the Crusades. 'We' Normans did the heavy lifting. Stephen was pious, his wife was canonized. Robert, not so much. I look at the medieval crusades and the medieval crusaders as a mixed bag. I will note that unlike the viking, pirate, buccaneer, minutemen, cavalier, Spartans, Trojans, knights, dukes, conquistadors, lancers, grenadiers, generals (and other ranks), raiders, only the medieval crusader represents a religious.appellation. I will further note when the NCAA went on a 'crusade' against Indian nicknames, one of defining characteristics for nicknames that should be changed was a "hostile" nickname. Not really my area, but while the medieval crusader may be the only mascot that represents a religious appellation (or derivation of the name itself), I don't think that other mascots can be easily disconnected from the religious basis of their objectionable acts. Arguably, Vikings, Spartans, Trojans, and (certainly) Conquistadors undertook actions based on religion (or some form of religion). Conquistadors killed thousands of "savages" in the name of bringing the light of Christianity to the new world. Vikings, in their polytheism, commonly targeted Christian lands and followers, and adamantly fought the spread of the White Christ or Hanged God in their lands (often violently); and continued to do so until political advantage and tax breaks could be sought under Harold Fairhair's youngest Christian son. If the Norse religion was still a common religion, rather than a mythology, there would certainly be more opposition to the Viking mascot. Accordingly, I don't believe that the discussion should focus on historical basis of the name, which is tough to avoid, but rather the current context. I think the best argument for keeping the Crusader name, in addition to the connection of the alums to the name and school, is: (1) there are currently no military Crusades/Crusaders, and no rational person would equate use of the name for a sports team in the current day to that time history; and (2) in the present day and age,- CONTEXT - Crusader has taken on a different meaning, e.g. Crusader for Justice. Given the past struggles of the athletic program, one can reasonably argue that the we are Crusaders for a Win (in addition to being crusaders to spread the mission statement). I am generally OK with losing the knight and sword, although I don't think it is necessary, and keeping the Shield or the interlocking letters. I think I like those graphics better.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 13, 2017 16:08:09 GMT -5
An interesting part of the discussion in the faculty video was about the sword and shield. More specifically how Ignatius laid down his sword (he didn't have too much choice due to his injuries) and took up a life for Christ. As for the shield, while it can be used offensively, it was used primarily for defensive purposes.
As such, having a sword in the logo can help symbolize laying it down rather than offensively attacking someone and the shield seen as an instrument of protection.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Oct 13, 2017 16:35:59 GMT -5
An interesting part of the discussion in the faculty video was about the sword and shield. More specifically how Ignatius laid down his sword (he didn't have too much choice due to his injuries) and took up a life for Christ. As for the shield, while it can be used offensively, it was used primarily for defensive purposes. As such, having a sword in the logo can help symbolize laying it down rather than offensively attacking someone and the shield seen as an instrument of protection. If the HC administration plans to go after stuff like swords, horses, spears, shields and helmets because those items connote violence, how do they justify playing football at all? After all, it is a violent, injury-inducing activity in which each side tries to impose its will on the other by physical means, is it not? And is it not a form of warfare when all is said and done? Heaven forbid! Once the Crusader name and all associated paraphernalia have been purged, perhaps the next step should be a declaration that HC will only play flag football in future and will never beat an opponent by more than 10 points, lest we hurt the other team's feelings. This announcement could be made the same day the school decides to call its teams the Purple Pansies.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 13, 2017 17:54:20 GMT -5
Inhocsigno, I looked at a sample of other mascots that are 'weaponized'. Holy Cross and North Greenville University are the only ones that depict their crusader mascot with a sword. Tommy Trojan's statue has a sword, The MSU Spartan seems to be only a cartoonish character. That said, I have not found a more menacing mascot than the HC mascot symbol with raised sword, shield, and visored helmet. It may very well be the most 'hostile' appearance of a 'human' mascot in all of the NCAA. ______________________________ And a heads up for those commenting about the crusader representing a force against Islam, past and present. Fr. B., when at Georgetown, appointed an iman as the first Muslim chaplain. Georgetown has a campus in Qatar, and I can find records from the early 1980s of multi-million dollar gifts from Arab countries to Georgetown. There is a dedicated Muslim prayer room. And as for another religion, in 2016, Georgetown received .a $10 million gift to support a Jewish studies center. This increased the Center's endowment to $20 million. ^^^Shabbat at Georgetown. I believe it was hcpride with whom I exchanged several posts that a study of religious affiliation at HC some years ago revealed no Jewish students enrolled.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 13, 2017 19:25:58 GMT -5
What's your point? I am sure that we don't have many Jewish students even now but most assuredly have some. Heck, there is a Jewish rabbi who graduated from Holy Cross, I believe form the class of '73.
You do realize that Holy Cross is still a Catholic college, right?
And as far as gifts to GU by Jewish people, you have heard of Jacob Hiatt and Holy Cross, right?
As for me, I would not be offended if I found out there are few or no Catholics at Brandeis.
|
|
|
Post by Sader Fan on Oct 13, 2017 20:31:53 GMT -5
Another thought for resolution of this matter: The issue largely revolves around what does “Crusader” mean? Dictionary.com’s definition of “crusader” lists two meanings:
1. A fighter in the medieval Crusades (the “Bad” meaning)
2. A person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change, a campaigner (the “Good” meaning)
Instead of a having the generic moniker “Crusader,” what if we specify what kind of crusader we mean to emulate and adopt a specific moniker: for example, “Crusaders for Justice”. This clearly identifies HC with the “Good” meaning and will allow Holy Cross to continue to call its teams “Crusaders” (much as the “Fighting Irish” are often referred to as the “Irish”).
|
|
|
Post by sader98 on Oct 13, 2017 20:46:17 GMT -5
An observation as I read all of the background research, context and comments...
My guess would be that few, if any, individuals who would claim to be offended by the crusader moniker have given it as much thought as has been represented on this thread.
While debate is always a good thing, I would be very interested in hearing the specific catalyst for this "discussion".
Maybe this is overly simplistic but if generations of alums associate the symbol with spirit, friendship and pride and the source of the controversy is nothing more than a moment of institutional self doubt, this conversation should be relegated to a debate in a philosophy class.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 14, 2017 3:45:20 GMT -5
My wife graduated from a totally secular college, UCSB. I told her about the “othering” debate over the mascot. She thought Holy Cross College was more othering than the Crusader. FWIW
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 14, 2017 5:14:00 GMT -5
My wife graduated from a totally secular college, UCSB. I told her about the “othering” debate over the mascot. She thought Holy Cross College was more othering than the Crusader. FWIW The faux 'othering' theory has been ridiculed by non-academics for years. Of course academics whip it out to buttress the silliest of arguments. And would like others to join them in 'othering' fantasyland. That is why we see it from the academics on the panel in this self-inflicted exercise in response to a nonexistent objection. Nobody self-parodies like a posturing academic. To your point, it does seem reasonable that folks (who at this point do not actually exist) who claim to be offended by the crusader mascot and moniker ("M&Ms"?) could certainly claim to be offended (and of course 'triggered') to a far greater extent by the massively 'othering' name Holy Cross. For the academics in the 'othering' fantasyland this too is ultimately problematic.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Oct 14, 2017 6:38:26 GMT -5
Perhaps whenever anybody voices concern or discontent about our Crusader moniker and mascot, we send them this photo and let them draw their own conclusions. Let's Win!!
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Oct 14, 2017 7:14:25 GMT -5
re: Rabbi. You got a pretty good memory!
Norm Cohen, Lived across the hall from me my sophomore (70-71) year. Nice guy. Pittsburgh native (and fan!).
Pretty sure he was class of 72, not my year, 73.
Remember him saying years later it was being in such a non-Jewish environment that awakened his spirituality and led him towards the clergy.
|
|