They (the Klan) also use the Cross...and fire and other symbols. As I have asked before will our college be forced to change its name? Once you let outsiders dictate what your symbol means then all symbols, and what they represent, are in danger if being lost. Valpo has not lost all of its history, just a big part of it (Crusaders since 1942). This does make it seem that really offensive hate groups can basically claim whatever they want and make others jump through hoops. This does make Fr B's statement about keeping the Crusader look better in hindsight.
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 11, 2021 18:56:24 GMT -5
Holy Cross' royal purple is the royal purple of Constantine, whose cutout sits in the stands of the Hart.
As for HC doing away with the medieval crusader mascot, probably a good idea, and I say that coming from a family who went crusading, and on more than one crusade.
As for the name Holy Cross, it is derived from the name of the first Catholic house or worship in Boston, previously a Huguenot chapel, and was so named by a French abbe, Claude Bouchard de la Poterie, who arrived in Boston with a relic of the true cross. Except the relic was an 18th Century forgery. And abbe Bouchard despised the Jesuit John Carroll, and hated the Jesuits, and celebrated the dissolution of the order and the imprisonment and death of Lorenzo Ricci, the Superior General of the order at the time of its suppression in 1773.
In 2000, Wheaton College in Illinois ditched the Crusader as its mascot. But the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., decided after a review in 2018 to stick with the name Crusaders. At the time, Holy Cross’s president said the college’s definition of Crusader was based on a “contemporary understanding of the term, which suggests a noble effort to support a cause, to right a wrong or to make a difference.”
Post by Dean Wormer on Feb 11, 2021 22:59:29 GMT -5
Really? Do we really need to rehash this every time an organization decides to change a name?
And do we really need to characterize those who don't like changes like this with one broad stroke and accusation?
And it's always and predictably the same handful of posters - with a new voice or 2 - lining up on one side of an issue or another and reacting the same way.
I have no idea what anyone hopes to accomplish with either line of commentary? I've said it before and I'll say it again, your posts here (particularly when all you're doing is slinging names at folks who have a different point of view) will not create a sudden epiphany for those with a different point of view nor swing anyone on the fence.
Come on folks. You're better and smarter than that.
Post by Dean Wormer on Feb 12, 2021 10:26:09 GMT -5
I have no problem with the topic being discussed. Note that the thread (and the 3 others elsewhere on the board that I hope to consolidate later today) have not been deleted.
But the topic is not being DISCUSSED.
A couple tried to provide counterpoint to the rationale laid out in the article for the change, which COULD have led to a discussion BUT read the first response in this thread - and I am not dumping all of this on dadominate he just happened to be first this time but his post is illustrative of the problem I have with this type of thread.
His post is an opinion, followed by name calling, followed by judgement. Others followed that and responded in kind and worse.
Lay out a cogent rationale for your opinion supporting or disagreeing with the decision backed by something factual not just bold pronouncements of your opinion and why it is right.
And with respect to rehashing things - show me the thread where the end of civilization as we know it is predicted as a result of declining the Big East invite or where supporters of declining the Big East invitation were speculated as associated with the KKK and yes I'll call that out. Particularly if it happens time & again.