RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:So what happens to all the Crusaders teams around the world? Also Saxons, Vikings, Vandals, Saracens etc, all of whom liked to go on killing sprees.

I don't think the name itself is a massive problem - it's the focus and glorifying of the actual mounted horsemen whose sole raison d'etre was killing Muslims because of their religion that's the issue. You can crusade for lots of different things, but specifically linking it to killing Muslims is not ideal.

Puja

Their sole reason? Is this history from a free history card inside a packet of Weetabix? If nothing else they killed plenty of Jews too

Less a reason, more a regrettable consequence. If we want to go this direction, far better to talk about the poor Balts.

Now you're just stereotyping that the Balts are poor

This is just cheap multiculti pandering for marketing purposes, and it won't work because the people they're trying to impress don't buy tickets or pay for TV rights.

the actual history is that Muslim hordes were on a multi-century rampage across the ancient near east and north africa long before a couple of knee-jerk and risibly ineffective raids into the caliphate gave them some slight pause to at least reconsider the wisdom of continued conquest. It didn't work, for they continued for some centuries afterwards as well. It took nearly 700 years for the Spanish to evict them from Spain.

But so few people know or care about the actual history of Christendom's conflicts with Islam that the Crusaders undoubtedly are a thing of the past.

What irritates me though is that what replaces the name is going to be unrelentingly vomitous.

scuzzaman wrote:This is just cheap multiculti pandering for marketing purposes, and it won't work because the people they're trying to impress don't buy tickets or pay for TV rights.

the actual history is that Muslim hordes were on a multi-century rampage across the ancient near east and north africa long before a couple of knee-jerk and risibly ineffective raids into the caliphate gave them some slight pause to at least reconsider the wisdom of continued conquest. It didn't work, for they continued for some centuries afterwards as well. It took nearly 700 years for the Spanish to evict them from Spain.

But so few people know or care about the actual history of Christendom's conflicts with Islam that the Crusaders undoubtedly are a thing of the past.

What irritates me though is that what replaces the name is going to be unrelentingly vomitous.

...there's a lot wrong in that post. I'm just going to focus on the history, but there's a *lot* wrong there.

Let's just note the irony of complaining about people not knowing history with that spectacular misreprentation of events. "A multi-century rampage" by "Muslim hordes" was very similar to the empire building of Alexander the Great, Xerxes, Rome, and many other empires, except that no-one talks about the multi-century rampage of the Italian hordes when describing the Roman empire. For some reason.

In fact, that turn of phrase might be better used to describe the Holy Land Crusades themselves, which stretched from 1095 to 1291 across 14 separate campaigns, and were hardly "a couple," "knee-jerk," or "risibly ineffective". They certainly weren't there to prevent further conquest by the Sultanates, as the Muslim "rampage" of expansion mostly took place before 750AD, so I'm not sure how Crusades that started 300 years later were the cause of a "slight pause to at least reconsider the wisdom of continued conquest".

Also Spain didn't exist back then - the Iberian peninsula spent most of its time within one empire or another, usually getting along quite nicely and adapting to whichever banner flew over them that century and the Moorish conquest was no different. They didn't "evict" the Moors from Spain as foreign invaders - Christians were the invaders who overthrew an empire that they'd been part of for as long as they were in the Roman empire.

Puja

Fuck me, Don Brash era ACT makes an appearance. Exactly why you'd want a city in the South Pacific associated to get in the middle of a wholly avoidable debate after recent history down there is beyond me.

First one that calls me "PC" gets punched in the cock.

morepork wrote:Fuck me, Don Brash era ACT makes an appearance. Exactly why you'd want a city in the South Pacific associated to get in the middle of a wholly avoidable debate after recent history down there is beyond me.

First one that calls me "PC" gets punched in the cock.

Punch Cocker

Spain is what it is called today - the rest of your comments were about as relevant, accurate, and useful. To the people on the receiving end of the British Empire's expansion that process could equally be termed a multi-century rampage. That is, in fact, what both were. That's what every empire IS.

A lot of history is a matter of perspective.

The question is, what kind of person takes the perspective of his enemy and applies it to his own people?

Political, sure.
Correct? Not so sure.

Thankfully there is a bouncy castle to meditate upon this philosophistical can of worms.

Just not in Chch please. Ta.

Sincerely,
Otautahi problem child.

What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

scuzzaman wrote:Spain is what it is called today - the rest of your comments were about as relevant, accurate, and useful. To the people on the receiving end of the British Empire's expansion that process could equally be termed a multi-century rampage. That is, in fact, what both were. That's what every empire IS.

A lot of history is a matter of perspective.

The question is, what kind of person takes the perspective of his enemy and applies it to his own people?

Spain became Spain after the the "conquest".
Before then it was a Visigoth Kingdom.

Also the African raids on Iberia were dated pre-Muslim influenced Berbers (Hence why so much tension between the Berbers and the arabs during the rule of the area and in fact some Berbers groups was known to have converted to Christianity during the time), So the idea this was a religious thing is unlikely and a lot of historians suggest that the invasion only happened due to the surprise of how successful the initial larger scale raid was in the battle of Guadalete defeating King Roderic (Largely due to his own commanders betraying him) and was originally never intended to be an invasion.

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

You know the Haka isn't just a war dance right?

Tigersman wrote:

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

You know the Haka isn't just a war dance right?

I do, but the Crusaders weren't all about war/killing either.

It literally was.

Your comparing the literally term given for a group of Holy wars and it's fighters to a ceremonial dance, done to greet people and at funerals aswell as lay down a challenge.

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Not sure on the point?

Did anybody like the name anyway? It was always pretty crap as these crappy things go.

Sounds like Canterbury rugby (a commercial organisation, right?) felt that a rebrand would be a good idea for a variety of reasons. Someone commented earlier that those who were offended by the name are not interested in rugby. Surely, they might become interested in rugby, and maybe their descendants? Who knows really? Seems a bit barmy to not at least want to welcome as many prospective supporters as possible.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

Piffle? You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5.

There is a significant difference between "Warrior" which is a generic word for someone who fights, and "Crusader" which is a specific word for a group of people sent by the Pope to kill Muslims.

I would also submit that "Rugby" is the best word to put after Worcester to give a good team name.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

Piffle? You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5.

There is a significant difference between "Warrior" which is a generic word for someone who fights, and "Crusader" which is a specific word for a group of people sent by the Pope to kill Muslims.

I would also submit that "Rugby" is the best word to put after Worcester to give a good team name.

Puja

‘Worcester Ben Teo Semi-retirement Fund’ has a nice ring to it.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:What is it about the Crusaders which presents a problem image in Christchurch which isn't also a problem when it comes to a haka? Both represent some practices which by any modern standard are just plain wrong

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

You've gone fucking sideways man. The largest and only terrorist attack on NZ soil (the French sinking a Greenpeace ship aside), targeting a particular religious demographic, is "piffle"? Incidental? Really?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

You've gone fucking sideways man. The largest and only terrorist attack on NZ soil (the French sinking a Greenpeace ship aside), targeting a particular religious demographic, is "piffle"? Incidental? Really?

Hmmm...the Rainbow Warrior, they should have changed the name of the ship the bastards

The Rainbow Gender Fluid Safe Space Upon the Water.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christchu ... st_attacks

Puja

Piffle. Or do Worcester need to change their name as warriors have killed people here? I'm not saying Crusaders aren't free to change their name btw, merely having picked a name to change it now seems at most incidental

Not that I understand why Worcester needed to pick Warriors to begin with, what's wrong with Pears?

You've gone fucking sideways man. The largest and only terrorist attack on NZ soil (the French sinking a Greenpeace ship aside), targeting a particular religious demographic, is "piffle"? Incidental? Really?

The requirement to change the name of a sporting team as a response is piffle.