RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

Maybe you need a copy editor?

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:
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.

Since you're fond of an analogy, how about we posit a team called the Canterbury Klan? They could have a mascot dressed in a white hood who runs around with a comedically oversized noose.

Feels wrong? How's it different?

Puja

Tigersman wrote:Not sure on the point?

Gotta have the correct racial profile to get in the team.

"I was right. Too much weights, not enough speedwork. Useless prick."

richy678 wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Not sure on the point?

Gotta have the correct racial profile to get in the team.

"I was right. Too much weights, not enough speedwork. Useless prick."

Jake the Muss.

twitchy wrote:Redpath 6 weeks for biting. Was england's plan this tourney that "we are so good we are going to win this thing with a maximum of 13 players on the pitch at any one time".

Wrong thread

Banquo wrote:

twitchy wrote:Redpath 6 weeks for biting. Was england's plan this tourney that "we are so good we are going to win this thing with a maximum of 13 players on the pitch at any one time".

Wrong thread

Fixed

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

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.

Since you're fond of an analogy, how about we posit a team called the Canterbury Klan? They could have a mascot dressed in a white hood who runs around with a comedically oversized noose.

Feels wrong? How's it different?

Puja

Depends on the context, in a national sporting event no, in a Students 7s event maybe. I don't start by wanting to ban things and thinking people have a right not to be offended though.

And btw, we've had a few terrorist attacks in this country carried out by Irish folks, and nobody has a problem that I know of with London Irish, other than they're often neither London based nor Irish, and we've not had any demands to change the name Saracens after people who identify with a certain type of Islamic belief system have accidentally carried out a few attacks.

And if a name change is the correct response to slaughters, terrorist attacks or what have you then in this instance rather than insist there be a change to the nickname of a sporting team one might want to look at the association with the words Christ and Church, far more people have been killed, maimed, raped in the name of Christ and the Church than the Crusaders could have ever hoped to manage. If you can keep a city called Christchurch it does seem rather pointless to me to worry about the nickname of a local sporting team to that city

And we're back to the use of the word "offended" again, which has become shorthand for pearls-clutching, "he hurt my feelings" snowflakedom. It's a straw man - nobody's looking at the name Crusaders and thinking, "But what about my feeeeeeelings!" They're looking at it as part of a culture which promotes Muslims as 'other', as 'enemy' (used in this thread actually), as the 'bad guys unless proven to be one of the good ones.' It's not about feeling, but about feeding a culture that gets people killed.

It may not have been a major influence on the terrorist attack, but it's also not a big thing to be upset over. If changing the name makes even the slightest difference to the anti-Muslim culture, then why the hell not?

Puja

The Catholic Church is now more or less synonymous with paedophilia and nobody seems to need Northampton to change their name. And yet I don't think the Crusaders are fwiw are synonymous with thinking Muslims are bad, it was more about (as these things tend to be) the establishment of a political power base in Western Europe which happened to spread out other areas and Muslims are some of what that expansion encountered with ensuing brutality. I've never seen anything to suggest the Crusades happened because there were Muslims, they could have happened just as easily had the Muslim block been Shinto or even a variant on Christianity

Digby wrote:The Catholic Church is now more or less synonymous with paedophilia and nobody seems to need Northampton to change their name. And yet I don't think the Crusaders are fwiw are synonymous with thinking Muslims are bad, it was more about (as these things tend to be) the establishment of a political power base in Western Europe which happened to spread out other areas and Muslims are some of what that expansion encountered with ensuing brutality. I've never seen anything to suggest the Crusades happened because there were Muslims, they could have happened just as easily had the Muslim block been Shinto or even a variant on Christianity

Saints are not noted for their paedophilia. Spurious example.

While I take your point that Crusaders didn't go after the Moors and Berbers directly because of a problem with their specific religion, the public image of Crusaders is "horsemen who went out to kill Muslims to free the Holy Land." It's actually largely irrelevant what they actually did (as pointed out in this thread, some crusades went to Latvia, which was a TIL moment for me), that's the publically known brand which Canterbury were allying themselves with - European Christian solders who killed middle-eastern Muslims.

Puja

I'm still not sure if name changes are warranted that this is the one I'd go for, and I don't think it'll change much anyway. it all seems like the B arc arguing over what colour the square wheel should be

Digby wrote:Depends on the context, in a national sporting event no, in a Students 7s event maybe. I don't start by wanting to ban things and thinking people have a right not to be offended though.

And btw, we've had a few terrorist attacks in this country carried out by Irish folks, and nobody has a problem that I know of with London Irish, other than they're often neither London based nor Irish, and we've not had any demands to change the name Saracens after people who identify with a certain type of Islamic belief system have accidentally carried out a few attacks.

And if a name change is the correct response to slaughters, terrorist attacks or what have you then in this instance rather than insist there be a change to the nickname of a sporting team one might want to look at the association with the words Christ and Church, far more people have been killed, maimed, raped in the name of Christ and the Church than the Crusaders could have ever hoped to manage. If you can keep a city called Christchurch it does seem rather pointless to me to worry about the nickname of a local sporting team to that city

Now imagine that London Irish called themselves the London IRA; and had their mascot run arouns with a gun, and wearing a balaclava; randomly pointing a gun at people's kneecaps until they can recite the Hail Mary...

IMO, like with Exeter Chiefs - the problem isn't the name so much as the imaging associated with it.

Several hundred years removed I don't know how I'd feel about a team called London IRA, in advance of 2685 I'm predicting it'd not bother me one bit, but I'll get back to you down the line on this one

Digby wrote:Several hundred years removed I don't know how I'd feel about a team called London IRA, in advance of 2685 I'm predicting it'd not bother me one bit, but I'll get back to you down the line on this one

If, several hundred years removed, Irish people were targetting people of English descent and randomly killing them because of their ancestry, often citing the IRA as having the right idea, it would probably still be problematic.

Puja

I'm offended that people are taking offence to something that I have no problems about because it doesn't affect me.

Have they decided what they will be called yet?

Mr Mwenda wrote:Have they decided what they will be called yet?

currently it's still the Crusaders.
But changing logo and imagery to remove the knight and sword.

So not really as bad as some are acting.

Here's there new logo. Like a mounted Christian knight, it really captures the rich diversity of the second largest city in our Polynesian nation.

morepork wrote:Here's there new logo. Like a mounted Christian knight, it really captures the rich diversity of the second largest city in our Polynesian nation.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 2.38.38 PM.png

Christ alight morepork. I get enough of Boris Johnson's smug face on the front of every newspaper at the moment; I don't need you putting up pictures of him as well.

Puja

RAH

morepork wrote:Here's there new logo. Like a mounted Christian knight, it really captures the rich diversity of the second largest city in our Polynesian nation.

Such sickening dismissal of those from a Melanesian and Micronesian background, racist bastard

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:Here's there new logo. Like a mounted Christian knight, it really captures the rich diversity of the second largest city in our Polynesian nation.

Such sickening dismissal of those from a Melanesian and Micronesian background, racist bastard

Does Sir require a map?

morepork wrote:Here's there new logo. Like a mounted Christian knight, it really captures the rich diversity of the second largest city in our Polynesian nation.

Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 2.38.38 PM.png

https://www.allblacks.com/Teams/Maori

Jaysus, Diggers! By your calculations I am a paedo-terrorist.

richy678 wrote:

Tigersman wrote:Not sure on the point?

Gotta have the correct racial profile to get in the team.

"I was right. Too much weights, not enough speedwork. Useless prick."

Cultural, not racial old bean.