TOTALLY GEEKED!

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

A Pennsylvania College Thought This 'Crusader' Mascot Was Too Offensive

weltschmerz · Guru

Batman is offensive, now? You know, what with being the Caped Crusader, and all.....

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

I would think Christians would appreciate this move. Nothing paints their religion in a bad light quite like the crusades.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The Squirrels?

Ilumine · Regular

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would think Christians would appreciate this move. Nothing paints their religion in a bad light quite like the crusades.

Given the fact that the Muslims actually "crusaded" first, in 632 a.d. (aftet Mohammad's death). Under Kahlid al-Wahlid, the Muslims taxed thier peoples, called for recruits and marched out of Arabia to conquor for thsir Religions sake. In fact Oasama Bin Ladin used al-whalid's justification for crusading to justify his own use of suicide bombers.

Jerusalem was never a Muslim property. It was conquerred by Caliph Umar I in 637 A.d. By 652 a.d., they had moved into Sicily (One of the reasons why scilIan's are dark skinned and had the derogatory term Dago attached to them when they immigrated to the US)

And by 725 a.d. the Muslim "Crusades" had reached and taken over Nimes, France. And in 755 all of Spain is under the control of the Umayyad Family.

between then and and 1026 ad (When Richard II went on his crusade to the Holy Land) the Muslim fighting for control of Europe, Africa and the Middle East was by no means welcome by the local populous. Especially given one had to either convert or pay a tax that the average serf couldn't afford. Oh yeah, and the Christian infidels were treated just as nicely as the Catholic Chirch treated it's infedels during the Inquisition.

Just becuase history (and the apologists) used the pretty name Moors, doesn't change the fact that the Christian crusades were a direct retaliation of the Muslim crusades.

I don't believe that one should be excused for doing a bad thing becuase someone else did it. But at the same time, don't blame only one side for doing the bad thing either.

Oh and don't forget, the Byzantine Emporer asked the Pope to send help becuase the Muslims were fighting g back at being kicked out of their previously conquered lands, thus the First True Chrisitan Crusade began in 1096.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Wow.

A squirrel doesn't seem like much of an imposing opponent. They run away from everything.

And the reasoning for changing it is so stupid.

But.

That's what this PC crap is doing to our country.

We have gone from conquering warriors to scared rodents.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Honestly, all these battles over the names of sports teams seems like total IDIOCY. Who cares? I mean, if they want to change the name then change the name. If they don't, then don't. Nobody is trying to give their own team a derogatory name. Naming teams after Indians was thought of as a compliment as people viewed Indians as strong, fierce and proud. So, why they want to wah, wah, wah, that it is somehow a slam is beyond me. But, fine, if you want to remove all references of Native Americans from sports teams, then have at it. But, it is just more liberal stupidity masquerading as something important.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Squirrels are cute and they can be fierce. There are lots of ways to make cool animal logos. And, it is probably a good move to sell merchandise.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Skwirrels are crazy!

flan

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Honestly, all these battles over the names of sports teams seems like total IDIOCY. Who cares? I mean, if they want to change the name then change the name. If they don't, then don't. Nobody is trying to give their own team a derogatory name. Naming teams after Indians was thought of as a compliment as people viewed Indians as strong, fierce and proud. So, why they want to wah, wah, wah, that it is somehow a slam is beyond me. But, fine, if you want to remove all references of Native Americans from sports teams, then have at it. But, it is just more liberal stupidity masquerading as something important.

I posted this just for you LGS.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I just think it's dumb to focus on the old definition of Crusader rather than the current one. A crusader is someone who works hard for a long time to achieve something that they strongly believe is morally right

Lindley · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Squirrels are cute and they can be fierce. There are lots of ways to make cool animal logos. And, it is probably a good move to sell merchandise.

My dad had a fight with a squirrel over his pecan tree. The squirrel acted like he was going to attack my dad.

huskerbb · Guru

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would think Christians would appreciate this move. Nothing paints their religion in a bad light quite like the crusades.

Only to those wholly ignorant of history.

The Crusades actually started because Christian pilgrims on their way to and from the Holy Land were being attacked and killed by Muslims. The European Christians decided at that time to wrest the Holy Land from the Muslim invaders.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
I just think it's dumb to focus on the old definition of Crusader rather than the current one. A crusader is someone who works hard for a long time to achieve something that they strongly believe is morally right

That's pretty much the "old" definition, too.

huskerbb · Guru

Ilumine wrote:
Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
I would think Christians would appreciate this move. Nothing paints their religion in a bad light quite like the crusades.
Given the fact that the Muslims actually "crusaded" first, in 632 a.d. (aftet Mohammad's death). Under Kahlid al-Wahlid, the Muslims taxed thier peoples, called for recruits and marched out of Arabia to conquor for thsir Religions sake. In fact Oasama Bin Ladin used al-whalid's justification for crusading to justify his own use of suicide bombers.
Jerusalem was never a Muslim property. It was conquerred by Caliph Umar I in 637 A.d. By 652 a.d., they had moved into Sicily (One of the reasons why scilIan's are dark skinned and had the derogatory term Dago attached to them when they immigrated to the US)
And by 725 a.d. the Muslim "Crusades" had reached and taken over Nimes, France. And in 755 all of Spain is under the control of the Umayyad Family.
between then and and 1026 ad (When Richard II went on his crusade to the Holy Land) the Muslim fighting for control of Europe, Africa and the Middle East was by no means welcome by the local populous. Especially given one had to either convert or pay a tax that the average serf couldn't afford. Oh yeah, and the Christian infidels were treated just as nicely as the Catholic Chirch treated it's infedels during the Inquisition.
Just becuase history (and the apologists) used the pretty name Moors, doesn't change the fact that the Christian crusades were a direct retaliation of the Muslim crusades.
I don't believe that one should be excused for doing a bad thing becuase someone else did it. But at the same time, don't blame only one side for doing the bad thing either.
Oh and don't forget, the Byzantine Emporer asked the Pope to send help becuase the Muslims were fighting g back at being kicked out of their previously conquered lands, thus the First True Chrisitan Crusade began in 1096.

Didn't see your post. You beat me to it. Pretty good, brief summary.