MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MUfan12 on February 11, 2021, 12:36:56 PM
-
No word yet on if they'll decide to be "The Brown."
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/ct-ptb-valparaiso-university-new-mascot-st-0212-20210211-xtv334georhg7in73kac3almvy-story.html
-
Ya kant sey dat heer, hey?
-
This'll be interesting pretty much any school without an animal is going to find themselves on shaky grounds if it becomes precedent
-
This'll be interesting pretty much any school without an animal is going to find themselves on shaky grounds if it becomes precedent
Yeah but the predatory nature of animals is problematic. It'll have to be vegetation.
-
Yeah but the predatory nature of animals is problematic. It'll have to be vegetation.
Organic, of course.
-
Organic, of course.
And non-phallic. So the Evansville Eggplants are out.
-
It's not about the violence, it's about who the violence was directed at.
-
Anybody tired of this Yet?
Vonnegut would have had a good laugh at this stuff
-
Anybody tired of this Yet?
Vonnegut would have had a good laugh at this stuff
Tired of what exactly?
-
Tired of what exactly?
Non-phallic organic fruits and vegetables.
-
The Marquette Organic Sprouts.
Let’s grab the name before all the other schools want it.
-
And non-phallic. So the Evansville Eggplants are out.
I guess RISD's mascot Scrotie is out then
-
The Marquette Organic Sprouts.
Let’s grab the name before all the other schools want it.
Copying a generic name hasn't stopped us before.
-
Goodnews, hey?
-
As a full member of the Knights Templar, I'm disappointed in the decision.
-
It's not about the violence, it's about who the violence was directed at.
I know. I couldn't enjoy Bryce Drew's buzzer beater because of the guilt I felt as a Christian.
-
Valpo Alpo
Valpo Bricky (Gold Bricky is looking to return somewhere.)
-
Yeah but the predatory nature of animals is problematic. It'll have to be vegetation.
Rhinos are vegetarians. And cool as hell.
-
Might as well do away with Knights as a nickname as well. Many Knights enjoyed a good plundering and hate groups love using Knights as well, far more than Crusaders.
-
I know. I couldn't enjoy Bryce Drew's buzzer beater because of the guilt I felt as a Christian.
No one's asking you to feel guilt, just empathy towards your Muslim brothers and sisters.
-
Might as well do away with Knights as a nickname as well. Many Knights enjoyed a good plundering and hate groups love using Knights as well, far more than Crusaders.
I think as long as the mascot isn't a guy in a bedsheet, knight is a fine mascot. The trouble with crusader is that it's primary definition refers to a group of people that was created to commit genocide against another religion. I can understand why Muslim students would take offense to the name.
-
I think as long as the mascot isn't a guy in a bedsheet, knight is a fine mascot. The trouble with crusader is that it's primary definition refers to a group of people that was created to commit genocide against another religion. I can understand why Muslim students would take offense to the name.
Right, imagine if the Wright State Jihadis existed
-
'Social Justice Warriors' awaits.
-
I think as long as the mascot isn't a guy in a bedsheet, knight is a fine mascot. The trouble with crusader is that it's primary definition refers to a group of people that was created to commit genocide against another religion. I can understand why Muslim students would take offense to the name.
Genocide is aggressive. Unless we are going to call every English foray into France a genocide. Or the constant shifting of kingdoms and territories in literally every continent in the world at that time. I don’t view territorial aggression and acquisition as genocidal.
The purpose of the crusades was to take back the Holy Land, not the wholesale removal of Muslims from the Middle East. I’m unaware of the Crusades moving further East out of the “Holy Lands” if genocide was indeed the goal. It’s not like the Turks and Fatimids were just peacefully twiddling their thumbs before the crusades began.
War sucks, but it’s also a profound part of history. Terrible stuff happened during the Crusade, but it was hardly one sided. If remnants and references to historical wars are going to be a point of discomfort that needs to be removed, this is just the beginning.
Right, imagine if the Wright State Jihadis existed
Except Jihad/Jihadist is a contemporary term specifically developed with a connotation to terrorism.
We’re calling the the Crusades medieval terrorism now?
-
Genocide is aggressive. Unless we are going to call every English foray into France a genocide. Or the constant shifting of kingdoms and territories in literally every continent in the world at that time. I don%u2019t view territorial aggression and acquisition as genocidal.
The purpose of the crusades was to take back the Holy Land, not the wholesale removal of Muslims from the Middle East. I%u2019m unaware of the Crusades moving further East out of the %u201CHoly Lands%u201D if genocide was indeed the goal. It%u2019s not like the Turks and Fatimids were just peacefully twiddling their thumbs before the crusades began.
War sucks, but it%u2019s also a profound part of history. Terrible stuff happened during the Crusade, but it was hardly one sided. If remnants and references to historical wars are going to be a point of discomfort that needs to be removed, this is just the beginning.
Except Jihad/Jihadist is a contemporary term specifically developed with a connotation to terrorism.
We%u2019re calling the the Crusades medieval terrorism now?
You point is well taken from my perspective. The term genocide has seemingly had a number of permutations. In reality there has only been one attempt of actual genocide which was of course the Holocaust.
I make a distinction between ethnic cleansing or targeting a religious group in a specific area, Warlordism in various parts of the world, and actual genocide. So for example even if you look at Cambodia in the early 70's, which proportionally is arguably the worst mass slaughtering in history, I wouldn't define it as genocide.
What makes the Holocaust different is the goal of the Nazis was to literally kill every member of the Jewish faith on earth.
-
Genocide is aggressive. Unless we are going to call every English foray into France a genocide. Or the constant shifting of kingdoms and territories in literally every continent in the world at that time. I don’t view territorial aggression and acquisition as genocidal.
I think you know that trying to define the Crusades as "territorial aggression and acquisition" is not a fair categorization. This was not a single kingdom invading the neighboring kingdom for land and resources. This was several kingdoms, unified by a single religion, seeking to "take back" land that none of the involved kingdoms had ever possessed from a collection of peoples who belonged to a different religion solely because they were a different religion. The land they conquered was not strategically relevant to the Kingdoms that were involved and the cost of conquering far outweighed any possible resource benefit due to the distance involved. The purpose was to make war against and take land from people of a different religion.
The purpose of the crusades was to take back the Holy Land, not the wholesale removal of Muslims from the Middle East. I’m unaware of the Crusades moving further East out of the “Holy Lands” if genocide was indeed the goal. It’s not like the Turks and Fatimids were just peacefully twiddling their thumbs before the crusades began.
I mean it's theoretically possible the crusaders would have stopped at the Holy Lands had they been successful. I think the actual reason they didn't move east of the Holy Lands was because they could barely hold the land they did conquer and were ultimately expelled. The Turks and Fatimids weren't peaceful but their attacks on Christian kingdoms followed the more traditional sense of invading the neighboring kingdom for land and resources whereas the majority of Crusaders were from Kingdoms thousands of miles from the holy land. I'm also not advocating for schools to name themselves the Saracens.
War sucks, but it’s also a profound part of history. Terrible stuff happened during the Crusade, but it was hardly one sided. If remnants and references to historical wars are going to be a point of discomfort that needs to be removed, this is just the beginning.
I don't think two wrongs make a right applies here. And while atrocities happened on both sides, it is undisputed which side was the aggressor. The slippery slope logical fallacy also doesn't apply here. The problem isn't war, history, or even violence. The problem is when the name honors a group of people who committed war and violence against people because of their religion.
Except Jihad/Jihadist is a contemporary term specifically developed with a connotation to terrorism.
That's part of the problem though. Not everyone views Jihad/Jihadist in that way. Some view them as modern day crusaders for their faith. We have legitimate reasons to be offended if a school decided to name their mascot that. Just as Muslim students have legitimate reasons to be offended by the mascot Crusader.
It's all about having empathy for your fellow brothers and sisters.
-
You point is well taken from my perspective. The term genocide has seemingly had a number of permutations. In reality there has only been one attempt of actual genocide which was of course the Holocaust.
I make a distinction between ethnic cleansing or targeting a religious group in a specific area, Warlordism in various parts of the world, and actual genocide. So for example even if you look at Cambodia in the early 70's, which proportionally is arguably the worst mass slaughtering in history, I wouldn't define it as genocide.
What makes the Holocaust different is the goal of the Nazis was to literally kill every member of the Jewish faith on earth.
I mean, if you want to fight over vocabulary, fine we don't have to use the word genocide. Crusaders were created cleanse a specific region of the world of people of a specific faith (though I think we shouldn't assume that it would have stopped there had they been successful). I still think that's problematic.
-
While it may or may not be genocide, the Western Church promised salvation to those who participated and damnation for those who refused to engage in an aggressive military action against people due primarily to their faith.
No Christian school should celebrate this obvious bastardization of Christianity.
-
It's not a fight about vocabulary. The term wasn't even coined unti towards the end of WW2. The reason the word itself has significance is because it was used to describe the specific horrors perpetrated against Jews and a religious group with an unusually small population.
The facist regimes or warlords slaughtering their own people is not the same thing. Nor was Rwanda, the Crusades, Sierra Leonne, Darfur, Bosnia, Armenia, etc, etc.
The problem is the word has been used improperly to describe every horrific event and that is incorrect and diminishes its purpose/origin.
-
I think you know that trying to define the Crusades as "territorial aggression and acquisition" is not a fair categorization. This was not a single kingdom invading the neighboring kingdom for land and resources. This was several kingdoms, unified by a single religion, seeking to "take back" land that none of the involved kingdoms had ever possessed from a collection of peoples who belonged to a different religion solely because they were a different religion. The land they conquered was not strategically relevant to the Kingdoms that were involved and the cost of conquering far outweighed any possible resource benefit due to the distance involved. The purpose was to make war against and take land from people of a different religion.
We don’t need to overly quibble about historical nuance cause you made your point eloquently, but the initial crusade was a result of the Byzantine Empire asking the Vatican for help because the Turks were running them over from the East. And even then, Christian/Muslims didn’t get along, so Turkish rule didn’t bode well for Christians in the East of Europe. And the Byzantine Empire ruled/possessed Jerusalem for hundreds of years, laying most of the physical foundation for its status as a Christian holy site. So it’s not like they’re was no history of control or possession. Or that the Christians from Eastern Europe one day woke up and chose violence
But to Fluffy’s point, the Vatican’s opportunistic co-opting of that request into a guilt driven marketing play to extend their power and reach was pretty gross
-
You point is well taken from my perspective. The term genocide has seemingly had a number of permutations. In reality there has only been one attempt of actual genocide which was of course the Holocaust.
I make a distinction between ethnic cleansing or targeting a religious group in a specific area, Warlordism in various parts of the world, and actual genocide. So for example even if you look at Cambodia in the early 70's, which proportionally is arguably the worst mass slaughtering in history, I wouldn't define it as genocide.
What makes the Holocaust different is the goal of the Nazis was to literally kill every member of the Jewish faith on earth.
Actually, that wasn't the really goal of the Nazis. In fact, early in the war, Hitler was very open to isolating and impoverishing them (by stripping away their property, businesses and such). That evolved into a plan to rid the Reich of them by allowing them to flee to other countries and/or isolating them in Jewish Ghettos and Concentration Camps. Unfortunately, most countries didn't want to accept Jews when Hitler still would have let them go, so more and more were shipped to Jewish Ghettos and Concentration Camps. Some were killed in the early years, but the widespread extermination didn't begin until later when the tide turned and Hitler began getting desperate and losing his mind. By then, it was obvious that he wasn't going to kill every Jew on earth because it was clear to everyone that his plan to rule the world had fallen apart.
So technically, even by your definition, not even the Holocaust was a genocide.
-
Actually, that wasn't the really goal of the Nazis. In fact, early in the war, Hitler was very open to isolating and impoverishing them (by stripping away their property, businesses and such). That evolved into a plan to rid the Reich of them by allowing them to flee to other countries and/or isolating them in Jewish Ghettos and Concentration Camps. Unfortunately, most countries didn't want to accept Jews when Hitler still would have let them go, so more and more were shipped to Jewish Ghettos and Concentration Camps. Some were killed in the early years, but the widespread extermination didn't begin until later when the tide turned and Hitler began getting desperate and losing his mind. By then, it was obvious that he wasn't going to kill every Jew on earth because it was clear to everyone that his plan to rule the world had fallen apart.
So technically, even by your definition, not even the Holocaust was a genocide.
2/3 of the Jewish population in Europe were killed, including in spots where there were very small populations. So while he was "bat crap crazy" had he not made a fatal mistake with Russia he very well could have exterminated all European Jews.
-
2/3 of the Jewish population in Europe were killed, including in spots where there were very small populations. So while he was "bat crap crazy" had he not made a fatal mistake with Russia he very well could have exterminated all European Jews.
First of all, you said the Holocaust was a genocide because the goal had been to kill all people of a certain faith on earth. Now you are backtracking to those in Europe. And killing those in conquered areas didn’t even become the primary plan until after Hitler couldn’t ‘export’ them and when it was clear that he wasn’t going to succeed in his quest for world control.
Your definition would eliminate every instance we have seen...including the Holocaust. In reality, both the Holocaust and the Killing Fields of Cambodia were clear examples of genocides.
-
First of all, you said the Holocaust was a genocide because the goal had been to kill all people of a certain faith on earth. Now you are backtracking to those in Europe. And killing those in conquered areas didn’t even become the primary plan until after Hitler couldn’t ‘export’ them and when it was clear that he wasn’t going to succeed in his quest for world control.
Both the Holocaust and the Killing Fields of Cambodia were examples of genocides.
I'm not going to argue with you but the term was coined specifically in reference to the Holocaust. Regardless FDR should have intervened, Nixon did nothing in Cambodia, Clinton did nothing in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, and Obama and Trump did zilch in Syria. My opinion is we have an obligation to combat ignominious atrocities, both human and other animals, wherever they occur on this earth. It's something I think we have failed miserably at since WW2.
-
I'm not going to argue with you but the term was coined specifically in reference to the Holocaust. Regardless FDR should have intervened, Nixon did nothing in Cambodia, Clinton did nothing in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, and Obama and Trump did zilch in Syria. My opinion is we have an obligation to combat ignominious atrocities, both human and other animals, wherever they occur on this earth. It's something I think we have failed miserably at since WW2.
I am not arguing about whether it is appropriate to apply the term to the Holocaust. It clearly is. But it also applies to many other circumstances that are just as heinous and appalling. And you are correct; America has been guilty of inaction many, many times.
-
I’m amused that the German Lutherans that ran Valparaiso decided to use “Crusader” as a mascot in the first place. I also wonder if it (the University) will survive. But my only reference is its size and the closure of its law school.
-
I am not arguing about whether it is appropriate to apply the term to the Holocaust. It clearly is. But it also applies to many other circumstances that are just as heinous and appalling. And you are correct; America has been guilty of inaction many, many times.
There would be far fewer atrocities if we were in charge Goooooo. Of course I would also go after those involved in animal poaching and cruelty on all levels, including the buyers. I would track down every ivory trinket and allow Rhinos and Elephants personal revenge. Poaching would end in 5 mins as it should.
-
It's not a fight about vocabulary.
It is. We are having a conversation about whether or not the name Crusader is appropriate for a university mascot. I don't care if you call the crusades a genocide, ethnic cleansing, religious fueled war against Muslims, it's all bad.
The term wasn't even coined unti towards the end of WW2. The reason the word itself has significance is because it was used to describe the specific horrors perpetrated against Jews and a religious group with an unusually small population.
The facist regimes or warlords slaughtering their own people is not the same thing. Nor was Rwanda, the Crusades, Sierra Leonne, Darfur, Bosnia, Armenia, etc, etc.
The problem is the word has been used improperly to describe every horrific event and that is incorrect and diminishes its purpose/origin.
You are correct that term was coined towards the end of WWII (by polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin). You are also correct that it was coined to describe what it was happening to the Jewish people under Nazi rule.
You are incorrect that he coined it to refer to only the Holocaust. His actual definition was “Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.” In his writings he spoke on many historical genocides including the Armenian genocide (which is what initially inspired his interest in the topic) and one of the Crusades (though not the one we are talking about here). Lemkin also was the driving force behind the UN's passing of the Genocide Convention which eventually went on to convict individuals for Genocide (using Lemkin's definition) in both Rwanda and Yugoslavia.
-
I’m amused that the German Lutherans that ran Valparaiso decided to use “Crusader” as a mascot in the first place. I also wonder if it (the University) will survive. But my only reference is its size and the closure of its law school.
It has significant financial issues. Maybe not enough to close immediately but enough to slowly degrade the school over time. Will it be around in 20 years?
Believe it or not it has a top notch meteorology program.
-
There would be far fewer atrocities if we were in charge Goooooo. Of course I would also go after those involved in animal poaching and cruelty on all levels, including the buyers. I would track down every ivory trinket and allow Rhinos and Elephants personal revenge. Poaching would end in 5 mins as it should.
Beware. Goooo likes his Arby's.
-
Beware. Goooo likes his Arby's.
That was supposed to be a secret! 😱
-
gen·o·cide
/ˈjenəˌsīd/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Just because the word is new, doesn't mean that its meaning doesn't apply. All of the things described in this thread are genocides. And a couple we are leaving out are the Armenian Genocide, Bosnian genocide, and worst of all the First People of the United States genocide.
-
No one's asking you to feel guilt, just empathy towards your Muslim brothers and sisters.
Wait wait wait... hold up. I think we need a history review. Those Muslim brothers and sisters were far from innocent during the crusades.
Maybe instead of banning names we should ban religions. Hell they have been the cause of a large majority of non old age deaths in the past 4000 years.
-
In reality there has only been one attempt of actual genocide which was of course the Holocaust.
Uhhh, sir you are just plain wrong. Hell the Jewish holocaust wasn't even the only one of THAT war.
Jeeezus there's one currently on going in China that the entire world (even sjw) turns an absolute blind eye to.
-
Uhhh, sir you are just plain wrong. Hell the Jewish holocaust wasn't even the only one of THAT war.
Jeeezus there's one currently on going in China that the entire world (even sjw) turns an absolute blind eye to.
I wouldn't say the entire world, but I agree with you in general. And I would disagree saying 'sjw's are turning a blind eye to it. That's just a strange thing to say.
-
Wait wait wait... hold up. I think we need a history review. Those Muslim brothers and sisters were far from innocent during the crusades
I don't think I suggested otherwise. And again, I wouldn't support naming a mascot Saracens either.
-
Maybe instead of banning names we should ban religions.
Baby steps, start taxing the religions. Then work on dissolving them.
-
Does this precedent likely mean Holy Cross has to change too?
-
Except Jihad/Jihadist is a contemporary term specifically developed with a connotation to terrorism.
We’re calling the the Crusades medieval terrorism now?
Jihad is not contemporary. It has been a part of Islam since the foundations, and is included in the Quran. The word has been widely interpreted by Islamic scholars for centuries.
Also, I'm not calling Jihadi's terrorists. That was your red herring.
-
nm
-
Does this precedent likely mean Holy Cross has to change too?
Absolutely, we're goin' to all numbers for school mascots. In fact, the BOT will be considerin' droppin' the chicken, for our new identity...Marquette 69ers, hey?
-
Baby steps, start taxing the religions. Then work on dissolving them.
Yup. This is a great idea. Countries that are godless never commit atrocities right? Like China, and the Soviet Union. Bastions of human rights.
Maybe it has something more to do with human nature, and the way that some people have an insatiable proclivity towards power and greed, and they use whatever means necessary to manipulate others to their cause, which in the end usually has nothing to do with religion, it usually has everything to do with the quest for wealth and power.
-
This is false. Historically speaking, the Crusades were a response to Muslim armies besieging, sacking, destroying and the conquest of cities throughout the Holy Land. The goal of the crusades was not to wipe out Islam, but to return cities that had been held by Christians to Christians. As the song goes, Istanbul was once Constantinople. And after the siege (of Constantinople), there were literally tens of thousands of people enslaved. The response that was the crusades, was people trying to help people they envisioned as brethren, not to wipe Islam off the Earth.
History is mostly the ways in which humans treat other humans terribly. There is no Race, Religion, or people that is free of the stain. But we need to study history to see how we can be better, and to try to understand motivations and circumstances. Making claims, based off, what something you read on twitter, aren't helpful.
Last week, I was coincidently reading about the Byzantine Empire.
In the late 1000's Turks had been making repeated attacks against Byzantium. The Byzantine Emperor reached out to the Pope for help despite the recent Great Schism. The Pope agreed and the First Crusade was born.
It was a Byzantine & Western Church alliance. Crusaders attacked the holy land to regain and the Byzantines kept the Turks busy up north.
By the 1200's the Crusaders got greedy and attacked and then sacked Constantinople instead of the heading to the holy land. The Byzantine Empire was able to regroup afterwards, but it was never the same.
In 1453, the Turks sieged Constantinople and finally took it ending the Eastern Roman Empire. 90% of Constantinople residents were sold into slavery by the Turks.
-
Jihad is not contemporary. It has been a part of Islam since the foundations, and is included in the Quran. The word has been widely interpreted by Islamic scholars for centuries.
Also, I'm not calling Jihadi's terrorists. That was your red herring.
I should have clarified “jihadist”. Jihad is an Arabic word. Thus, Arabic speakers wouldn’t add “ist” to the end of the word in their own speaking. In the Quran or otherwise. That’s where it a contemporary and Western term.
-
I should have clarified “jihadist”. Jihad is an Arabic word. Thus, Arabic speakers wouldn’t add “ist” to the end of the word in their own speaking. In the Quran or otherwise. That’s where it a contemporary and Western term.
Okay, semantics it is.
-
Last week, I was coincidently reading about the Byzantine Empire.
In the late 1000's Turks had been making repeated attacks against Byzantium. The Byzantine Emperor reached out to the Pope for help despite the recent Great Schism. The Pope agreed and the First Crusade was born.
It was a Byzantine & Western Church alliance. Crusaders attacked the holy land to regain and the Byzantines kept the Turks busy up north.
By the 1200's the Crusaders got greedy and attacked and then sacked Constantinople instead of the heading to the holy land. The Byzantine Empire was able to regroup afterwards, but it was never the same.
In 1453, the Turks sieged Constantinople and finally took it ending the Eastern Roman Empire. 90% of Constantinople residents were sold into slavery by the Turks.
So people of color sold slaves?
-
So people of color sold slaves?
Yes of course, slavery still exists and isn't limited to one type of people. But "SEE THEY DO IT TOO" isn't justification for anything.
-
So people of color sold slaves?
What is the point of this statement? Like you're clearly trying to make a point without saying it.
Everybody with an ounce of historical knowledge or hell biblical knowledge knows there's been slavery in Africa, Mediterranean empires, Asia, etc. but the only reason anyone tries to point it out is to say something without actually saying it.
-
What is the point of this statement? Like you're clearly trying to make a point without saying it.
Everybody with an ounce of historical knowledge or hell biblical knowledge knows there's been slavery in Africa, Mediterranean empires, Asia, etc. but the only reason anyone tries to point it out is to say something without actually saying it.
Yup exactly.
-
Maybe it has something more to do with human nature, and the way that some people have an insatiable proclivity towards power and greed, and they use whatever means necessary to manipulate others to their cause, which in the end usually has nothing to do with religion, it usually has everything to do with the quest for wealth and power.
Why you describing the Catholic church?
-
Why you describing the Catholic church?
And the Baptist church x2
-
And the Baptist church x2
pretty much everyone that isn't Lutheran
-
nm
-
nm
-
So when do we call for dumping the Fighting Irish????
It connotates an ethnic stereotype of Irish people inconsistent either with today's values or the history of the Irish people. The Notre Dame lexicon suggests Irish people all are aggressive and worship small mythical men. I'd suggest there is a stereotype of Irish people also being well-served, which leads to the concept of a leprechaun.
-
So when do we call for dumping the Fighting Irish????
It connotates an ethnic stereotype of Irish people inconsistent either with today's values or the history of the Irish people. The Notre Dame lexicon suggests Irish people all are aggressive and worship small mythical men. I'd suggest there is a stereotype of Irish people also being well-served, which leads to the concept of a leprechaun.
When are people going to demand to marry their pets?
-
So when do we call for dumping the Fighting Irish????
It connotates an ethnic stereotype of Irish people inconsistent either with today's values or the history of the Irish people. The Notre Dame lexicon suggests Irish people all are aggressive and worship small mythical men. I'd suggest there is a stereotype of Irish people also being well-served, which leads to the concept of a leprechaun.
For the record I've been demanding this for years since I was little and people would say "oh your moms from Ireland?! Go Notre Dame right?!" And didn't help when the short pale kid took up boxing and bagpiping
When are people going to demand to marry their pets?
While this was suppose to expose the slippery slope argument that was made during the gay marriage legislation it should be stated that people have tried to marry weird $hit
-
So when do we call for dumping the Fighting Irish????
It connotates an ethnic stereotype of Irish people inconsistent either with today's values or the history of the Irish people. The Notre Dame lexicon suggests Irish people all are aggressive and worship small mythical men. I'd suggest there is a stereotype of Irish people also being well-served, which leads to the concept of a leprechaun.
Same time they ask UNC Pembroke to drop their mascot. Never.
It's different when the institution serves the population that is being depicted by the mascot.
-
Same time they ask UNC Pembroke to drop their mascot. Never.
It's different when the institution serves the population that is being depicted by the mascot.
Serving south side Chicago 5th generation potato famine families isn't serving the population depicted my friend.
-
When are people going to demand to marry their pets?
Beastiality is already a thin' in parts of Wisconsin, aina?
-
Beastiality is already a thin' in parts of Wisconsin, aina?
Platteville:
Where the girls like girls and the boys like sheep.
-
Same time they ask UNC Pembroke to drop their mascot. Never.
It's different when the institution serves the population that is being depicted by the mascot.
?
-
?
UNC Pembroke's mascot is the Braves. It is exempt from the NCAAs mandate on Native American imagery because UNC Pembroke is a traditional Native American serving institution. Notre Dame was a traditional Irish serving institution back when that meant something (it doesn't anymore). Today, a significant chunk (majority?) of their students are still of Irish descent thus the mascot isn't problematic in the same way that other mascots have been problematic.
Honestly, this conversation is completely separate from the Valpo conversation. The Valpo conversation is more similar to the confederate statues conversation.
-
UNC Pembroke's mascot is the Braves. It is exempt from the NCAAs mandate on Native American imagery because UNC Pembroke is a traditional Native American serving institution. Notre Dame was a traditional Irish serving institution back when that meant something (it doesn't anymore). Today, a significant chunk (majority?) of their students are still of Irish descent thus the mascot isn't problematic in the same way that other mascots have been problematic.
Honestly, this conversation is completely separate from the Valpo conversation. The Valpo conversation is more similar to the confederate statues conversation.
Brother TAMU, I was being a bit absurdist, I admit, and I actually agree with you on the “Crusaders” name. It represents a time in our Church’s life when we put the temporal above the spiritual and we clearly loss sight of who and what we are as Christians. I’m not sure we want to advertise this and, to your point, it is offensive to our Muslim brothers and sisters. Highly offensive.
Perhaps we Catholics need to do the same thing rationale thinking southerners have done for a generation — look at our symbols and ask the question, what are we saying about ourselves? What are we communicating in our society?
That said, the Warriors needed to stay (but that fight is over, over, over). 8-)
-
UNC Pembroke's mascot is the Braves. It is exempt from the NCAAs mandate on Native American imagery because UNC Pembroke is a traditional Native American serving institution. Notre Dame was a traditional Irish serving institution back when that meant something (it doesn't anymore). Today, a significant chunk (majority?) of their students are still of Irish descent thus the mascot isn't problematic in the same way that other mascots have been problematic.
Honestly, this conversation is completely separate from the Valpo conversation. The Valpo conversation is more similar to the confederate statues conversation.
I couldn't find data on this, but I would be shocked to learn that anywhere near a majority of ND students are of Irish descent, at least within the past couple of generations.
-
I couldn't find data on this, but I would be shocked to learn that anywhere near a majority of ND students are of Irish descent, at least within the past couple of generations.
Everyone’s a little bit Irish on st Patrick’s day, right?
-
ND Sucks has a nice mascot ring to it.
-
ND Sucks has a nice mascot ring to it.
Would be representative of the student population.
-
Same time they ask UNC Pembroke to drop their mascot. Never.
It's different when the institution serves the population that is being depicted by the mascot.
....but Fighting Irish just may incite violence.
-
nm
-
Would be representative of the student population.
LOL.
-
Would you say that a majority, or even a significant chunk of Valpo's students are Christian? Because if they are, then, by your same logic being applied to ND, there shouldn't be an issue here.
Let me guess - you struggled with logic at Marquette.
Crusaders isn’t some sort of badge of honor for Christians. The Crusades was an immoral misuse of theology that should not be celebrated at all.
-
Would be representative of the student population.
Applause
I couldn't find data on this, but I would be shocked to learn that anywhere near a majority of ND students are of Irish descent, at least within the past couple of generations.
Probably depends what you'd consider Irish. If you're talking about people who can claim citizenship (grandparents from Ireland) I'd bet TAMU is way off base with his assumption. If you're talking about someone who identifies as Irish (ie your average 7th generation person from a cop/firefighter neighborhood on the south side of a city) that may grow a bit to a plurality. If you're talking anyone with an Irish ancestor then TAMU may be correct. Of course the question would be whether they'd identify as Irish to have an opinion, for example I don't think many of the people who see Obama say "he's an Irish lad" but he certainly would have as much right to call himself one as any white person that says "I'm 10% Irish!"
-
Let me guess - you struggled with logic at Marquette.
Crusaders isn’t some sort of badge of honor for Christians. The Crusades was an immoral misuse of theology that should not be celebrated at all.
Nope, not at all actually, please tell me what part of this...
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aOH6vl0OJuabzYvDc2SiwwRCWbg=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(981x696:1461x1176)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63570383/487065812.jpg.0.jpg)
Should inspire pride?
And I obviously deleted my comment, because discussing history with those that don't know it is silly. Your statement could apply to later crusades, but not really the first crusade at all.
-
UNC Pembroke's mascot is the Braves. It is exempt from the NCAAs mandate on Native American imagery because UNC Pembroke is a traditional Native American serving institution. Notre Dame was a traditional Irish serving institution back when that meant something (it doesn't anymore). Today, a significant chunk (majority?) of their students are still of Irish descent thus the mascot isn't problematic in the same way that other mascots have been problematic.
Honestly, this conversation is completely separate from the Valpo conversation. The Valpo conversation is more similar to the confederate statues conversation.
So Braves for a traditional Native American institution is OK, but Crusaders for a traditional Christian institution is not? Perhaps those Braves slaughtered another Indigenous tribe or even, but I dare not say, European settlers. So why the exemption? I'm sure there is always some group that will find any symbol or mascot offensive.
-
Nope, not at all actually, please tell me what part of this...
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aOH6vl0OJuabzYvDc2SiwwRCWbg=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(981x696:1461x1176)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63570383/487065812.jpg.0.jpg)
Should inspire pride?
And I obviously deleted my comment, because discussing history with those that don't know it is silly. Your statement could apply to later crusades, but not really the first crusade at all.
Yes it most certainly does apply to the first Crusade. It was shameful.
And I have not defended TAMU’s point about Irish. Just that your logic doesn’t make sense.
-
I think the difference between the Native American imagery is that there's still fallout from the USA killing them and pushing them off their land. While the Crusades were pretty terrible, id be hard pressed to believe there's issues stemming from those still keeping middle easterners down. At a certain point you need to look back and say "it was the Middle Ages and doesn't effect us now"
-
I think the difference between the Native American imagery is that there's still fallout from the USA killing them and pushing them off their land. While the Crusades were pretty terrible, id be hard pressed to believe there's issues stemming from those still keeping middle easterners down. At a certain point you need to look back and say "it was the Middle Ages and doesn't effect us now"
Crusaders should be offensive to Christians too.
-
UNC Pembroke's mascot is the Braves. It is exempt from the NCAAs mandate on Native American imagery because UNC Pembroke is a traditional Native American serving institution.
The opposite situation was in effect at the small college in the town where I grew up - Fort Lewis College. We were very near both the Southern Ute and Navajo reservations and FLC prided itself in offering significant tuition grants to Native Americans who attended. Their mascot was the "Raiders." By itself, perhaps not a big deal, but the imagery was a US Cavalry solider on horseback. I'll chalk it up to youth and ignorance (and a very different time) that I didn't realize how insensitive that was. They have been the Skyhawks since 1994.
(http://www.fortlewis.edu/finding_aids/FLCviews/Raider1992.jpg)
-
Crusaders should be offensive to Christians too.
Anything from the Middle Ages I'm hard pressed to be offended by. I mean most the countries aren't the same, the governments are different for those that are. The moral and ethical standards were wayyy different. And were so minimally related to anyone from those days I'd be hard pressed to feel guilt or be offended by the actions of those days.
-
I think the difference between the Native American imagery is that there's still fallout from the USA killing them and pushing them off their land. While the Crusades were pretty terrible, id be hard pressed to believe there's issues stemming from those still keeping middle easterners down. At a certain point you need to look back and say "it was the Middle Ages and doesn't effect us now"
...and no Native American tribe killed and pushed another tribe off their land?
-
...and no Native American tribe killed and pushed another tribe off their land?
To the level that we did? And then sequestered them to reservations. Don't let your nationalistic pride get in the way of the honest truth of American history.
-
Anything from the Middle Ages I'm hard pressed to be offended by. I mean most the countries aren't the same, the governments are different for those that are. The moral and ethical standards were wayyy different. And were so minimally related to anyone from those days I'd be hard pressed to feel guilt or be offended by the actions of those days.
Brother Galway,
It's about what you stand for and the putting the values you preach into practice.
In my former home state of Tennessee, there was a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the state capitol in downtown Nashville. Mr. Forrest had a reputation as a great civil war general and to many Caucasians of a southern lean, he was a hero defending the rights of states to govern themselves with limited federal interference. He also was a freedom fighter dedicated to stopping the union insurgency.
Our African-America brothers and sisters see General Forrest as the founder of the Klu Klux Klan.
You can guess what happened to General Forrest's statue. Some bigots were so inflamed that they constructed a massive aluminum statue of General Forrest on his horse on Interstate 65 as you enter Nashville from Williamson County. Idiots!
Same with the Crusaders. Christians see Crusaders in a western European context. They were acting on behalf of God (forgetting that Jesus couldn't care less about ground. He cared about people). Muslims see these folks (and are taught) as terrorists out to deny them their faith.
To give Valpo a little bit of credit, do we really want to fight over this nonsense?
-
Brother Galway,
It's about what you stand for and the putting the values you preach into practice.
In my former home state of Tennessee, there was a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the state capitol in downtown Nashville. Mr. Forrest had a reputation as a great civil war general and to many Caucasians of a southern lean, he was a hero defending the rights of states to govern themselves with limited federal interference. He also was a freedom fighter dedicated to stopping the union insurgency.
Our African-America brothers and sisters see General Forrest as the founder of the Klu Klux Klan.
You can guess what happened to General Forrest's statue. Some bigots were so inflamed that they constructed a massive aluminum statue of General Forrest on his horse on Interstate 65 as you enter Nashville from Williamson County. Idiots!
Same with the Crusaders. Christians see Crusaders in a western European context. They were acting on behalf of God (forgetting that Jesus couldn't care less about ground. He cared about people). Muslims see these folks (and are taught) as terrorists out to deny them their faith.
To give Valpo a little bit of credit, do we really want to fight over this nonsense?
I honestly don't care about the change in the grand scheme of things and if someone's offended by something and can make a sound logical argument for why I'll back the side of removing the offense.
Certainly the civil war (and consequential KKK) are still relevant and impact living individuals. The Middle Ages on the other hand... I'd equate it to having a mascot called the Vikings and people from any non Scandinavia country being offended because the terror, rape, pillaging, etc the Vikings did. But I don't hear of a growing movement to change that name.
Again in the grand scheme of things if Arabic people are offended go ahead and change it, I just haven't heard an argument that has convinced me of how it impacts people's lives to this day.
-
Yes it most certainly does apply to the first Crusade. It was shameful.
And I have not defended TAMU%u2019s point about Irish. Just that your logic doesn%u2019t make sense.
All I was doing was pointing out the flaw in his logic. Sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't trying to defend the mascot.
Also I was trying to add historical context, which I obviously have not done eloquently or charitably. So I don't have anything more to add. I just sincerely wish you all a great day.
-
Probably depends what you'd consider Irish. If you're talking about people who can claim citizenship (grandparents from Ireland) I'd bet TAMU is way off base with his assumption. If you're talking about someone who identifies as Irish (ie your average 7th generation person from a cop/firefighter neighborhood on the south side of a city) that may grow a bit to a plurality. If you're talking anyone with an Irish ancestor then TAMU may be correct. Of course the question would be whether they'd identify as Irish to have an opinion, for example I don't think many of the people who see Obama say "he's an Irish lad" but he certainly would have as much right to call himself one as any white person that says "I'm 10% Irish!"
Yeah - that's why I specified within the past couple of generations. And like I said, I'd be shocked if real Irish people like that make up a majority at ND.
I did some genealogy, and I have no Irish for several generations. It's mostly English on my dad's side and German and Scottish on my mom's, so I don't consider myself Irish. But like most anyone, when I go back far enough, I can find a little Irish...and Dutch, and Russian, and damn near everything else remotely European. I even found a couple of Scottish kings about 12 or 13 generations back, but I don't make a claim to any throne.
So yeah, if you include faux Irish people like me, half of ND is "Irish." Just like half of most every other school in the US....
-
...and no Native American tribe killed and pushed another tribe off their land?
You work so damn hard to end up going nowhere.
-
....but Fighting Irish just may incite violence.
The problem isn't the violence.
-
So Braves for a traditional Native American institution is OK, but Crusaders for a traditional Christian institution is not? Perhaps those Braves slaughtered another Indigenous tribe or even, but I dare not say, European settlers. So why the exemption? I'm sure there is always some group that will find any symbol or mascot offensive.
Sigh.
Brave is a generic term for a Native American Warrior.
Crusader is specific terms for a group of Christian Warriors whose sole purpose was to take land from and kill non-Christians. And yes, the first Crusade was born out of an alliance between Byzantium and the Pope but the tactics used to recruit for the crusades was to bastardize the Christian faith and demonize people of other religions and subsequent crusades had nothing to do with an alliance with Byzantium.
It's not about violence. It's not about finding a profession that has never had a member do something bad (they don't exist). It's about not honoring a profession that was created out of hatred for and for the purpose of killing people of other religions.
The name Braves is more comparable to Knights, which no reasonable person has an issue with. Many braves and knights did terrible things but it was not the one thing they were known for. Crusaders would be more akin to a Native American serving institution naming themselves after a specific group of Native American warriors who was specifically trained to kill white settlers (I'm not sure if there was a named group like this).
The Crusades is not something Christians should take pride in. It was a low point in the history of our faith. That is indisputable.
-
Valpo is now "The Beacons." https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/10/valparaiso-university-mascot-change-crusaders-now-beacons/5554060001/
I hope nobody complains that a Beacon/Lighthouse may have been used to guide ships carrying slaves into port and they have to drop it as a school in Oregon did with an evergreen tree: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/503434-403207-portland-school-fears-evergreens-mascot-tied-to-lynching-
-
Valpo is now "The Beacons." https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/10/valparaiso-university-mascot-change-crusaders-now-beacons/5554060001/
I hope nobody complains that a Beacon/Lighthouse may have been used to guide ships carrying slaves into port and they have to drop it as a school in Oregon did with an evergreen tree: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/503434-403207-portland-school-fears-evergreens-mascot-tied-to-lynching-
Phallic symbol represents toxic masculinity.
-
Not sure what Valpo has to do with a lighthouse but whatever.
-
I would guess it has something to do with Beacons for the rest of the world. Role models.
-
I misread it, and thought they changed their name to the Bacons.
-
I misread it, and thought they changed their name to the Bacons.
That would be way better.
-
The name is ehhh, the logo is horrible generic schlock. Looks like clip art.
I personally think they should have went with "Worms" and got real deep and cheeky with their roots.
-
I misread it, and thought they changed their name to the Bacons.
Valpo can fry their opponents.
-
Valpo is now "The Beacons." https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/2021/08/10/valparaiso-university-mascot-change-crusaders-now-beacons/5554060001/
I hope nobody complains that a Beacon/Lighthouse may have been used to guide ships carrying slaves into port and they have to drop it as a school in Oregon did with an evergreen tree: https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/503434-403207-portland-school-fears-evergreens-mascot-tied-to-lynching-
Some context. The schools namesake is Ida Wells, a Black activist/journalist whose most famous work surrounded exposing the practice of lynching in the south. Speculation on my part, but the perceived connection to lynching probably doesn't get made if Wells wasn't the namesake. The article also mentioned that Wells' descendants shared the concern. I feel like it's reasonable to take into account the perspective of your namesakes family when making a decision like this.
Personally I think it's a stretch, but I don't see the harm in listening to the family. After all, we're not talking anything important here. It's a high school mascot. It's not even changing the name of a current mascot where you can at least argue emotional connection and history. They are choosing between 5 possible new names. What harm is there if they go with the second choice instead of the first?
-
The university was tired of hate groups using and co-opting 'Crusaders.'
University motto "In thy light we see light." Beacons tracks with that.
-
Why mascots?
Why nick names?
"The Marquette University mens basketball team won a close game last night 88 to 86 against XYZ University at pick a city."
"The Marquette ( Hilltoppers, Warriors, Golden Eagles, Gold, Jebbies ) mens basketball team won a close game last night 88 to 86 against the XYZ University ( Snakes, Leprechauns, Mountainmen, River Rats) at the ( Pick a food, insurance company, computer company, airline, whatever) arena.
Just the facts mam, just the facts.
-
Milw Lutheran High (on grantosa next to the round greek church by frank lloyd wright) are the Red Knights...a mounted knight decked out as a crusader.
As I recall we lutherans in the 60s had no problem with the crusades, including as they taught us a positive spin history of them in our lutheran grade school. Onward Christian Soldiers was a popular lutheran Hymn I was told was about Crusaders.
Back then we had not heard of Jihad , except as a punchline to some ethnic joke, like: "Boy Jihad a couple biguns dontcha no."
A grade school friend Tom Horne, ended up as head football coach for 10 years at Valpo. Jim Tressel was a friend to Tom and he'd get referrals of guys that weren't good enough for OSU. I think Tom is now at Tosa East.
Valpo is a nice school ( the law school always was a bit of a reach, tho). Like most lutheran schools I knew of in my youth, Valpo is likely strapped. Lots have closed.
-
Sigh.
Brave is a generic term for a Native American Warrior.
Crusader is specific terms for a group of Christian Warriors whose sole purpose was to take land from and kill non-Christians. And yes, the first Crusade was born out of an alliance between Byzantium and the Pope but the tactics used to recruit for the crusades was to bastardize the Christian faith and demonize people of other religions and subsequent crusades had nothing to do with an alliance with Byzantium.
It's not about violence. It's not about finding a profession that has never had a member do something bad (they don't exist). It's about not honoring a profession that was created out of hatred for and for the purpose of killing people of other religions.
The name Braves is more comparable to Knights, which no reasonable person has an issue with. Many braves and knights did terrible things but it was not the one thing they were known for. Crusaders would be more akin to a Native American serving institution naming themselves after a specific group of Native American warriors who was specifically trained to kill white settlers (I'm not sure if there was a named group like this).
The Crusades is not something Christians should take pride in. It was a low point in the history of our faith. That is indisputable.
So the Atlanta baseball team can keep Braves, but somehow Indians is a pejorative in Cleveland?
-
This whole issue is getting annoying. Offense is the choice of the offended. You can also ignore, or just not care.
If this goes much further, schools will just have to switch to a numbering system.
"School Wisconsin 1 defeated School Illinois 13 by a score of 86-85 in a thriller last night"
-
This whole issue is getting annoying. Offense is the choice of the offended. You can also ignore, or just not care.
If this goes much further, schools will just have to switch to a numbering system.
"School Wisconsin 1 defeated School Illinois 13 by a score of 86-85 in a thriller last night"
Yeah, not really, no.
-
So the Atlanta baseball team can keep Braves, but somehow Indians is a pejorative in Cleveland?
Go back and read the post I was responding to (it was one of yours).
I believe both Cleveland and Atlanta should change their mascots. 1 down, 1 to go.
-
This whole issue is getting annoying. Offense is the choice of the offended. You can also ignore, or just not care.
If this goes much further, schools will just have to switch to a numbering system.
"School Wisconsin 1 defeated School Illinois 13 by a score of 86-85 in a thriller last night"
Being offended is not a choice. What to do with that feeling (ignoring, saying something, etc) is a choice.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. There are literally thousands of mascots that no reasonable person would have an issue with.
-
Milw Lutheran High (on grantosa next to the round greek church by frank lloyd wright) are the Red Knights...a mounted knight decked out as a crusader.
As I recall we lutherans in the 60s had no problem with the crusades, including as they taught us a positive spin history of them in our lutheran grade school. Onward Christian Soldiers was a popular lutheran Hymn I was told was about Crusaders.
Back then we had not heard of Jihad , except as a punchline to some ethnic joke, like: "Boy Jihad a couple biguns dontcha no."
A grade school friend Tom Horne, ended up as head football coach for 10 years at Valpo. Jim Tressel was a friend to Tom and he'd get referrals of guys that weren't good enough for OSU. I think Tom is now at Tosa East.
Valpo is a nice school ( the law school always was a bit of a reach, tho). Like most lutheran schools I knew of in my youth, Valpo is likely strapped. Lots have closed.
Valpo tried to sell their law school to Middle Tennessee a couple years ago. Yeah they aren’t doing well.
-
I guess it was going to happen at some point.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/notre-dame-defense-leprechaun-mascot-offensive
-
I guess it was going to happen at some point.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/notre-dame-defense-leprechaun-mascot-offensive
Yes! Get rid of that stupid character!
-
I guess it was going to happen at some point.
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/notre-dame-defense-leprechaun-mascot-offensive
As much as I hate to agree with Notre Dame, I do. They were a traditional Irish-serving institution back when that was significant. That is very different from a university that serves and has always served primarily White students naming themselves after Native Americans.
-
As much as I hate to agree with Notre Dame, I do. They were a traditional Irish-serving institution back when that was significant. That is very different from a university that serves and has always served primarily White students naming themselves after Native Americans.
I think the mad drunk (fighting, red face) stereotype is offensive. Just because it's a white Northern European doesn't make it right. While ND has tried to modernize things, I am hard pressed to think of any major college or sports team with a nickname or image named after an ethnic group than those cited.
Thankfully, the Coachella HS Arabs just changed their name.
https://www.masonreport.com/sports/2017/8/29/top-5-worst-hs-mascots
-
As much as I hate to agree with Notre Dame, I do. They were a traditional Irish-serving institution back when that was significant. That is very different from a university that serves and has always served primarily White students naming themselves after Native Americans.
While you are correct about some of this Notre Dames main defense has always been "we've turned these offensive symbols around on our oppressors" but that defense only works if everyone who's offended by these symbols cheers for Notre Dame. Otherwise, you have an institution that no longer primarily serves an Irish education outlet (they don't even support a GAA club) that is using an offensive mascot to those that aren't affiliated with the university.
-
I think the mad drunk (fighting, red face) stereotype is offensive. Just because it's a white Northern European doesn't make it right. While ND has tried to modernize things, I am hard pressed to think of any major college or sports team with a nickname or image named after an ethnic group than those cited.
Thankfully, the Coachella HS Arabs just changed their name.
https://www.masonreport.com/sports/2017/8/29/top-5-worst-hs-mascots
It has nothing to do with it being White Northern European. I would also support a native serving institution naming themselves redskins or using some other stereotypical imagery.
-
It has nothing to do with it being White Northern European. I would also support a native serving institution naming themselves redskins or using some other stereotypical imagery.
I would not. Such nicknames and imagery can offend more people than simply those attending that school.
-
It has nothing to do with it being White Northern European. I would also support a native serving institution naming themselves redskins or using some other stereotypical imagery.
What about a HBCU college naming themselves the N word?
-
I would not. Such nicknames and imagery can offend more people than simply those attending that school.
Bingo. ND has gone to calling themselves "The Irish" recently and has diversified the real person leprechaun. But the stereotypical image of the red faced pug lingers.
I know this argument is used often to (not sincerely) counter other mascot changes, but the image really is offensive under any serious parameter. Just like with Marquette when Warriors became unacceptable because we couldn't walk back the imagery...the same here.
-
What about a HBCU college naming themselves the N word?
Going out on a limb here to suggest that's one hypothetical we never have to worry about becoming a reality.
-
Going out on a limb here to suggest that's one hypothetical we never have to worry about becoming a reality.
I think you can take his example with a grain of salt and see what his actual point is
-
What about a HBCU college naming themselves the N word?
I would. It'll never happen but I would defend if it did. I would also encourage them to listen to other members of the Black community who were offended by it.
-
I think you can take his example with a grain of salt and see what his actual point is
Not really.
TAMU's example of a school with a large Native American population using a nickname like "redskins" actually has some basis in fact ... there are such schools.
law's hypothetical not only has no basis in fact, but there is literally no chance that would ever occur.
It's the equivalent of a poll asking whether MU fans would welcome back Wojo if it guaranteed 10 straight national titles. It's a useless hypothetical.
-
I would. It'll never happen but I would defend if it did. I would also encourage them to listen to other members of the Black community who were offended by it.
So you shouldn't be agreeing with and you should be saying they should listen to Irish communities that have come over since then. Pretty much every Irish american and Irish individual I know who dislikes the mascot is recent to be here. Seems like ND should open up a dialogue of whether they actually represent the Irish community like they once did or if they should rebrand as the "fighting Irish Americans circa 1920 and before"
-
So you shouldn't be agreeing with and you should be saying they should listen to Irish communities that have come over since then. Pretty much every Irish american and Irish individual I know who dislikes the mascot is recent to be here. Seems like ND should open up a dialogue of whether they actually represent the Irish community like they once did or if they should rebrand as the "fighting Irish Americans circa 1920 and before"
Like I said, I'd encourage them to listen to others and reflect on whether or not they are having impact on their community that the intend. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I also definitely don't think it's comparable to Florida State, the Cleveland Indians, or the Football Team formerly known as the Redskins
-
ND sucks
-
Like I said, I'd encourage them to listen to others and reflect on whether or not they are having impact on their community that the intend. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I also definitely don't think it's comparable to Florida State, the Cleveland Indians, or the Football Team formerly known as the Redskins
I'd say depends on the context.
If you're saying it's not on par due to injustices well since Notre Dame is saying "fighting Irish" with a mascot based on a depiction by British to describe Irish then that'd include any injustices done to the larger Irish diaspora and those still back on the mainland from anybody of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Those injustices are certainly on par with the reasons native Americans can find injustices in those mascots at FSU, & Cleveland (Washington being a different story).
However, if ND changed their name to "The Fighting Irish Americans" those injustices are limited to "no Irish need apply" and half pay in jobs. In which case that group of people still offended becomes significantly smaller and more aligned with those that actually support Notre Dame.
I'd liken it to if a school called themselves the Fighting Jews. Ok some people might have great pride in that, some people might not. But I'd say the mascot was then based on a Nazi depiction then I'd wager most everyone would be upset. Then let's say the school said "we're owning the name and taking it back!" What would be your interpretation? To me using that mascot based on such a stereotype by such a horrific regime means that it brings in every injustice done to them (except by say the Egyptians) but if they said we're the fighting Jewish Americans and used some American depiction of what Jews looked like as their mascot then feel free to own it as much as possible.
-
It's not about comparing which group had it worse (it never is).
It's about the fact that when Notre Dame donned the moniker Fighting Irish, they were an Irish Serving Institution at a time when those of Irish descent were discriminated against in higher education. It was a group of Irish people choosing an Irish mascot.
Florida State, Washington Redskins, and Cleveland Indians were a bunch of White dudes who thought it would be bad a$$ to have a Native American mascot (and that's the nice version).
-
It's not about comparing which group had it worse (it never is).
It's about the fact that when Notre Dame donned the moniker Fighting Irish, they were an Irish Serving Institution at a time when those of Irish descent were discriminated against in higher education. It was a group of Irish people choosing an Irish mascot.
Florida State, Washington Redskins, and Cleveland Indians were a bunch of White dudes who thought it would be bad a$$ to have a Native American mascot (and that's the nice version).
Sorry, I misunderstood the angle you were trying to come from.
The key word in that statement is "was".
We can both agree that cultural norms and what's acceptable has greatly changed since the 1910s or 1920s when Notre Dame adopted the Fighting Irish moniker. What isn't being acknowledged is those people's great grandchildren, who ND caters to, are no longer Irish. They're Americans and shouldn't have a say in what is or isn't offensive to Irish individuals. That's why I keep saying "Fighting Irish Americans".
-
It's about the fact that when Notre Dame donned the moniker Fighting Irish, they were an Irish Serving Institution at a time when those of Irish descent were discriminated against in higher education. It was a group of Irish people choosing an Irish mascot.
This seems like a gigantic over reach about the founding of Notre Dame. Not even ND claims this and they exaggerate about everything.
https://www.nd.edu/stories/whats-in-a-name/ (https://www.nd.edu/stories/whats-in-a-name/)
-
This seems like a gigantic over reach about the founding of Notre Dame. Not even ND claims this and they exaggerate about everything.
https://www.nd.edu/stories/whats-in-a-name/ (https://www.nd.edu/stories/whats-in-a-name/)
Actually that article says exactly what I said. Irish were discriminated against at the time. Their student population was largely of Irish descent. The students were the ones who chose the nickname.
-
Nm
-
I would encourage all of those who have chosen to be offended by the Leprechaun or by "fighting irish" to discontinue their donations to Notre Dame.
I'm sure that $6/year is going to make an impact.
-
Actually that article says exactly what I said. Irish were discriminated against at the time. Their student population was largely of Irish descent. The students were the ones who chose the nickname.
What about the non-Irish kids that were students at the time? Wouldn't they be offended (assuming that they were woke back then)?
-
What about the non-Irish kids that were students at the time? Wouldn't they be offended (assuming that they were woke back then)?
I think more of them were mad because they were biased against Irish people
-
I'm going to continue to not really care what mascot a school uses a long as no one is upset by it's history... since I'm a grown up.
-
I'm going to continue to not really care what mascot a school uses a long as no one is upset by it's history... since I'm a grown up.
9/10 times I don't. This one gets me because I was a very light skinned 5'7" boxer who's mom was from Ireland. At a certain point the comparisons get on your nerves and I'm not the only one as my entire hurling team (90% first generation or from Ireland) make fun of ND to no end. I'll argue this one needing to be changed as long as other ethnic names need changing.
If ND did more to help spread Irish culture (they don't even have a GAA club, you know who does? Purdue) and changed the mascot I'd be more apt to just ignore it.
-
Is the Leprechaun mascot more or less offensive than the Chamberlain Rock? We're obsessed with micro aggressions to a fault. Call it cancel culture or whatever you want but this isn't making people more compassionate or inclusive, it's quite the opposite frankly.
-
Is the Leprechaun mascot more or less offensive than the Chamberlain Rock? We're obsessed with micro aggressions to a fault. Call it cancel culture or whatever you want but this isn't making people more compassionate or inclusive, it's quite the opposite frankly.
A potentially offensive mascot isn't a "microaggression." And if someone is so upset about a f*cking mascot, and can't be compassionate or inclusive because of it, that's their problem. It's not the job of those who find it offensive to set their feelings aside because of a stupid mascot.
That being said, is the Leprechaun offensive? Is is to Galway. I'm sure it is to others as well. But is their a significant enough of the population offended enough to require a change? Doubtful. But eventually the Washington Football Team got to that point. Perhaps Notre Dame will as well.
-
Is the Leprechaun mascot more or less offensive than the Chamberlain Rock? We're obsessed with micro aggressions to a fault. Call it cancel culture or whatever you want but this isn't making people more compassionate or inclusive, it's quite the opposite frankly.
Every time I’ve been to Ireland, going back to 1997, I’ve seen the Irish selling and wearing ND gear. The only US college gear available in when I was in Galway in 1997 was ND. I hated seeing it but the Irish loved it. ND had played in Dublin in 1996 and the people were still buzzing.
To me this is coming off as another example of one group people telling another group they should be offended by something. At least with MU it was actual Native Americans who went to the administration.
-
Every time I’ve been to Ireland, going back to 1997, I’ve seen the Irish selling and wearing ND gear. The only US college gear available in when I was in Galway in 1997 was ND. I hated seeing it but the Irish loved it. ND had played in Dublin in 1996 and the people were still buzzing.
To me this is coming off as another example of one group people telling another group they should be offended by something. At least with MU it was actual Native Americans who went to the administration.
We had very different experiences in regards to that. Maybe due to the times? Prior to Celtic tiger I think america was fantasized about over there whereas now it's a "we are who we are" mentality.
-
To me this is coming off as another example of one group people telling another group they should be offended by something.
Galway is Irish American right? I don't think anyone here is telling him he should be offended by the Leprechaun.
BTW, the "they're only offended because someone told them to be offended" is so very condescending.
-
A potentially offensive mascot isn't a "microaggression." And if someone is so upset about a f*cking mascot, and can't be compassionate or inclusive because of it, that's their problem. It's not the job of those who find it offensive to set their feelings aside because of a stupid mascot.
That being said, is the Leprechaun offensive? Is is to Galway. I'm sure it is to others as well. But is their a significant enough of the population offended enough to require a change? Doubtful. But eventually the Washington Football Team got to that point. Perhaps Notre Dame will as well.
I think of this as a microaggression but I suppose I could be wrong. My point about compassion or inclusiveness has nothing to do with those that find it offensive, it's about those that don't. The goal of removing the "Rock" or all all of these mascots is for those that don't find them offensive to find them offensive. It's an admission of guilt.
-
Galway is Irish American right? I don't think anyone here is telling him he should be offended by the Leprechaun.
BTW, the "they're only offended because someone told them to be offended" is so very condescending.
I am multi-national 😎
But seriously, yes I was born here have probably lived there about 3.5 total years between my masters and 2 months or so each summer when I was young.
The reason I argue this point is because a generation of Irish immigrants' and Irish Americans', from the 1910s, opinion on a matter doesn't hold true today. At the time ND was a trend setter and they had the mindset of "let's take own the word and cartoon!"
ND doesn't speak for the entirety of the Irish diaspora across the USA, there's been three major emigrations since the decision was made and each of those has a different era of culture and customs they brought over. All of which are very different than that of the now 5th or more generation removed Irish Americans that have ND "in their blood" because they served Irish Americans way back when.
-
I think of this as a microaggression but I suppose I could be wrong. My point about compassion or inclusiveness has nothing to do with those that find it offensive, it's about those that don't. The goal of removing the "Rock" or all all of these mascots is for those that don't find them offensive to find them offensive. It's an admission of guilt.
That's not the goal. The goal is to not be offensive to those that find them offensive. As an Irish American I don't find the Fighting Irish offensive, nor do I find the phrases "getting your Irish up", "Irish flu" or "Irish goodbye" offensive, but I fully understand why some with a similar heritage would. Nobody is saying that I, or anyone, should be offended...they are saying understand why they would be offended.
Also, who's admitting what guilt?
-
That's not the goal. The goal is to not be offensive to those that find them offensive. As an Irish American I don't find the Fighting Irish offensive, nor do I find the phrases "getting your Irish up", "Irish flu" or "Irish goodbye" offensive, but I fully understand why some with a similar heritage would. Nobody is saying that I, or anyone, should be offended...they are saying understand why they would be offended.
Also, who's admitting what guilt?
This is it exactly. Furthermore, just because SOME people find something offensive, that doesn't mean nicknames or imagery should change. But simply to acknowledge why some people might take offense without the condescending "it's just because some people told them to be offended" nonsense.
-
This is it exactly. Furthermore, just because SOME people find something offensive, that doesn't mean nicknames or imagery should change. But simply to acknowledge why some people might take offense without the condescending "it's just because some people told them to be offended" nonsense.
Have you read any anti racist treatises or books? What do you think the purpose was of removing Chamberlin Rock? The entire UW administration was very clear why they did it. The "nonsense" is people being offended by a boulder, an inanimate object, that was minding its own business for 100 yrs.
-
Have you read any anti racist treatises or books? What do you think the purpose was of removing Chamberlin Rock? The entire UW administration was very clear why they did it. The "nonsense" is people being offended by a boulder, an inanimate object, that was minding its own business for 100 yrs.
People weren't offended by the rock. They were offended by what it represented.
So they moved it to another part of campus, at private expense, so it can continue to be used for education purposes. And that's fine. Why does it bother you?
-
People weren't offended by the rock. They were offended by what it represented.
So they moved it to another part of campus, at private expense, so it can continue to be used for education purposes. And that's fine. Why does it bother you?
I'm offended that people think "that's what the rock represented" because of a racist idiot who wrote an article 90 yrs ago.
-
I'm offended that people think "that's what the rock represented" because of a racist idiot who wrote an article 90 yrs ago.
Are you really?
-
Mascots. Are. For. Children.
Why do people defend blatantly offensive symbols?
-
I'm offended that people think "that's what the rock represented" because of a racist idiot who wrote an article 90 yrs ago.
I don't think the journalist who wrote that article was racist or had malice when he wrote it, it was a commonly used term at the time. 90 years went by before people decided it was "offensive" and they couldn't walk by it without bursting into tears.
As Bill Maher said, we can't judge and condemn actions of the past by 2021 standards.
-
I think we have much bigger probs to deal with right now than mascots and rocks.
-
Galway is Irish American right? I don't think anyone here is telling him he should be offended by the Leprechaun.
BTW, the "they're only offended because someone told them to be offended" is so very condescending.
I'm Irish-American too. I've attended multiple universities in Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have close friends who are born and raised in Ireland, similar to Galway (the difference is I believe he earned a degree from NUIG). None have ever said anything to me about being offended, (I was offended by them rooting for ND and wearing the gear at games in Dublin). The only offense I take to the ND mascot is it's ND and I was raised to dislike that school. In no way is the mascot intended to mock, but rather honor. Kind of like the First Warrior was.
As for the other statement, it happens more than you'd think. For example, when my wife and I saw Anchorman 2 in the theatres she literally fell out of her seat laughing at the line "Champ was fired for saying on air that the "only Olympic sport Filipinos are good at is eating cats and dogs.” Numerous articles followed (omitting the part about the firing), and telling Filipinos how offended they should find it and that the line was "an anti-Filipino slur to make life miserable." By the way, my wife has a recipe in a Philippine cuisine cookbook for dog stew and many of her cousins and fellow Filipinos laughed because, yes, they'd been to family events where dog was served. So yes, there is a cottage industry of people and groups who tell others they should be offended by something and they are selling out their culture if they aren't.
-
As Bill Maher said, we can't judge and condemn actions of the past by 2021 standards.
If Bill Maher said that, he's an idiot. (Actually, he's an idiot either way, but that statement would be idiotic).
By that dumb logic, we can't say slavery or child labor or torture of political opponents is wrong, since those all had been found acceptable in the past.
-
If Bill Maher said that, he's an idiot. (Actually, he's an idiot either way, but that statement would be idiotic).
By that dumb logic, we can't say slavery or child labor or torture of political opponents is wrong, since those all had been found acceptable in the past.
no, you can say it's wrong and move on, but you shouldn't condemn forever those who engaged in such practices that were legal and accepted as a part of mainstream society. Using a common term in 1980 we have since decided is offensive should not ruin someone's life. It's called evolution. Should Marquette as an institution be painted as racist for using Warriors all of those years?
Look at our changing attitudes and law on Marijuana. Should people have their records expunged who are in jail for possession of Pot?
-
no, you can say it's wrong and move on, but you shouldn't condemn forever those who engaged in such practices that were legal and accepted as a part of mainstream society. Using a common term in 1980 we have since decided is offensive should not ruin someone's life. It's called evolution. Should Marquette as an institution be painted as racist for using Warriors all of those years?
You're shifting goalposts.
Your first post said "we can't judge and condemn actions of the past."
Now, you've changed that to "you shouldn't condemn forever those who engaged in such practices."
These are two very different concepts.
And, I think, when we have these discussions, we ought to leave room for nuance and not throw things like smoking marijuana and sports nicknames into the same category as slavery and torture.
-
You're shifting goalposts.
Your first post said "we can't judge and condemn actions of the past."
Now, you've changed that to "you shouldn't condemn forever those who engaged in such practices."
These are two very different concepts.
And, I think, when we have these discussions, we ought to leave room for nuance and not throw things like smoking marijuana and sports nicknames into the same category as slavery and torture.
actions of individuals. That's what Maher meant when he made that comment. He was referring to those tearing down statutes of people like Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, and demanding their names be taken off of schools.
-
Maybe we should stop erecting statues of people - literally putting them on a pedestal.
-
actions of individuals. That's what Maher meant when he made that comment. He was referring to those tearing down statutes of people like Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, and demanding their names be taken off of schools.
Bill Maher is a comedian. And he isn't funny. And he's a boomer, liberal elite. Using him as a bellwether of what is good or bad is a hot-take if I've ever seen one.
-
actions of individuals. That's what Maher meant when he made that comment. He was referring to those tearing down statutes of people like Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, and demanding their names be taken off of schools.
Seems a touch reductio ad absurdum.
I agree that tearing down a Lincoln statue is ridiculous. And we should admit that's exceedingly rare and called for by a tiny minority.
The problem is that when people complain about the tearing down of Lincoln statues, they're usually pointing it out while arguing against the removal of any statue.
Like here. We started this with you saying we can't judge anyone from the past for any misdeeds because different standards. And somehow two posts later, you've equated that to tearing down Lincoln statues.
Again, how about some nuance, Billy? How about we recognize that tearing down a Robert E. Lee statue is not the same as - nor is it a first step to - tearing down a Lincoln statue?