Valpo drops "Crusaders"

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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. 

[JWags85]

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

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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. 

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[Sir Lawrence]

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.

[MuggsyB]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

Beware.  Goooo likes his Arby's.

That was supposed to be a secret! 😱

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

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.

[#UnleashSean]

  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.

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

Does this precedent likely mean Holy Cross has to change too?

[Hards Alumni]

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.

[buckchuckler]

nm