Super XV Rugby 2019

eagle eye wrote: »

There is no need for any drastic action like that. I'm talking about name changing here.
It was the right call to cancel the match for sure. Maybe the Crusaders players can all wear a black armband for the rest of the season as a mark of respect. Personally I think all the New Zealand teams should do that although the all-blacks might have to come up with something a bit different for the World Cup.

I think the Crusaders should have got out ahead of it and offered to officially refer to the team as Christchurch until the end of the season and ask media outlets to do the same.

The Crusaders were armies put together specifically to kill Muslims, and although that word has gone on to have lots of meanings when you see the armour, the horses, the castle - it's clear what imagery the rugby team is going for.

If I (as an Irish person) lived in an English city where the primary professional franchise was called the "Black and Tans" for an innocent reason, and in that city a mass shooting shot up a Catholic church with primarily Irish expats in the congregation then I would really appreciate that team opening a dialogue and changing their name. I probably wouldn't demand it, but it would mean a lot. Irish people love getting offended when Ben and Jerrys or Nike name their products "black and tan" or Americans order one at a bar.

I'm less inclined to see the argument for Exeter Chiefs changing their name (which is also talked about). There isn't some disenfranchised Native American community in Exeter AFAIK.

It's a discussion and with the Muslim community in Christchurch. And what's the harm in that? Perhaps nothing will come of it, perhaps they'll change the name. And is that a big deal? Name changes happen - usually stadiums or competitions, but with sponsors becoming part of team names it's something that people adjust to too.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, people are happier to stick their fingers in the ears over the Redskins. If one thought that the Redskins name wasn't a big deal, then why would any other name matter?

troyzer wrote: »

At least one other person gets it.



It was always a weird name for a team. This has nothing to do with history. Nobody is trying to hide history, you're free to read about the crusades and study them. This is about glorification of that history. And yes, we should be selective.

Here is a short list of team suffixes that should never be acceptable:

SMERSH.
SS.
B-Specials.
Crusaders.
Jihadis.
Einsatzgruppen.
Unit 731.
Confederates (in that context).

I'm sure there are others, these are just the military units off the top of my head which committed unimaginable war crimes and human rights violations.

This isn't difficult. All they have to do is change their name to the Canterbury Knights. They can still keep pretty much all of their brand intact.

Should Saracens change their name too so? I don't see why the term Crusaders would be offensive tbh. The context of their origin during that time period is nothing extraordinary, in and of itself.

troyzer wrote: »

Saracen is a Medieval word for an Arab. It's hardly offensive.

The Crusades were literally military campaigns to ethnically cleanse a region of the world of a particular ethno-religious group. They are no different to any of the others on my list except that they have been romanticised since.

The Crusaders were military campaigns to reclaim formerly European controlled areas of the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslim Kingdoms. Christian kingdoms vs Muslim kingdoms, no different in nature to any other conflict of the middle ages. Different power blocks fighting over valuable real estate and control of trade routes. The religious aspect was an added flavor and convenient means to drum up support. Not in the same realm at all as other elements on the list you laid out above.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Crusaders were military campaigns to reclaim formerly European controlled areas of the Middle East that had been conquered by Muslim Kingdoms. Christian kingdoms vs Muslim kingdoms, no different in nature to any other conflict of the middle ages. Different power blocks fighting over valuable real estate and control of trade routes. The religious aspect was an added flavor and convenient means to drum up support. Not in the same realm at all as other elements on the list you laid out above.

When the first crusade won the siege of Jerusalem they massacred 15,000 of the city's Muslims in the Dome of the Rock. They wanted to purify the city so they could set up an all Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem. Which meant they killed a lot of Jews as well.

This was not simply a war between two factions like the 100 years war. It was a series of ethno-religious wars of annihilation. The level of violence and arbitrary massacres was completely out of step with wars conducted in Christian Europe at the time.

Even if none of that was true, it's become a staple part of the extreme right mythology. That they are noble crusaders in the war against Islam just like at Lepanto and Vienna.

They also weren't just Christian vs Muslim. The 4th Crusade was Christian vs Eastern Christian where the Venetians sacked the largest city in the world. There were also the Baltic Crusades against pagan natives around the Baltic coast. Lots of massacres and forced conversions there too.

A lot of the leaders were fighting for land and treasure, but the motivations of many of the leaders and troops were religious.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Massacres were a pretty common feature when cities were sacked, which continued up until the modern era. I don't buy into the sudden manufactured outrage over a name linked to European armies from the middle ages. It was a non issue last week, still one this week and beyond.

Killing everyone in a city was unheard of in Christian Europe at the time. They saw the Saracens as sub human and didn't afford them the same rights that were normal in Europe.

It wasn't just a normal army from the Middle Ages. If it was, I wouldn't care. It was a brutal time and crap things happened. But even then the crusades were very extreme.

It wasn't a non-issue last week. It was always weird.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'd disagree about how unusual such actions were in that time period, but not overly pertinent to a rugby thread.

When has their name ever been mentioned as "problematic" previously? Literally the first time I've ever seen it come up. Strikes me as a completely fabricated issue.

Well you'd be wrong. There's a reason why we refer to it as the age of chivalry. Daily life was awful but wars between Christian kingdoms were highly regulated, so much so that they are often considered the beginnings of international law.

Look, I don't want to derail this thread anymore. We'll leave it there.

troyzer wrote: »

They also weren't just Christian vs Muslim. The 4th Crusade was Christian vs Eastern Christian where the Venetians sacked the largest city in the world. There were also the Baltic Crusades against pagan natives around the Baltic coast. Lots of massacres and forced conversions there too.

Don’t forget my personal favourite Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade, where a bunch of French nobles got greedy and used the suspected Catharism of their neighbours to leverage the Pope into giving them permission for a religious landgrab.

Anyway I’m on board with the name change. It’s outdated at best and offensive at worst. The Chiefs should rebrand too but that’s another thread.

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Don’t forget my personal favourite Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade, where a bunch of French nobles got greedy and used the suspected Catharism of their neighbours to leverage the Pope into giving them permission for a religious landgrab.

Anyway I’m on board with the name change. It’s outdated at best and offensive at worst. The Chiefs should rebrand too but that’s another thread.

Now that is some serious inside baseball right there. Save that explicit material for the other websites.

hahashake wrote: »

I understand the argument for the Crusaders name change, but the Chiefs?

This isn't a team in Cornwall using Native American imagery, it's a team in Polynesia using Polynesian (specifically Maori) imagery - and using inoffensive terminology and politically neutral imagery at that. Plus one that is currently coached by a man of Maori descent and has always had key players of Maori descent since the inception.

It's the Exeter Chiefs, not the Hamilton Chiefs.

I struggle to give a **** about that particular one.

I'm not getting this at all. Whats the link between Crusaders rugby and the attacks? Were they fans of Crusaders rugby or something?

As the attacker was Australian I would say the chances of him being a fan of Rugby Union let alone the Crusaders are pretty low.

I guess I'm surprised more posters on here don't get this. As I alluded to previously, as Irish people we are some of the most demanding when it comes to brands disrespecting our history. As I've said before, Nikes St Patrick's day Black and Tan shoes is consistently referenced as one of the biggest marketing missteps of all time.

Other sports teams called the Crusaders have changed their names before. I suspect it will happen tbh. While I don't think it's as bad as the Red Skins or the Chiefs (American team that is), I think it'd be easier for a Muslim person to feel accepted in a city they're probably a bit iffy about right now, if that cities famous successful sporting franchise wasn't named after an army of white Christian Muslim killers.

I won't post again, teams will be out soon. Syd needs his thread back.

eagle eye wrote: »

Am I the only one that never even heard about this before and couldn't care less anyways.
If any of my friends came to me saying they were offended by that I'd laugh in their face.

You do realise that just because something doesn't affect you, doesn't mean that it isn't offensive to somebody else for personal reasons.

What you're saying is because you've no reason to be offended by something, nobody else should be regardless of their scenario.

I can tell you for a fact if you were to "laugh in their face" to any of my family members, who's grandparents or even mother and father were beaten and tortured by British army veterans parading around as members of the RIC, you wouldn't be laughing for long.

sydthebeat wrote: »

well done to the blues this morning.... ended a 20 game streak of no wins against NZ sides by beating the highlanders 33 - 26

some great tries scored by the blues

Naholos playing like a drain

The second Ioane try was unreal.