https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53390944
QuoteThe Washington Redskins American football team has said it will retire its name, long criticised as racist.
In a statement, the team said it would "be retiring the Redskins name and logo upon completion of a review" demanded by its sponsors.
Its major sponsors recently threatened to pull funding from the NFL team unless it considered renaming itself.
The Washington DC-based team has faced years of pressure over a name seen as offensive to Native Americans.
Team owner Dan Synder had been a boyhood fan of the team - which was named the Redskins in 1933 when it was still based in Boston - and had vowed to never change the moniker of the 87-year-old team.
But amid protests over police brutality and racism, major sponsors FedEx, Nike, Pepsi and Bank of America all called on Mr Snyder to consider finally changing the name.
Last week, Amazon, Walmart and Target, Nike and and other retail stores removed team merchandise from their websites. ESPN also said it would stop using the team logo, which depicts a Native American man.
The announcement does not immediately change the name of the team, and a new one must be chosen before the 2020 season begins in September. The team's official website maintains the current team name, as does the team's official Twitter handle.
Some names that have been suggested as replacements include the Washington Senators; the Washington Warriors; and the Washington Red Tails.
The NFL team is not the first Washington DC sports franchise to change it name amid shifting cultural attitudes.
In 1995, the NBA's Washington Bullets were renamed the Wizards after the team owner said he had become uncomfortable with the name's violent overtones.
The Redskins moved to Washington DC in 1937 and was founded by businessman George Person Marshall, who believed in racial segregation.
They were the last team to allow black players onto the team, and only did so after the government threatened to revoke the lease on their stadium in 1962.
Last month, a statue of Marshall was removed from the stadium's grounds after it was vandalised.
I look forward to Trump tweeting about how this is the worst thing ever.
QuoteIn 1995, the NBA's Washington Bullets were renamed the Wizards after the team owner said he had become uncomfortable with the name's violent overtones.
Klan overtones didn't bother him?
Good development.
Another victory for the snowflakes that pisses off the actual snowflakes so much. So much.
QuoteWashington Redskins Change Their Name To The D.C. Redskins
10/09/13 1:40PM
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,pg_1,q_80,w_800/bnvaygnmqljifis80cci.jpg)
WASHINGTON—Following an outpouring of criticism from across the country, the Washington Redskins announced Wednesday that they are officially changing the team's name to the D.C. Redskins. "We've heard the concerns of many people who have been hurt or offended by the team's previous name, and I'm happy to say we've now rectified the situation once and for all," said franchise owner Dan Snyder, adding that "Washington Redskins" will be replaced with "D.C. Redskins" on all team logos, uniforms, and apparel. "It was a difficult decision—and one that, frankly, I'm a little embarrassed took me so long to make. So hopefully we can now put this issue to bed and start cheering on our D.C. Redskins." In light of Snyder's decision, Cleveland Indians owner Larry Dolan told reporters he will change the feather in Chief Wahoo's headdress from red to a "more appropriate" shade of red.
https://sports.theonion.com/washington-redskins-change-their-name-to-the-d-c-redsk-1819575691
It's a shame, it sounds cool. I don't understand why some natives dislike the term.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 13, 2020, 11:44:40 AM
It's a shame, it sounds cool. I don't understand why some natives dislike the term.
Probably the reason you don't understand is because you cannot understand. But you don't need to understand, you can just take the word of those who
do understand.
I don't understand Russian, so i have to trust those who do, to translate for me.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 13, 2020, 11:44:40 AM
It's a shame, it sounds cool. I don't understand why some natives dislike the term.
It's one of those words whose meaning has shifted. In the 19th century its use wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
But now it does. Language change, meanings change. Now it is perceived as a slur.
Here's an aside - there'a a concept in wider First Nations culture called the Medicine Wheel. It looks like this:
(https://www.powwows.com/wp-content/uploads/3.gif)
When it was first explained to me (by a First nations person I consider a friend) I was told the four colours represented the 4 races of man - white, black, yellow and red!
Nowadays the Medicine Wheel is still av very much used symbol and concept. But you can google a bunch of different meanings for the colours, and none of them refer to races of man. Meanings change.
I like the suggested change to "Washington Possums": they get killed on the road and play dead at home.
Seems like a cool alternate version of gambling; domain and copyright squatting on what you expect the new name to be.
I think they should be renamed 'Washington Black Lives Matter'. Might cause Trump to have a stroke. :)
I liked the suggested Washington Red Tails - named after the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black pilots in the US during WWII.
Just make sure you don't have a racist caricature of a black man as your motto.
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2020, 02:14:33 PM
I liked the suggested Washington Red Tails - named after the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black pilots in the US during WWII.
Actually that sounds really good to me.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 13, 2020, 02:03:05 PM
I like the suggested change to "Washington Possums": they get killed on the road and play dead at home.
Washington Tecumsehs
Washington Blackfoots
Washington Thayendanegeas
Washington Metacomets
the possibilities are limitless. And it wouldn't offend any snowflakes that former ennemies of the United States are celebrated for their courage and independance thoughts. :)
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2020, 02:08:21 PM
I think they should be renamed 'Washington Black Lives Matter'. Might cause Trump to have a stroke. :)
that's cruel, man! :huh:
But I like it! :D
I don't understand why people called native Americans "red skins" in the first place.
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2020, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2020, 02:14:33 PM
I liked the suggested Washington Red Tails - named after the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black pilots in the US during WWII.
Actually that sounds really good to me.
There were a bunch of squadrons known as the "Red Tails," though, even if the Tuskegee Airmen have the most association with the name because of the movie.
Plus, the name seems too close to the existing, objectionable name, and would sound too PC to me for that reason.
If you want to honor African-American fighters, then "Washington Buffalos" might do it, named after the Buffalo Soldiers of the 1860s-WW2. There were a lot more of them than there were Tuskegee Airmen.
Washington L'Enfants.
It would have about the same level of success as the present team.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2020, 08:40:23 PM
If you want to honor African-American fighters, then "Washington Buffalos" might do it, named after the Buffalo Soldiers of the 1860s-WW2. There were a lot more of them than there were Tuskegee Airmen.
The Buffalo Bills might not like the potential confusion.. :P
The Washington Filibusters :pirate :pirate :pirate
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2020, 07:41:43 PM
I don't understand why people called native Americans "red skins" in the first place.
It's an interesting history. It seems to come from the interaction of French, English and Choctaw in the Mississippi Valley/Mobile Valley. The Choctaw (and perhaps the Chickasaws as well) used to use "Red men" for themselves, as people of war (red being the color of war - hence Baton Rouge). The French used "Red Men" following Choctaw diplomatic usage in negotiations of all kinds, which in turn filtered in official correspondence back to Versailles. The label certainly stuck, because the French and the English in the Carolinas themselves had begun to refer to themselves as "white men" vs the "black men" they enslaved. Whether or not the Choctaw used "Red Men" in response to that earlier French (or English) practice is unclear. The usage eventually made its way up the Mississippi - including in translation into English in Kentucky. By the end of the 18th century, the word is making strong headway in the new United States. How red "men" became red "skins" in the US thereafter accompanies Indian removal, re-entering French from translation of American texts.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2020, 08:40:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on July 13, 2020, 02:55:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 13, 2020, 02:14:33 PM
I liked the suggested Washington Red Tails - named after the Tuskegee Airmen, the first black pilots in the US during WWII.
Actually that sounds really good to me.
There were a bunch of squadrons known as the "Red Tails," though, even if the Tuskegee Airmen have the most association with the name because of the movie.
Plus, the name seems too close to the existing, objectionable name, and would sound too PC to me for that reason.
If you want to honor African-American fighters, then "Washington Buffalos" might do it, named after the Buffalo Soldiers of the 1860s-WW2. There were a lot more of them than there were Tuskegee Airmen.
Well no - part of the appeal (says I as not at all a fan of the Washington DC Football club) is that it is close to the existing name, but springs from a far more PC source.
As mentioned, Washington Buffalos would seem to be a non-starter for a league with a team from Buffalo.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 13, 2020, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2020, 08:40:23 PM
If you want to honor African-American fighters, then "Washington Buffalos" might do it, named after the Buffalo Soldiers of the 1860s-WW2. There were a lot more of them than there were Tuskegee Airmen.
The Buffalo Bills might not like the potential confusion.. :P
No one has ever confused the Bills with the Colorado Buffalos. And the Buffalo Bills are named after a guy, not an animal.
I seem to recall that the Buffalo Soldiers participated in the Indian Wars (like probably much of the military at the time). Would that be problematic? :unsure:
what about the "Washington Reskins" then?
I like the Red Tails suggestion. Alternatively, "Washington Swampers."
Pick a safe name like the Washington Hummingbirds or the Washington Rat-fuckers or the Washington Doppelgangers. You know what nobody has ever done? Name a football team after another football team. They could be the Washington Detroit Lions.
Quote from: Syt on July 14, 2020, 01:26:32 AM
I seem to recall that the Buffalo Soldiers participated in the Indian Wars (like probably much of the military at the time). Would that be problematic? :unsure:
Not if Bob Marley sang about them. :)
Red Tails is cute but Tuskegee is in Alabama.
I also don't get the logic of dropping an Indian themed name and picking up a black themed name.
Probably better if new name doesn't reference people of color even if meant respectfully.
Yi got there first!
Yeah, some people don't seem to get that naming an athletic team after you is an homage.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2020, 02:00:51 AM
Yi got there first!
I was making a different point, though I agree with yours.
Mine was that if the wrong that was done was towards Indians, shouldn't the make-good be directed towards Indians too? What do black have to do with it, besides BLM GRABBING ALL THE HEADLINES?
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 14, 2020, 02:08:00 AM
Yeah, some people don't seem to get that naming an athletic team after you is an homage.
Not if they never win a Super Bowl. <_<
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 02:34:57 AM
Not if they never win a Super Bowl. <_<
Washington has won a bunch of Super Bowls. They owned the 80s.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2020, 02:08:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2020, 02:00:51 AM
Yi got there first!
I was making a different point, though I agree with yours.
Mine was that if the wrong that was done was towards Indians, shouldn't the make-good be directed towards Indians too? What do black have to do with it, besides BLM GRABBING ALL THE HEADLINES?
Got it. That's also fair though I think it probably best not to have team names/mascots refer to ethnic minorities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2020, 02:40:27 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 14, 2020, 02:34:57 AM
Not if they never win a Super Bowl. <_<
Washington has won a bunch of Super Bowls. They owned the 80s.
Minnesota FFS. I don't have a little Native American in me.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 13, 2020, 09:39:14 PM
The Washington Filibusters :pirate :pirate :pirate
The Washington Deep State.
The Foreskins. Close to the original name, not an ethnic minority, and people have already been informally calling them that for years.
Hail to the Foreskins.
"The Washington ______________"
Nice, simple, and showing a readiness for change.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2020, 02:00:26 AM
Probably better if new name doesn't reference people of color even if meant respectfully.
I quite agree. That's why I prefaced my suggestion with "if people want to..." They should not want to.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
The Foreskins. Close to the original name, not an ethnic minority, and people have already been informally calling them that for years.
Hail to the Foreskins.
prejudiced against jews and muslims :contract:
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2020, 09:53:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
The Foreskins. Close to the original name, not an ethnic minority, and people have already been informally calling them that for years.
Hail to the Foreskins.
prejudiced against most American men born prior to 1990, jews, and muslims :contract:
FYPFY :)
It will likely mean there's many people not attached to them. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on July 13, 2020, 07:41:43 PM
I don't understand why people called native Americans "red skins" in the first place.
http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54d44abb4e540_-_redskin.pdf
Quote from: Razgovory on July 14, 2020, 01:51:17 AM
Pick a safe name like the Washington Hummingbirds or the Washington Rat-fuckers or the Washington Doppelgangers. You know what nobody has ever done? Name a football team after another football team. They could be the Washington Detroit Lions.
That's my new favorite :lol:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 14, 2020, 02:08:00 AM
Yeah, some people don't seem to get that naming an athletic team after you is an homage.
"The Berlin Fighting Jews"
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 13, 2020, 09:46:10 PM
It's an interesting history. It seems to come from the interaction of French, English and Choctaw in the Mississippi Valley/Mobile Valley. The Choctaw (and perhaps the Chickasaws as well) used to use "Red men" for themselves, as people of war (red being the color of war - hence Baton Rouge). The French used "Red Men" following Choctaw diplomatic usage in negotiations of all kinds, which in turn filtered in official correspondence back to Versailles. The label certainly stuck, because the French and the English in the Carolinas themselves had begun to refer to themselves as "white men" vs the "black men" they enslaved. Whether or not the Choctaw used "Red Men" in response to that earlier French (or English) practice is unclear. The usage eventually made its way up the Mississippi - including in translation into English in Kentucky. By the end of the 18th century, the word is making strong headway in the new United States. How red "men" became red "skins" in the US thereafter accompanies Indian removal, re-entering French from translation of American texts.
Huh, I was taught it came from the practice of he Beothuks painting themselves with ochre.
Quote from: merithyn on July 14, 2020, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2020, 09:53:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
The Foreskins. Close to the original name, not an ethnic minority, and people have already been informally calling them that for years.
Hail to the Foreskins.
prejudiced against most American men born prior to 1990, jews, and muslims :contract:
FYPFY :)
beyond the joke, I thought it was still popular in NA to give babies they old chop?
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2020, 03:08:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 14, 2020, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 14, 2020, 09:53:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 14, 2020, 07:49:54 AM
The Foreskins. Close to the original name, not an ethnic minority, and people have already been informally calling them that for years.
Hail to the Foreskins.
prejudiced against most American men born prior to 1990, jews, and muslims :contract:
FYPFY :)
beyond the joke, I thought it was still popular in NA to give babies they old chop?
I think it's 50/50 now. I dunno.
I stayed out of the decision when my boys were born, as I'm not a man and I don't know the implications. Their dad made the decision for them.
Edit: Depends on where you live in the US now, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg/1280px-United_States_Neonatal_Circumcision_Rate_by_Region.svg.png)
Odd that there aren't any between 30 and 50.
Also, the borders between the Dakotas and the West are fishy. I think the map is just showing regional numbers. Odd since they went to the trouble of drawing state lines.
Quote from: Maximus on July 14, 2020, 02:44:59 PM
Huh, I was taught it came from the practice of he Beothuks painting themselves with ochre.
Yes - Beothuks were referred to as "Red Indians". But the cultural impact of the Beothuks, and of the Newfoundland plantation, on the English language was too remote to have a lasting impact. It's an interesting case of parallel developments.
Well better way late than never I suppose.
But now there is some huge abuse scandal coming out about the slurs organization. Well hopefully this latest embarrasing shitshow finally forces Snyder to sell the club.
Abolish Dan Snyder
I guess Snyder is as big a douche as the dude who owned the Clippers and Marge Schott? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on July 17, 2020, 07:50:12 AM
I guess Snyder is as big a douche as the dude who owned the Clippers and Marge Schott? :hmm:
He is proof that sometimes people become billionaires despite themselves.
So Washington is now named: the Washington Football Team. :D
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2020, 01:34:16 PM
So Washington is now named: the Washington Football Team. :D
Hail to the Football Team!
Hail to DC!
The Football Team plays football!
Fight for old DC!
Go Teamsters!
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2020, 01:36:34 PM
Go Teamsters!
:ph34r:
(https://i.imgur.com/UoybrRT.gif?noredirect)
Will their mascot be: a giant talking football named Ballie!
I like Ballie better. Easier to mock.
:lol: You can't make this shit up.
Our local high school made the decision a couple weeks ago to transition from the Redskins name. Surprised it lasted that long. It's too late to change everything for football, so fall sports (should they actually happen) will retain the logo & mascot for one last season.
Quote from: derspiess on July 23, 2020, 02:59:27 PM
:lol: You can't make this shit up.
Our local high school made the decision a couple weeks ago to transition from the Redskins name. Surprised it lasted that long. It's too late to change everything for football, so fall sports (should they actually happen) will retain the logo & mascot for one last season.
I don't think you can blame high school or semi-pro teams from needing time to order new gear etc.
I wonder though... my high school was a Jesuit all-boys school. It's team name is the Crusaders. Is a name like that going to last? I'm sure they'd get huge alumni pushback if they tried to change it, but if area sports leagues threatened to kick the school out if they don't change it?
I love "Washington Football Team" as the name. It's amazing.
For some reason it makes me think of the 'ol Chuck Knox-ism.
"Football players make football plays."
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on July 23, 2020, 03:56:43 PM
I love "Washington Football Team" as the name. It's amazing.
There was a time long, long ago when the CFL had teams in the USA. They put a team in Baltimore and called it the Baltimore Colts - until the NFL sued and made them drop it. So they would announce them as the Baltimore (pause) Football Club, during which all the fans would yell "Colts" during the pause.
Eventually Baltimore selected the name Stallions, proceeded to win the Grey Cup (only American team in history to have done so), only to then have their legs knocked out from under them when the Ravens came to town, causing the team to move to Montreal.
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2020, 03:34:38 PM
I wonder though... my high school was a Jesuit all-boys school. It's team name is the Crusaders. Is a name like that going to last? I'm sure they'd get huge alumni pushback if they tried to change it, but if area sports leagues threatened to kick the school out if they don't change it?
My HS team was the Crusaders too. Small world.
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Gosh I hope so, that would be cool.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
\
Though I know the two words are not at all perfect parallels, but one might argue that both are just the same concepts in different languages. Or something like, "I don't believe in God, I believe in Allah!"
But you're point is a fair one...but might not be if the Islamic world had US-like high schools and teams. :P
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2020, 06:57:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Gosh I hope so, that would be cool.
:lol: A surprisingly bold choice by a high school in Poughkeepsie.
I
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2020, 06:57:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Gosh I hope so, that would be cool.
:lol: A surprisingly bold choice by a high school in Poughkeepsie.
Maybe not in Dearborn though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Oh yeah, loads, mostly in smaller schools.
The point is if the Crusades were a shameful act that the West should feel contrition for, why doesn't the same apply to any the original Muslim conquests?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 07:00:46 PM
The point is if the Crusades were a shameful act that the West should feel contrition for, why doesn't the same apply to any the original Muslim conquests?
I think that point is best discussed separately from the naming of sports teams - which I suspect is Sheilbh's point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 07:00:46 PM
The point is if the Crusades were a shameful act that the West should feel contrition for, why doesn't the same apply to any the original Muslim conquests?
I'm not sure it's anything to do with shame. This is a question of whether it's something we want, now, to be honouring or naming school teams after.
And, you know, "Western" opinion has always shifted on this - rationalist 18th century historians looked on it pretty negatively (but this was a time when the Medieval was really being defined as barbaric/backwards in contrast to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment); in the romantic (and colonialist) 19th century it was seen far more positively by historians and writers, artists etc (but again the Medieval came back into fashion). There's no answer - every record of civilisation is record of barbarism but our moods and perspectives and attitudes to them change and, generally, reflect our times not some truth about the past.
Personally though, I'd be inclined to say the difference is longevity. The Frankish incursion into the Middle East is a fleeting and devastating moment moment - looting Constantinople, cannibalism in Syria, the destruction of Oriental Christian communities. It's a small scale, pale version of the Mongols or Tamerlane turning up. The Muslim invasion results in a civilisation that lasts for 1500 years from 650 to the current day.
All invasions are probably equally awful, I think there's a tendency that I certainly have, to view invasions that result in a long-term presence, the construction of great cities and civilisations and sort of peaceful territories/spaces more sympathetically than predatory, flash in the pan invasions that last a couple of hundred years and leave very little (castles?) - so the reconquista is judged far less harshly than the crusades though historically they could be framed in a similar way. The invasion may be the original sin but it's kind of mitigated by what is built after - so you need to win and you need to not just strip everything that isn't nailed down.
What about the English invasion and conquest of North America? That has lasted for centuries now and clearly cannot be considered a "flash in the pan" - yet it would be hard to argue, notwithstanding the achievements of the North Americans, that the passage of time has gradually increased its moral acceptability. However views on it in 200 years will likely yet be different, and in 500 yet again.
I strongly suspect the current trend of Crusades being treated morally differently from the Muslim conquest is more an example of "who, whom? " morality than any other factor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 23, 2020, 03:34:38 PM
I wonder though... my high school was a Jesuit all-boys school. It's team name is the Crusaders. Is a name like that going to last? I'm sure they'd get huge alumni pushback if they tried to change it, but if area sports leagues threatened to kick the school out if they don't change it?
My HS team was the Crusaders too. Small world.
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
The HS team for the Catholic school in my town is also "The Crusaders". Everyone in town just calls them bunnies. Nobody seems to remember why, but Raz knows!
Crusader rabbit was a cartoon way back in the day wasn't it?
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 23, 2020, 06:57:39 PM
Though I know the two words are not at all perfect parallels, but one might argue that both are just the same concepts in different languages. Or something like, "I don't believe in God, I believe in Allah!"
But you're point is a fair one...but might not be if the Islamic world had US-like high schools and teams. :P
Except that a crusade is not an explicitly religious concept, whereas a Jihad is. There have been many crusades against things like alcohol or crime or racism.
The Caped Crusader isn't so nicknamed for his Catholic piety! :D
It's certainly a name I would avid in a multicultural society, but having such a name isn't shameful.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2020, 08:29:14 PM
Crusader rabbit was a cartoon way back in the day wasn't it?
Yep. That's where the name comes from.
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2020, 08:48:41 PM
Except that a crusade is not an explicitly religious concept, whereas a Jihad is. There have been many crusades against things like alcohol or crime or racism.
The Caped Crusader isn't so nicknamed for his Catholic piety! :D
Yeah that's fair. I mean the concept itself was described as a holy war at the time and my understanding is Crusade was a later portmanteau (derived from "cross-ed") to position it in a slightly more neutral way by Renaissance and Enlightenment writers (who were at pains to distinguish themselves from their backward Medieval past).
It's since been used in other ways as you say but even then I slightly wonder when that started happening and the context because, and this could be nonsense, but it feels like quite a high Victorian/Edwardian style. I can imagine you know a "Crusade against Idleness" or "Crusade against Inebriation" - lots of women in sashes with big hats. It is striking that we possibly did still use it in a moral context against "bad things". Even the old Harold Wilson line "Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing". None of it's explicitly religious, but it's all moral exhortation - which is possibly different from similar modern versions: the war on cancer, the war on drugs, the Green New Deal - which are all in some way about the total commitment of the state not something individual or moral.
And you know my understanding is that jihad is also used in that way in the Muslim world as well, so there are public health campaigns that are jihads and I'm not sure that's a million miles from our use - I've definitely heard of jihads on smoking.
It would be better for a speaker of Arabic to chip in, but I don't think we have one; my understanding is that jihad simply means struggle or striving................so its most important meaning is an individual's struggle to be a better person. Unfortunately we Westerners generally came across the word first as it was used by violent Islamists, so it became naturalised into the English language in that restricted sense.
Similarly we have an Al-Quds fast food joint in Preston, might sound a bit dodgy but simply indicates that it is owned by Palestinians.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
It would be better for a speaker of Arabic to chip in, but I don't think we have one; my understanding is that jihad simply means struggle or striving................so its most important meaning is an individual's struggle to be a better person. Unfortunately we Westerners generally came across the word first as it was used by violent Islamists, so it became naturalised into the English language in that restricted sense.
Similarly we have an Al-Quds fast food joint in Preston, might sound a bit dodgy but simply indicates that it is owned by Palestinians.
Yeah - and it would be interesting to hear the sort of take from the Arab world especially on the word "crusade" because I imagine for them it has the similar overtones of sort of violence and religious fervour. So I wonder if they hear those various crusades that Westerners have talked about and probably think "those crazy Christians" :lol:
I read a book a while ago on the Crusades through Muslim eyes - which was about the records from Muslim writers at the time. And it is very striking that the Mongols happen shortly afterwards and, from memory, the Arab writers really see these two invasions as very similar. They are almost locust like, out of the blue attacks that were, at the time, perceived as unprecedentedly brutal and violent, which makes sense.
One thing that would be interesting would be the perspevtives of Oriental and Orthodox Christians on the Crusades both as an event and as a concept. It was devastating for Oriental Christians because they were perceived as potential fifth columnists by one side and as heretics by the other, so really suffered at the hands of both. But also while the Orthodox sort of prompted the Crusades as a way of helping in their own fight against the Turks, it backfired pretty horrendously. I could be wrong but I suspect it's not seen as a neutral term in Orthodox histories, or the views of, say, Armenian or Nestorian or Coptic writers.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
It would be better for a speaker of Arabic to chip in, but I don't think we have one; my understanding is that jihad simply means struggle or striving................so its most important meaning is an individual's struggle to be a better person. Unfortunately we Westerners generally came across the word first as it was used by violent Islamists, so it became naturalised into the English language in that restricted sense.
Similarly we have an Al-Quds fast food joint in Preston, might sound a bit dodgy but simply indicates that it is owned by Palestinians.
Yeah and in English Crusaders doesn't just refer to some event that happened in the Middle Ages either. Unless you think Franklin Roosevelt thought that D-Day was about hundreds of thousands of allied troops landing in the Holy Land and butchering Muslims. We ran into this problem back in 2001 when Dubya used that term when referring to the struggle against terrorism. It just meant a righteous struggle not some ancient historical thing.
QuoteI read a book a while ago on the Crusades through Muslim eyes - which was about the records from Muslim writers at the time. And it is very striking that the Mongols happen shortly afterwards and, from memory, the Arab writers really see these two invasions as very similar. They are almost locust like, out of the blue attacks that were, at the time, perceived as unprecedentedly brutal and violent, which makes sense.
Yes I think we are all aware of that book. We are all Crusader Kings players here for the most part.
I totally get that in the context of modern Imperialism suddenly the Crusades became this big deal, but I have a hard time imagining that during the Ottoman Empire Arabs were sitting around being traumatized by one of many invasions and wars from hundreds of years ago. I mean the conquest of Cilicia by the Byzantines was a pretty brutal and vicious event, complete with slavery and genocide...yet I don't think the memory of that matters much because there is no recent Greek empire dominating the Arabs to put it in a moden perspective. I am sure it was very humiliating and enraging at the time seeing Muslim rulers having to bow and pay tribute to an infidel and seeing so many Muslims enslaved and driven from their homes. But they eventually won several centuries later, so no big deal now.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
Yeah and in English Crusaders doesn't just refer to some event that happened in the Middle Ages either. Unless you think Franklin Roosevelt thought that D-Day was about hundreds of thousands of allied troops landing in the Holy Land and butchering Muslims. We ran into this problem back in 2001 when Dubya used that term when referring to the struggle against terrorism. It just meant a righteous struggle not some ancient historical thing.
Although as I say the "righteous" struggle element is interesting and surely linked to this being a workd originally for a divinely sanctioned holy war. So it still arguably has that slight religious element to it. There a righteousness about how it's used.
QuoteI totally get that in the context of modern Imperialism suddenly the Crusades became this big deal, but I have a hard time imagining that during the Ottoman Empire Arabs were sitting around being traumatized by one of many invasions and wars from hundreds of years ago. I mean the conquest of Cilicia by the Byzantines was a pretty brutal and vicious event, complete with slavery and genocide...yet I don't think the memory of that matters much because there is no recent Greek empire dominating the Arabs to put it in a moden perspective. I am sure it was very humiliating and enraging at the time seeing Muslim rulers having to bow and pay tribute to an infidel and seeing so many Muslims enslaved and driven from their homes. But they eventually won several centuries later, so no big deal now.
I mean the book, from memory - I read it years ago - is about contemporary Arab reactions and frankly it reminds me of the stuff you read in English history about when the Vikings arrive. So it's not even about Ottoman era writers looking back, it's about the reaction of 11th century chroniclers - who are just like "WTF IS HAPPENING?" Which is basically the response of chroniclers in the east of the Muslim world when the Mongols turn up a few centuries later :lol:
Also on that I think there's a query on who won. You know you're talking about Ottoman Empire Arabs and Arabs didn't run the Ottoman Empire. Actually you've got the Crusades, then the Mongols and the Turks intermittently throughout in this age of invasions. So I wonder if it's more like - I don't the end of Rome - there's all these invasions from different people, looting all over the place and now we have a German Emperor for 1000 years :lol:
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2020, 06:57:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Gosh I hope so, that would be cool.
There is that high school in California that goes by the Mighty Arabs: https://gomightyarabs.com/
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
There is that high school in California that goes by the Mighty Arabs: https://gomightyarabs.com/
Coachella doesn't count as an actual place.
Quote from: PDH on July 24, 2020, 09:44:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
There is that high school in California that goes by the Mighty Arabs: https://gomightyarabs.com/
Coachella doesn't count as an actual place.
I'm sad that it is increasingly common to be the place in the Desert that people are familiar with rather than Palm Springs. :weep:
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2020, 10:17:12 AM
Quote from: PDH on July 24, 2020, 09:44:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
There is that high school in California that goes by the Mighty Arabs: https://gomightyarabs.com/
Coachella doesn't count as an actual place.
I'm sad that it is increasingly common to be the place in the Desert that people are familiar with rather than Palm Springs. :weep:
Maybe the Andy Samberg movie will change that?
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2020, 09:01:17 AM
Quote from: PDH on July 23, 2020, 06:57:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2020, 06:53:13 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
I think the name will come under pressure, but I think it's a totally illegitimate beef. It's grounded principally on the fact that Crusaders were aimed at conquering land from Muslims. Well guess what? Muslims conquered it to begin with. How is one conquest acceptable and the other not?
Are there many high school teams named, say, the Rashidun Jihadis?
Gosh I hope so, that would be cool.
There is that high school in California that goes by the Mighty Arabs: https://gomightyarabs.com/
I guess that's because it is near Mecca.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2020, 08:01:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
Yeah and in English Crusaders doesn't just refer to some event that happened in the Middle Ages either. Unless you think Franklin Roosevelt thought that D-Day was about hundreds of thousands of allied troops landing in the Holy Land and butchering Muslims. We ran into this problem back in 2001 when Dubya used that term when referring to the struggle against terrorism. It just meant a righteous struggle not some ancient historical thing.
Although as I say the "righteous" struggle element is interesting and surely linked to this being a workd originally for a divinely sanctioned holy war. So it still arguably has that slight religious element to it. There a righteousness about how it's used.
QuoteI totally get that in the context of modern Imperialism suddenly the Crusades became this big deal, but I have a hard time imagining that during the Ottoman Empire Arabs were sitting around being traumatized by one of many invasions and wars from hundreds of years ago. I mean the conquest of Cilicia by the Byzantines was a pretty brutal and vicious event, complete with slavery and genocide...yet I don't think the memory of that matters much because there is no recent Greek empire dominating the Arabs to put it in a moden perspective. I am sure it was very humiliating and enraging at the time seeing Muslim rulers having to bow and pay tribute to an infidel and seeing so many Muslims enslaved and driven from their homes. But they eventually won several centuries later, so no big deal now.
I mean the book, from memory - I read it years ago - is about contemporary Arab reactions and frankly it reminds me of the stuff you read in English history about when the Vikings arrive. So it's not even about Ottoman era writers looking back, it's about the reaction of 11th century chroniclers - who are just like "WTF IS HAPPENING?" Which is basically the response of chroniclers in the east of the Muslim world when the Mongols turn up a few centuries later :lol:
Also on that I think there's a query on who won. You know you're talking about Ottoman Empire Arabs and Arabs didn't run the Ottoman Empire. Actually you've got the Crusades, then the Mongols and the Turks intermittently throughout in this age of invasions. So I wonder if it's more like - I don't the end of Rome - there's all these invasions from different people, looting all over the place and now we have a German Emperor for 1000 years :lol:
My favorite WTF moment from the Crusades is how Richard I came to be associated in the popular imagination of the late medieval period with cannibalism. 😄
Fact is that the *First* Crusade definitely had an "invasion by alien locusts" feel to it, but that was certainly not true of *subsequent* crusades - because by that time European powers were part of the local landscape and there had been a lot of (involuntary) cultural exchange between European and Local cultures. In the same way as "Normans" were not the alien threat that the first Vikings were. Of course, in both cases they were still a military threat, but just not with the same sense of disconcerting alien-ness to it.
In the case of the Crusades, the First Crusade definitely had incidents that would give rise to concern by the locals (above and beyond those normal to war at the time), such as incidents of cannibalism on the locals by the invaders ... which seem to have later been attributed, completely incorrectly, to Richard I.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2020, 10:21:10 AM
My favorite WTF moment from the Crusades is how Richard I came to be associated in the popular imagination of the late medieval period with cannibalism. 😄
Fact is that the *First* Crusade definitely had an "invasion by alien locusts" feel to it, but that was certainly not true of *subsequent* crusades - because by that time European powers were part of the local landscape and there had been a lot of (involuntary) cultural exchange between European and Local cultures. In the same way as "Normans" were not the alien threat that the first Vikings were. Of course, in both cases they were still a military threat, but just not with the same sense of disconcerting alien-ness to it.
In the case of the Crusades, the First Crusade definitely had incidents that would give rise to concern by the locals (above and beyond those normal to war at the time), such as incidents of cannibalism on the locals by the invaders ... which seem to have later been attributed, completely incorrectly, to Richard I.
Yeah - absolutely. The reactions at the time seem to basically go from "WTF IS HAPPENING", to a sort-of self reflection and loss of credibility and authority by the Abbasids, to, by the end, a sort "The Franks are at it again" attitude. At which point the Mongols arrive and the region has another "WTF" moment.
But I think the flipside is that from the perspective of the region the First Crusade is the one that has this shock, alien arrival aspect. But maybe from our Western perspective I think arguably the later Crusades are sort of the ones that discredit the whole enterprise because the first ones you can say are products of European society, but sort of are motivated by religion while later on it was just the Venetians turning up and looting anything that isn't nailed down :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 23, 2020, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 23, 2020, 06:57:39 PM
Though I know the two words are not at all perfect parallels, but one might argue that both are just the same concepts in different languages. Or something like, "I don't believe in God, I believe in Allah!"
But you're point is a fair one...but might not be if the Islamic world had US-like high schools and teams. :P
Except that a crusade is not an explicitly religious concept, whereas a Jihad is. There have been many crusades against things like alcohol or crime or racism.
The Caped Crusader isn't so nicknamed for his Catholic piety! :D
It's certainly a name I would avid in a multicultural society, but having such a name isn't shameful.
I know it has been gone over in many great replies since, but doesn't that say more about the differences in the evolution of each of the languages? Or has "crusader" always had a lower-key meaning?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2020, 08:01:13 AMI mean the book, from memory - I read it years ago - is about contemporary Arab reactions and frankly it reminds me of the stuff you read in English history about when the Vikings arrive. So it's not even about Ottoman era writers looking back, it's about the reaction of 11th century chroniclers - who are just like "WTF IS HAPPENING?" Which is basically the response of chroniclers in the east of the Muslim world when the Mongols turn up a few centuries later :lol:
Yes. The book is probably by Amin Maalouf - it draws from Ibn al-Qualanisi, Ibn Jubair, and a few others from the 11th and 12th centuries.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2020, 10:21:10 AM
In the case of the Crusades, the First Crusade definitely had incidents that would give rise to concern by the locals (above and beyond those normal to war at the time), such as incidents of cannibalism on the locals by the invaders ... which seem to have later been attributed, completely incorrectly, to Richard I.
Googling brings this up as the second result
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=11039.0
you're part of the problem! :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2020, 05:07:07 AM
It would be better for a speaker of Arabic to chip in, but I don't think we have one; my understanding is that jihad simply means struggle or striving................so its most important meaning is an individual's struggle to be a better person. Unfortunately we Westerners generally came across the word first as it was used by violent Islamists, so it became naturalised into the English language in that restricted sense.
Jihad doesn't "simply" mean struggle or striving, it mans struggle to support moral standards (which are defined in the Koran). I don't think any Arabic-speaker would use the term outside its Muslim meanings, because it was a concept so important to Mohammed (and the Hadith that came after his death). They distinguished between the internal jihad (the struggle to obey god's laws) and the external one (the one to extend the blessings of Islam and protect the faithful from harm). Even the external one didn't necessarily involve violence; that majority of conversions to Islam came from contact with Muslim traders, not Muslim warriors.
I agree that "jihad" has an unfortunate a context in English as crusade does in Arabic, but I would argue that the terms are very different in how secular their meanings have become in their own languages.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2020, 10:33:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2020, 10:21:10 AM
My favorite WTF moment from the Crusades is how Richard I came to be associated in the popular imagination of the late medieval period with cannibalism. 😄
Fact is that the *First* Crusade definitely had an "invasion by alien locusts" feel to it, but that was certainly not true of *subsequent* crusades - because by that time European powers were part of the local landscape and there had been a lot of (involuntary) cultural exchange between European and Local cultures. In the same way as "Normans" were not the alien threat that the first Vikings were. Of course, in both cases they were still a military threat, but just not with the same sense of disconcerting alien-ness to it.
In the case of the Crusades, the First Crusade definitely had incidents that would give rise to concern by the locals (above and beyond those normal to war at the time), such as incidents of cannibalism on the locals by the invaders ... which seem to have later been attributed, completely incorrectly, to Richard I.
Yeah - absolutely. The reactions at the time seem to basically go from "WTF IS HAPPENING", to a sort-of self reflection and loss of credibility and authority by the Abbasids, to, by the end, a sort "The Franks are at it again" attitude. At which point the Mongols arrive and the region has another "WTF" moment.
But I think the flipside is that from the perspective of the region the First Crusade is the one that has this shock, alien arrival aspect. But maybe from our Western perspective I think arguably the later Crusades are sort of the ones that discredit the whole enterprise because the first ones you can say are products of European society, but sort of are motivated by religion while later on it was just the Venetians turning up and looting anything that isn't nailed down :lol:
The best example of this process is the "crusade" of Fredrick II "Stupor Mundi" which actually succeeded in getting Jerusalem!
... via a backroom deal with his buddy, the Ayyubid Sultan of Egypt, that basically leased the territory to the Christians for a decade. Much to the disgust of other "crusaders", who (I) wanted to see Fredrick occupied for years fighting in the holy land, and (I I) thought that crusading meant fighting the infidels, not doing deals with them.
Frederick knew how to get it done.
Except his own succession.
Also gaining back Jerusalem for christianity while excommunicated and the pope not lifting the excommunication.
They went with 'Washington Commanders'.
I am: ok with that.
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2022, 09:04:00 AM
They went with 'Washington Commanders'.
I am: ok with that.
Go commies?
I think 'Washington Generals' would have been better but then they'd probably have to buy/license the name from the Harlem Globetrotters organization. :hmm:
I think that's why Washington Generals doesn't work.
Even I've heard of them in the context of the Globetrotters baddies.
Quote from: Tyr on February 02, 2022, 10:56:32 AM
I think that's why Washington Generals doesn't work.
Even I've heard of them in the context of the Globetrotters baddies.
I guess if you're Washington you don't want to have the same name as a 'team' whose literal job is to lose. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on February 02, 2022, 11:43:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 02, 2022, 10:56:32 AM
I think that's why Washington Generals doesn't work.
Even I've heard of them in the context of the Globetrotters baddies.
I guess if you're Washington you don't want to have the same name as a 'team' whose literal job is to lose. :lol:
Truth in advertising!
I kinda liked "Washington Football Team".
Time for a game fixing scandal to take attention from this utterly boring name!
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2022, 05:23:12 AM
Time for a game fixing scandal to take attention from this utterly boring name!
Shut up, Meg.
:cheers: Howdy Speesh
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2022, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 03, 2022, 05:23:12 AM
Time for a game fixing scandal to take attention from this utterly boring name!
Shut up, Meg.
Dolphins and Browns won't let me down!