THE DEBATE over re-naming the Crusaders rugby team is being framed as a case of inadvertent cultural insensitivity. According to the team’s administrators, the name was chosen simply because it “represented Canterbury rugby’s crusading spirit”. It was also a name which, way back in 1996, lent itself to all kinds of effective merchandising. Certainly, no harm was ever intended to the Christchurch Muslim community. Which is why, in the context of the recent terrorist atrocity, the team management is casting about for a new name, a new brand, and a new beginning.
So far, so plausible.
But, is it?
It was the Austrian psychoanalyst, Carl Jung, who came up with the idea of the archetype: hugely powerful words and images embodying the primitive urges and longings buried deep in what he called our collective unconscious. Others, less altruistic than Jung, interpreted them as mythic figures emanating from the indestructible recollections of the volk – racial memories.
It is difficult to argue that the crusader knight is not an extremely potent archetype. A racial memory that is very far from being forgotten. Even today, eight centuries after the last crusader kingdom was over-run by the armies of Islam, boys and young men (New Zealand rugby’s most important target market) still thrill to the image of the mounted Christian knight, Christ’s cross emblazoned in on shield and surcoat, his flashing sword upraised in defiance of the infidel defilers of Jerusalem – the holy city.
It is an archetype that has shifted shape many times. Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte d’Arthur incorporates and appropriates the crusading ethos – morphing it into the chivalric ideals of the mythic King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. What else is Malory’s Quest for the Holy Grail but a potent sub-plot of the over-arching crusader narrative?
These stories are buried deep in our cultural DNA. “The Crusaders” sounded good to rugby fans because it reminded them of something. Something to do with riding forth against the enemy. Something about fighting for ultimate values. Something about finding on the field of battle more than mere personal glory. It was a name that conjured up something much bigger than a game of footy. Small wonder the team’s management chose it.
They were certainly not the first to have done so. The Romantics of the nineteenth century seized upon the chivalric ideal and its crusading spirit. The Gothic Revival, Sir Walter Scott’s historical novels, Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poetry: so utterly incongruous in the grim landscapes of industrial Britain; so wonderfully congruent with the imperialist mission the hugely productive forces of British capitalism made inevitable.
What else could the naked greed of Britain’s imperial quest for new markets be cloaked in except the crusading spirit? What else were the crusades but the first projection of European power beyond its borders since the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century?
It was no accident that the French-speaking Franks referred to the crusader states they had set up in what is now Israel, Lebanon and Syria, as Outremer – Overseas. No accident, either, that as Britain extended her reach “overseas”, the founders of colonies, like the Wakefield Settlement of Christchurch, saw themselves as latter-day crusaders, carrying both the cross and the sword to bring light and redemption to a fallen world.
It wasn’t just the British who instinctively reached for the archetype of the crusading knight. The English-speaking peoples were not the only ones who, contemplating conquest and the annihilation of ideological infidels, drew forth this potent symbol from their racial memory.
The black and white crosses that adorned the wings of the Luftwaffe, and the tanks of the Wehrmacht, were modern-day renderings of the heraldic devices of the Teutonic Knights: the Germanic crusading order which, long after the Crusader kingdoms of the Middle East had fallen, did battle with the heathen peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia.
The propagandists of the Nazi Party knew exactly what they were doing when they released a poster depicting Adolf Hitler, the man who was determined to see Germany once again carve out “living space” in the East, as a Teutonic Knight in shining armour carrying a cross into battle – albeit a crooked cross.
Adolf Hitler as Teutonic Knight
Were the franchise-holders thinking of Nazi propaganda when they chose the name “Crusaders”? Of course not. But 1996 was not far away in time from 1991, when the armies of the West (supported by their reluctant Arab allies) had gathered on the sands of Arabia, homeland of the Prophet, to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The word “crusader” was in many Muslim mouths at the time of the First Gulf War: most particularly, the mouth of a Saudi billionaire’s son: Osama Bin Laden.
US troops training for Operation Desert Storm 1991
No discussion of the Crusades could end without at least a passing reference to the religious military order whose name still echoes in the West more than six hundred years after its last Grand Master died at the stake. (Heaping curses, it is said, on the French king who sent him there.)
“God wills it!” was the battle-cry of the Knights Templar, and to these fanatical soldiers of Christ the Muslim war-leader, Saladin, offered no quarter. It is the Knights Templar that the “crusaders” who ride out at the commencement of the Canterbury franchise’s home fixtures most resemble. (The so-called “Black Knight” who rides out alongside the “Red Knights” is clad in the livery of the Templars’ brother order, the Knights Hospitaller.)
Knights Templar and Hospitaller
Quite what those members of the Christchurch Muslim community who hail from the lands assailed by crusader armies in the eleventh and twelfth centuries make of these displays nobody, prior to the tragedy of 15 March 2019, has ever thought to inquire. Presumably the rugby authorities were entirely ignorant of the fact that awful deeds of those armies have not been forgotten in the Arab world. Westerners are not the only ones in possession of a racial memory.
In the aftermath of the tragedy, however, thought must be given to the crusader archetype. Especially since in figured with such sinister force in the thinking of the Christchurch Shooter. Like his role model, Anders Breivik, the shooter claimed to be acting on the orders of the Knights Templar. Delusional? Only if you fail to grasp the power of archetypes.
While they continue to ride forth, pausing in their wild career, to salute with uplifted arms, and uplifted swords, “The Crusaders” cheering fans, deep racial memories, born of the bloody excesses of Pakeha New Zealanders’ ancestors, will stir and rise to the surface. The past has a dangerous way of intruding upon the present.
Best not to summon it forth … for a game of footy.
It’s kind of depressing that this is something worth talking about. So people are reporting a tremendous sense of clarity that the name must be changed. So changing the Crusaders name seems clear to them and makes sense in away that it hasn’t before. The perceptual part of it is the bright knight which is the original part of glory. Going back to the bible the term that is most often used to describe God is glory which can be translated into brightness, a bright light.
Now everything seems vivid and dark and a little depressing. To see a professional rugby team as away to exact revenge while holding those to account by spending five minutes of fame on a marketing decision that will last for ever. So we must brake this frame and enhance fundamental insights in this awakening from the war on terror. So we must make sense of the grief while at the same time making sense of the Crusaders in a new and enhanced shinning way and New Zealanders must describe this rebranding as beautiful.
Funny how you Pakeha always tell us Maori to leave the past and get on with the future but when it comes to anything about Pakeha history it is very important but our history seems to be irrelevant and we are often told to move on.
Wise comment, Michelle. Vety observant anf impossible to refute.
If we are going to delve into the history of Palestine let’s remember that Palestine was Christian before it was forcefully conquered by Islam in the 7th century – and The Crusades were a series of ultimately unsuccessful attempts to take back what had been earlier taken.
As always history is shades of grey and ‘Muslim’s good / Crusader’s bad’ is overly simplistic and inaccurate (just as ‘Crusaders good / Muslims bad’ is equally inaccurate).
“If we are going to delve into the history of Palestine let’s remember that Palestine was Christian before it was forcefully conquered by Islam in the 7th century”
“The Crusades were a series of ultimately unsuccessful attempts to take back”
What a load of racist, chauvinistic claptrap. Take it back for who? European christians? A Pope who wanted to extend Catholic power throughout the middle east?
Palestine has a history of invasion, re-invasion, and a multitude of rulers, empires, and religions. Trying to claim it for any one group is chauvinism pure and simple
You might as well say Palestine belongs to Egypt or the Roman empire
What is it with this forum attracting islamopohobic chauvinists ?
Religion is the pits.Always a reason for a good war. One god people get over it.
Ok cant let this one go: Carl Jung was born on July 26, 1875, in Kesswil, Switzerland. Not only am I a fan of Carl Jung and his work I am also a season ticket holder to the Crusaders. Have I ever thought of the historic Crusades and the slaughter that went on then? Yes every single time I go to a game. And then I remember to be grateful that I am here and that we (at least here in Aotearoa) are learning to make peace with the past and forge a new reality based on new archetypes. Nobody has ever died at a Crusaders rugby game on the field or in the stands though plenty of blood has flown on the field the game stops while the injured are repaired to play again at a later time. This did not happen in Jerusalem in 1099. Some say sport is war I say those people have never actually been in a war. In war its kill or be killed – in sport its play by the rules and may the best side win so everyone can go have a beer after the game. I dont recall any wars proceeding like that. Guess what it’s just a game of rugby.
If this archetype was as violently as powerful as Chris claims then there would not have been the outpouring of grief and love for our muslim community here in Christchurch. We here in Christchurch have shown that people come first and that ancient history is a very distant second and the crimes of our ancestors do not determine our reality today. Maybe the powers that be that planned and paid for this terrorist slaughter were hoping for a xenophobic reaction, but I am glad to say they have failed miserably. Instead Otautahi has overwhelmingly responded with Love and Compassion to the victims of this terrorist crime and I didnt doubt it for a second. Have you learnt nothing from the earthquakes? We here certainly have and the key lesson is that family, friends and community come first no matter who is in the community. I was in the CBD on February 22nd 2011 and there were no races, religions or history on display then only courage, compassion and heroism by ordinary people to each other and in the aftermath. Ok lets forget for a moment about EQC and the parasites and psychopaths who worked for them, but like the terrorist and his sympathisers they are a small minority.
What a game of hope and celebration it was when the Crusaders played their first game at home in 2012. I was there. I have seen muslims wearing hijab at Crusaders games before and hope to see them there again in the future. The Crusaders have always played for all Cantabrians (and cuzzies else where in Te Wai Pounamu).
As for a name change I am a bit ambivalent about it. I am ok about having the imagery removed referring to the historical past, but the name is another story as it does have 2 meanings in the dictionary; one referring to the historical crusades and the other to a crusading spirit which in reality is really what the team has championed over the years (not a blood thirsty religious slaughter). In this it is similar to the word Jihad which also has multiple meanings only one of which is utilised in the negative by islamic terrorists. Just as an aside I think the conduct of the Imam of the Al Noor mosque since the 15 March has been exemplary and inspirational. New Zealander of the Year?
However, for the sake of posterity (and because I know Steve Tew and Scott Robinson are avid readers of the Daily Blog – Yeah Right!) and giving a nod to my Ngai Tahu whakapapa I think a name change to something like the Aoraki Saders would be quite appropriate in the future. Every other name I have seen suggested so far has just sucked to me so far.
Hopefully, this Saturday all will feel safe to be at the game. History be Damned – Go the Crusaders!
I’m a fan of Jung also, and found Chris’s discussion fascinating – and Jung and Trotter’s (sounds like a delicatessen ) archetypes would be, or are, relevant to the current Canterbury experience of namings.
The thing about archetypes, is that Jung saw them as performing two roles. One is to supply the motifs with which to structure the chaos of experience, and the other is to structure the developing psyche itself.
If this is so, then we can’t really say that crimes of our ancestors do not determine our reality today. And if they are impacting upon some in our social community, then we all get impacted upon.
I don’t know though, whether Chris is entirely correct in saying that the crusader archetype is predominantly negative. My favourite (I know few) is Wagner’s Parsifal whose quest is searching for the Holy Grail – which is very much a religious and spiritual theme – and I daresay that Germany at the time Parsifal appeared, would be a massively different spiritual and cultural milieu from 21stC Christchurch.
The Crusader archetype may seem to affect few of us, but I suggest that it is affecting everyone now discussing it -and who knows what is in the genetic memories of others.
Jung’s “collective unconscious”contains and transmits from generation to generation, the evolving motifs which not only explain the human races’ different cultural histories, but according to Carl Jung,constitute the creative source upon which our very humanity depends.
Not a rugby person, but I never really saw the Canterbury Crusaders as associated with the Crusades until this blew up, and now I don’t know what to think at all, except that the ChCh massacre must be addressed with the greatest respect because the alternative dehumanises us.
Quite right. The purpose of the Crusades was to protect pilgrims and the Christians of Byzantium from certain pillage and slaughter by Muslims, and has little relevance now, though not because Islam has changed. It is because the Islamo-Leftism which shapes the Western Weltanschauung no longer permits the defence of Christianity or the civilisation it founded. History’s victor is required by the word of Allah to encourage cultural and historical erasure of the defeated. Allowing the Crusaders’ name to persist conflicts with the will of Allah. As the Noble Quran says, “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions [i.e. the Christians’ Trinity] with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. (3:151)
The future of the West is Islamic. Thank you, Chris, for your contribution.
That’s crap.
The purpose of the Crusades was to seize Jerusalem for the Vatican. Anything else is a weak attempt to rewrite history.
The pillage and slaughter that followed was from the crusaders who wreaked havoc in the region.
Once again we have a white apologist trying to justify European imperialism in the Middle East where we had no business being.
Um – Samwise – what about the Muslim occupation of half of Spain for several centuries – did Europe not have the right to fight to get it back
Fight back in defence? Yes.
Invade Middle East nations in retribution, and slaughter innocent men, women, and children who had nothing to do with the expansionist aims of various warlords? No. A thousand times: no.
Because that, Marianne, is precisely the justification used by the alleged Christchurch gunman-terrorist.
This is the Replacement Theory, which of course the Christchurch shooter subscribed to. The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Murray is worth reading if you have an open mind. Indeed, there is no reason to assume that ‘Europe’ will or should be occupied by ‘Europeans’ for ever, but as a European I would like to keep my culture
“…but as a European I would like to keep my culture”
Which culture would that be, Marianne? Europe is by no means homogenous.
And why would you think anyone wants to replace you like some Terrestrial version of Pod People? Perhaps Maori, Aboriginals, Nth American Indians, et al might have something to complain about, but not Europeans who’ve colonised and appropriated other First Nation people’s lands.
Please don’t cry “poor victim me”. It doesn’t sound credible coming from European colonisers and their descendants.
Should I say Pan-European culture instead perhaps. My ancestors at least over the last millennia would be Indo-European but also pre-Indo-European (Basque, Etruscan) and Uralic/Finno-Ugric cultures are part of that heritage. Yes, I am largely referring to Western civilisation from its pagan roots through the era of Christian power and domination, to what is as far as I’m concerned, the post-Christian era. I am an atheist, but the reality is that ‘Western culture’ (and I include folk/traditional culture not just ‘high’ culture’) has been hugely influenced by Christianity, with acknowledged Arabic/Islamic and Jewish elements. My English parents came to NZ separately in early 50s/60s with the best of intentions. So please do not consider me a ‘descendant’ of colonisers as far as NZ is concerned. Rather it would be true that some of my Anglo-Norman ancestors (who it turns out were originally Breton) took part in the English colonisation of Ireland in the Elizabethan period.
Well, Marianne, considering my own ancestral background (Uralic/Finno-Ugric-Magyar), I think I might have a few things to say on that matter.
Whilst muslim armies invaded Hungary in the 16th century, I hold no animosity toward muslim people at all.
However, glorifying those violent conflicts by using the names of warlords and military adventures is something I find unnecessary and distasteful
Those events belong in our history books, as lessons to be learned from. Not on our sporting fields where the historical events behind those names is sanitised out of existence.
Let’s just hope that, in a hundred years, no one comes up with the abhorrent suggestion for sporting names like the “Napier Nazis” or the “Karori Khmer Rouge”.
Would we use the names of John Bryce or William Rolleston as sports teams names? Those are the two men who led the attack on Parihaka in 1881.
Because that’s what we’re doing with “Crusaders”.
I trust you will talk to the members of New Zealand’s Muslim community to tell them also, they should not allow Nasheeds (Muslim praising and glorifying and also reflecting music clips) that glorify such commanders and fighters as Khalid Ibn al-Walid, then. As that is freely available on the web, and will also be watched by Muslims in NZ.
When you criticise ‘Crusaders’, do the same please with the fighters that spread Islam with the force of the sword, thanks.
I don’t have to.
The GCSB, SIS, and Police were watching our Muslim brothers and sisters. Meanwhile, slowly but surely, the terrorist drew his plans against us… (To paraphrase H G Wells.)
I am not aware of any sporting teams in New Zealand with names pertaining to Islamist extremism or violent events in the past.
But New Zealand has apparently bred a few home made jihadists, e.g. one by the surname of Taylor, now sitting in a refugee camp near Syria, who ‘fled’ from ISIS, after first supporting them and suggesting in a video, sympathisers kill people here on ANZAC Day events.
It would be naive to think that extremists prepared to use violence are now found only on the white extreme right here in NZ.
Try spreading this marc “?
https://twitter.com/MesutOzil1088/status/1110170205748187136
Marianne.
The problem with the Replacement Theory, particularly with regards to Muslim migrants, is that the numbers don’t stack up. Currently Muslims’s are approximately 6% of the total European population. Even if the most extreme of forecasts are right, and European Muslim birth rates continue at the present rate, then their share of the total European population by 2050 will be around 10 to 11%, hardly an existential threat. However, there is every reason to believe that current European Muslim birth rates will fall. That has been the general experience with new migrants. Over time they start to conform to rest of the population with regards to birth rates and family size. That, and the slow process of assimilation and secularisation, makes the Replacement Theory, or the parallel idea of the Islamization of Europe, extremely unlikely.
That there have and are problems with regards to the Muslim communities in Europe is obvious, attitudes towards women, gays and Jews being some examples. However I believe the fault here lies not with Muslims themselves primarily, but with state policies motivated by an extreme form of multiculturalism which resists any programs assimilation and integration, and of course economic policies that have created large pools of young, unemployed Muslim males.
In short, I don’t think there is any danger of ethnic Europeans losing their cultures or being replaced. We have to do better at integration, but that is on us, not on Muslims. As some Kiwi Muslim commentators have pointed out, until the recent tragedy, the only attention they were getting from the wider population was from the security agencies. That’s not a recipe for harmonious coexistence.
Indeed, Shawn. Well analysed.
The ‘Replacement Theory’ is certainly a conspiracy theory.
What has been happening in many countries is that governments have collaborated with industry and the business sector, to allow immigration to facilitate employment of non citizens to fill supposed ‘gaps’ and labour shortages.
Also has there been acceptance of refugees, which is mostly supposed to be for political and other persecution, but many refugees are also, or only, economic refugees. Some countries have laws that make it difficult to deport or resettle such economic refugees, resulting in endless bureaucratic and also more practical hurdles. So they put up with them and give them ‘temporary’ status, which often lasts for years, eventually allowing many to stay anyway.
When you have large disparities between the living standards, incomes and so in various countries, richer and poorer, it is not surprising that there will be willing immigrants from poorer countries to try and make it into better off countries, to simply improve their opportunities and livelihoods.
That though leads to social tensions with parts of the existing population where they may go to.
To presume that this is all some grand plan by the elite, to replace existing populations with others, who may be more subservient or whatsoever, that is wrong and misleading.
Capitalists always try to get cheap labour to do a cheaper job, so they may end up getting greater profits, or at least be more competitive. When many businesses as capitalist operators do this, others feel forced to follow suit.
Hence we have underpaid workers, exploited workers and abuse of immigration laws. This is simply the ruthless capitalist system working as per usual, that is not a grand plan by some in power to replace populations.
And such business operators and employers, they would not care whether the cheaper workers they may get are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or Atheists, they simply try to get cheap labour to exploit, nothing else.
As a result of continuous immigration over many years or decades, population composition may change, and that often leads to changes in behaviours, in social norms and economic practices also, which means, election results may turn out differently than they used to turn out, and certain ‘cultural’ activities that may have been widely accepted before, they may be put into question by the new residents and citizens that live within and amongst the long term and previously existing resident and citizen population.
So stop feeding this ‘Population Replacement’ BS theory, it is BS, nothing else, a conspiracy theory.
As well as look at the past maybe also look at the present… sounds like some modern day crusaders are coming to our shores..
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/dead-ukrainian-migrant-supported-actions-alleged-christchurch-terrorist-posed-threat-community-police
A good summary reflection on the meaning of the word ‘Crusader’, about relevant history, and about the discussion or debate about whether a Canterbury rugby team should still use that name for itself, or perhaps not.
It comes from an educated ‘progressive’ writer and ‘political commentator’, who also appears on New Zealand media quite regularly, as a sought voice for the supposed New Zealand ‘left’.
It seems all good, and the debate must be had, about the merit of the word ‘Crusaders’, its meaning and so forth, particularly in the case it is discussed now (re that rugby team).
Is it though not another attempt to raise the question whether we should rewrite history? History has its unpleasant realities, and for some it may appear appropriate to purge historic records (books, films, any references to historic events) from things that offend some people.
For some, it seems that history is rewritten again and again anyway, and it seems to be done to suit the palate and opinion of the observer and reader of anything about history.
But should we not also remember, that the Crusaders were one side to the equation, to battles fought, and like any wars and battles, they tend to end in misery, cruelty, crimes, betrayal, abuse and endless violent exploitation and destruction.
Has there ever been a ‘fair’ and ‘clean’ and ‘just’ war at any time in history, I wonder.
The Muslims, or Islam, had its own warriors, fighters, and commanders, and one of the first ones going down in their history is this one, by the way a convert, who initially fought against Muhammad and his supporters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid
“He converted to Islam, and joined Muhammad after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and participated in various expeditions for him, such as the Battle of Mu’tah, which was the first battle between the Romans and the Muslims. Khalid ibn Al-Walid reported that the fighting was so intense, that while fighting, he broke nine swords in the battle. This earned him the title ‘Saif-ullah’ meaning “The Sword of Allah”. Khalid took over after Zayd ibn Haritha, then Jafar ibn Abi Talib, then Abdullah ibn Rawahah were killed. After Muhammad’s death, he played a key role in commanding Medinan forces for Abu Bakr in the Ridda wars, conquering central Arabia and subduing Arab tribes. He captured the Sassanid Arab client Kingdom of Al-Hirah, and defeated the Sassanid Persian forces during his conquest of Iraq (Mesopotamia). He was later transferred to the western front to capture Roman Syria and the Byzantine Arab client state of the Ghassanids.”
There were of course many other commanders who fought in the wars against the ‘Crusaders’, as they would later be called.
What we had then was a battle between both religion, which merged also into a ‘cultural’ battle between different cultures, and with that ethnic groups, i.e. largely European ‘Crusaders’ and Middle Eastern and North African ‘Jihadists’, as some would call them now at least.
The discussions about the ‘Crusaders’ rugby team appears to be one other aspect of where nowadays rather liberal, materially focused, ‘modern’ western culture is facing a true identity crisis.
Being perhaps rightfully criticised for a poor taste name choice years ago, the rugby team and its administrators are facing pressure to change their name. Society is in intense debate about the rights and wrongs about that.
A white supremacist type mass murderer, indeed a kind of terrorist, has succeeded in creating a modern day internal culture dispute starting here in New Zealand, which comes after many years of ‘debate’ about the merits of Maori place names, of colonial place and street names, about the issues that have plagued this country for long now.
With continuous immigration from various countries bringing different cultures and also religious groups here, new challenges have arisen.
The west is in a kind of identity crisis now, New Zealand as part of the so-called, still predominantly white west, is heading deep into it.
Perhaps we now have to purge New Zealand history from anything colonial and Anglo Saxon, as that is the culture that settled here, that beat Maori in land wars, that oppressed Maori for decades, so that the ‘new’ New Zealand can take shape?
Perhaps we have to purge New Zealand history books, films, any records of names, concepts and ideas that are now considered inappropriate, e.g. the claims Captain Cook ‘discovered’ the land, which was actually rather discovered by a Dutch sailor?
We may need to rename Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and other cities, give them a Maori name, or so not to offend others, new immigrants, to give them new, ‘inclusive’ ‘neutral’ names, that encourage a multi cultural thinking and sense of belonging?
As New Zealand has been a social laboratory for many years, for trying also new economic ideas and systems, perhaps this is the change to make another lab test, to see how this nation can be an ‘example’ for other western nations to ‘reform’ itself from within?
Or are we perhaps not building our own Tower of Babel, where we will become so diverse and permissive or liberal, we will in the end confound ourselves, and live in a society without any true, clear identity, and where nothing much is allowed to distiguish oneself from others?
‘Crusades’ as per Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
The wider meaning of ‘jihad’, according to the Islamic Supreme Council of America:
http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
‘Jihad’ according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
‘Islam and war’ according to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid
A video portraying Khalid Ibn al-Walid from an Islamic point of view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqiNAdzt8-Q
(There is heaps more, some rather provoking, on You Tube)
So is it a question now about whose side are we on? About how we interpret past historic wars and disputes? Shall we continue to live in a sort of total denial of what happened, the MSM too scared to even cause distress or discomfort in sensitive persons, thus not even mentioning the name of the mass murderer?
Is New Zealand not in total denial about what has happened, what is happening and what needs to be done? I cannot believe the self censorship by media here, so one must go to overseas media and other sources to learn about the terror attacks and so forth.
This is a time of needed very serious reflection about what this country and society still stands for, and where it wants to go!
It was certainly no part of my intention, Marc, to obliterate our country’s European legacy. Indeed, the main point of the posting is to make people aware of how much of the past is present in our thoughts, words and deeds – even if we do not consciously acknowledge it. To paraphrase Trotsky’s famous comment on the dialectic: You may not be interested in archetypes; but archetypes are interested in you.
“So is it a question now about whose side are we on?”
Why do we have to be on any “side”, Marc. There is a hint of George Bush’s “clash of civilisations” going on here, and going down that road is a dead end. It is not the road to peace.
Questioning the named ” Crusaders” is valid. It would be like naming a team “the Mongols” or “the SS”. Distasteful to put it mildly.
I see no need to lionise groups in our history that engaged in barbaric mass slaughter.
Hah, Frank, you fell into a trap. Taking sides was exactly what I questioned, as neither side is right, looking at history, but history only knows winners and losers. All else matters little, it seems.
So perhaps giving in to imminent social and emotional pressures is not what should be allowed to happen after 3/15.
So, let’s not take sides in any “clash of civilisations then, Marc.
But that shouldn’t prevent us recognising sensitivities of others in our community. Just as we wouldn’t countenance a sporting team called the “Gisborne Gestapo” or the “Auckland Apartheiders”.
We shouldn’t forget history. In fact I often point out that risk. But neither should we glorify the darker aspects of humanity’s bloody past.
“Gestapo”, “Apartheiders”, now you are insulting ‘Crusaders’, Frank.
Frank, Clash of Civilisations is Samuel Huntington’s magnum opus, not Bush who merely aped it. As a concept it may best be viewed as a justification of Pax Americana in neo con form. The best rebuff came from the late great Arab intellectual, Edward Said.
Wikipedia … oh dear … not for those who value truth
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6640807/Meet-history-obsessed-opera-fanatic-ONE-Wikipedia-entries.html
I don’t think the Crusaders should change their name I think that is a step to far but I do think we need to think more about naming places and things that are important to us. For example nigger hill in Hawkes Bay we need to get rid of some of the tasteless names and replace them with names more suited for us and our country and we need to have discussion about this.
Burke’s Peerage Limited is a British genealogical publisher founded in 1826. It is a Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, Sixth Edition 1839 (known better simply as Burke’s Peerage).
Queen Elizabeth ll is recorded in Burke’s Peerage, in addition to her many other titles, as the 43rd great granddaughter of the prophet Mohammed.
What might be slightly more difficult to find are her other “religious” titles other than the obvious “Defender of the Faith”. Question is defender of which faith? Honoring which god?
The Church of England describes itself as Christian but practices pagan ceremonies rooted in sun worship and the ancient druidic traditions of England. The Queen is also Head of the Druids. Pathe News link.
The Vatican practices are also worthy of scrutiny given what can be seen in the Vatican Serpent Hall. The Pope is leading the current charge for ONE religion. There are two Popes in the Vatican and they are known as the Black Pope and the White Pope. Easy to research. Current Pope holds both role. He is also Head of the Jesuits having taken all oaths prior to his appointment The extreme oath of the Jesuits is an eye opener .. denied, of course, by the Jesuits.
Queen Elizabeth ll is also Head of the Freemasons lead by her cousin the Duke of Kent. The Freemasons have their own “version” of the King James Bible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS1tvMxs0Q8
New Zealand follows the British legal system which was established in 1185 by the Muslim Knights Templar! Updating meant Judges and lawyers took off the headdress but it will not be long before they are donned again and Sharia Law will be instituted.
The “bloodthirsty Pakeha ancestors” so targeted and maligned in this blog were little more than the starving puppets and serfs of the “Elite” who were manipulated and/or threatened into believing in a cause .. for what .. they probably didn’t even know. Perhaps a bit like “on our side soldiers” for Tony Blair and Jacinda Ardern and their involvement in the WMD lies and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims all, of course, for the benefit of the bankers and the Elite. Can’t blame the Pakeha ancestors for that one or the fallout.
…
King Richard the Babylonian Lionheart adopted the Knights Templar Red Cross during the Third Crusade. The Knights Templar have not gone https://www.knightstemplar.org.nz/ and their god is the same god worshiped by the Queen, the Masons, the Muslims, the Freemasons, and the money changers who crept back into the grounds of Temple Mount to rebuild the 3rd Temple.
…
New Zealand flag clearly shows King Richard I Red Cross of the
Knights Templar adopted by Richard during the Third Crusade.
…
As John Podesta purportedly said of NZ when he was here … it’s a Juicy Target. Time for us to lose the naivety.
Let’s say no to this ridiculous Game of Power and Control
Please back up these accusations of “lies, death and destruction” against specifically our PM Jacinda Ardern with as many fact as you can muster. I won’t be holding my breath……………
KAT ..
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/08/07/jacinda-washed-her-hands/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/22/new-zealand-election-will-37-year-old-former-blair-advisor-jacinda/
…
and by association
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZxa0-IXl_U
…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
KAT… I have posted back up. Arriving here any time, hopefully.
There’s a problem with the conspiracy that’s there’s this secrete power structure above the political power structure pulling all the strings, well there’s several problems with that really. Firstly BREXIT, Brussels, Trump. Implying that there’s some sort of excuse for all of this incompetence is pure madness that the woke left subscribes to.
Your conspiracy theories become tiring, sorry, truly tiring.
@Helena: “Perhaps a bit like “on our side soldiers” for Tony Blair and Jacinda Ardern and their involvement in the WMD lies and the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims all”
What the fuck??
How does Jacinda Ardern get mixed up with Blair’s war crimes?? She wouldve been in high scool when Blair was PM!!
Helena, you are one crazily loose unit
I read various holy books, or so called holy scriptures, while the New Testament of Christianity is all about Jesus and his teachings of peace, forgiveness and love, the Old Testament, and some contents in the Quran and Hadith are not quite so.
If I had a choice, I think I would rather accept Christ and
his message, than a faith that started from its early days with defending itself, as is claimed, by using the sword.
Another video about the past, pro Islam here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqPW7vAg_0
Perhaps we should put the times of the Crusades behind us, but some do want to keep a memory of past battles alive, it seems, from ‘both sides’.
In the short days after the Christchurch massacre there was a very real fear that anti-Islam sentiment might run amok. That was certainly the hope of the gunman, but the people of NZ closed ranks and showed a unity of compassion that did NZ credit. All that the gunman sought to achieve was nullified and the killer ‘s hopes were dashed.
So what happens next ? Some bozo decides that the name “Crusaders” is anti-Islam and must be suppressed, for reasons that the average Kiwi knows nothing about. Suddenly a whole host of minor bozos (including me) must stir the pot and drive a wedge between nominally Christians and Mohammedans, where just a few short days ago there was complete unison and we have done something that the killer failed to achieve. Well done, everyone, well done! Just drop it, please.
Let’s get the Crusaders thing sorted. Then we can move on to the ‘Warriors.’
Yes indeedy, then perhaps the All Whites.
Isn’t it amazing the amount of time and thought gone intro defending the “Crusaders” name by invoking other wars and invasions?
The point that those apologists for the “Crusaders” name forget is that we DON’T lionise the muslim invaders of Europe. We DON’T use the names of muslim invaders, their Caliphs, or generals, etc.
So why do it at all?
‘We’ may not glorify those that brought Islam into Europe (to the gates of Vienna it was), but some Muslims do so, do some research on You Tube. But as you probably do not understand Arabic and Turkish language, you will never learn about this.
You live in a bubble, the western liberal, urban consumerist lifestyle bubble, where info about other ‘cultures’ is known by very, very few.
And many also romanticise certain other cultures and religions.
Interesting discussions.
Points on both sides; the word is a part of our language with a range of inferences as pointed out by dictionary ref.as pointed out above. Are we going to “politically correct” our whole language? History feeds into all of it.
On the other hand the connection the Canterbury team presentation invokes is unmistakably the “warrior’s ” simile . Including quite appropriately the touring aspect of the rugby programme.
One can point out that is only of historic relevance and no modern civilised Western state would dream of behaving this way which works until you read what statements Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are making in the name of their christian god, And Rubio , and what they are doing in the east, and what the are itching to do on South America to have to acknowledge that the Crusades are still going on.
I does therefore seem like there’s a case for having a different name but I regret that the change should be brought about by the mosque shooter. It seems to further empower his influence.
I can’t arrive at a firm opinion on whether they should change their name or not.
D J S
Consider this then. White supremacists see themselves as crusaders. The battle of Acre in 1189 holds particular significance for them, the alleged shooter had spent part his time traveling the world at sites of the old crusades, he had lots of scrawling and symbols all over his guns, one of which read “Acre 1189”. These people see themselves as modern crusaders, forget the historical stuff.
I don’t think it is outside the realms of possibility that he chose Christchurch because of the Crusaders team name, that might be revealed at the trial.
I think eventually when people make the connection between this massacre and the words “crusade” and “crusaders” they will begin to want to separate themselves from the name.
And lastly, if I were a Crusaders fan I think I’d be reluctant to travel overseas with them as I would have the thought of reprisals somewhere in the back of my mind, given my team’s name.
Well, the Arab empire by 720 extended from Libya and Persia to Kazakhstan and to the Indus river. Kabul was taken in 664. Vast, but like all empires over extended. A campaign into central France in 732 was defeated by Martel at Poitiers. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Syrians, Hindus etc. were permitted to practice their religions and retain economic security by paying a poll tax on top of tribute. Persian Zoroastrians fled to India where they are known as Parsees.
The first line of Caliphs were the the Ummayads who introduced hereditory succession. In 780 the Ummayad caliphate was defeated after an internecine war and the Abbasid caliphate was established.
The last Abbasid caliph was kicked to death in Baghdad in about 1221 not by Crusaders but by the Moghuls who, historically, had an empire larger than anyone else’s before or since. The Ottoman Empire was named after General Ottoman who pushed back the Moghuls.
So Urban II in 1096 calling for a crusade to recover the ‘Holy Lands’ was something of a late player. The first ‘people’s’ crusade led by Peter the hermit was annihilated by the Turks but the main crusade into Asia Minor set off a veritable orgy of killing and this is the section of history that most Europeans have some idea of.
Another section that most don’t know about was a twenty year military campaign from 1209 – 1229 when Innocent III directed a Crusade led by Simon de Montforte to the area in the South of France where flourished the so called ‘heresies’ of the Albigensians and the Cathars.
As the crusade approached the city of Beziers, they were instructed,”Kill them all, God will sort out his own” It took one weekend. In 20 years anyone not put to the sword was burnt.
No amount of squirming or posturing can change the horrors of history where ‘There is none good, not one.’ People galloping about on horseback at football games are an entertainment, a joke and a parody which are ways to soften the ghastly past.
An informative and easy to read book is ‘The Rise and Fall of the Arab Empire by Rodney Collombe which is subtitled ‘And the Founding of Western Pre – Eminence’ by which he means the separation of church and state and the founding of the democratic state.
Another delusion I fear, because in the new religion of globalisation, neoliberalism, complete with self flagellation and self loathing and frothing hatred of so many for Christianity (one of the three Abrahamic religions)and European history and culture, one detects the Urbans and
Innocents of tomorrow. Separation of church and state? I think I’ll read Houellebecq’s novel ‘Submission’ again.
Somewhere in the ‘Arabian Nights’ is the story of ‘The Father of All Farts’
and sadly, this is what the Left has become.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baghdad-iranian-connection-1-pr-
I have no strong feelings on the issue but it is wrong to see the crusades in isolation. They occurred after 400 years of invasion by Muslims during which all of Spain, Sicily, and many other parts of the European world like North Africa – yes, much of it was and had European – were conquered by foreign Muslim invaders.
Appologies. For Moghuls read Mongols and Mongolian Empire. Also correct spelling for the first dynasty of Caliphs is Umayyad.
@FRANK MACSKASY
Have you examples of wars which were ‘reasonable’?
Actually Christians were being persecuted in the Middle East at the time of the Crusades just as they have been and no doubt will be in the future. Muslims are persecuted in Israel. If Muslims were able to unite and attack Israel would this be reasonable or unreasonable?
In territories conquered by the Arab Empire were Jews who had converted to Christianity who because of the poll tax and the ‘reforms’ brought about by a Caliph round about 800 CE, converted to Islam.
This Caliph realised that an economy had to rely on something other than plunder which was a good idea but decided that there could be no employment (administration,artisan,etc.) for non-Muslims. Was this reasonable or unreasonable I wonder?
Forget the whole historical connotations thing and consider the connotations of the crusades and crusaders in these times.
I won’t go into this any further here, except I suggest everyone google “Acre 1189 white supremacy and that guy’s name” It will be interesting to see if anyone else comes to the same conclusion I have, that the Crusaders name is no longer tenable.
“It’s arbitrary to single out the Crusaders”
No its not “arbitrary”
Naming our sporting teams after historical events that carried out atrocities should not be acceptable. It sanitises history as others have pointed out
We wouldnt name a team after a nazi historical figure or any other war criminal or bloodthirsty tyrant
So why is it acceptable to name a team after butchers who invaded foreign nations? You people can justify western invasions of middle east nations by using whataboutism but it falls flat. All yiu’re doing us justifying war
I think theres a truckload of eurocentric history sanitising going on here, eh Jason, chruskl, archonblatter, etc
@Rae – well pointed out
crusaders should keep their name. the Muslims won those wars and chased them out.
Frank, Clash of Civilisations is Samuel Huntington’s magnum opus, not Bush who merely aped it. As a concept it may best be viewed as a justification of Pax Americana in neo con form. The best rebuff came from the late great Arab intellectual, Edward Said.
The Censor worked overtime on comments under this post, I guess.
Comments are closed.