Crusaders decision as good as it gets


Nooooooooooooooooooooooooow I don’t wish to be mean.


I’m guessing that the vast amount of Crusader fans and Rugby Management had no idea whatsoever the historic symbolism of the actual crusaders.

My guess is that the majority of them have this basic history timeline.

TDB Recommends


Cave man.


Kings and Queens.

World War 1.

World War 2.

President Kennedy.

The Beatles.


Happy Days.

Cricket World Cups.


Rugby World Cups.

Springbok Tour.

Anti-smacking legislation.

Brittany Spears.

John Key.


So expecting them to appreciate the grotesquely offensive nature of the Crusaders to Muslims in the wake of the Christchurch atrocity is like demanding Trump value vegan feminist slam poetry.

Dumping the knights and the bloody swords is a huge step for people who worship ball catching and kicking skills. These are pretty prehistoric volk here, eclipses and literacy are viewed with suspicion. They will reflect on the name change in 2020 so they are tacitly acknowledging the intense squeamish discomfort of being directly associated with a white supremacists terrorism manifesto.

Sadly, the decision they have come to is probably as good as it gets. This is who we are.


  1. “I don’t wish to be mean”

    But then you are. You go on to claim:

    “I’m guessing that the vast amount of Crusader fans and Rugby Management had no idea whatsoever the historic symbolism of the actual crusaders.”

    That’s a helluva trip to put on a diverse community. I’d assume nothing about their level of knowledge.

    However. I wonder how good your own knowledge is. The crusades were political rather than purely religious. At that time, there was no such thing as secular government; the rulers of all countries were adherents to one religion or another. Europeans went to the middle East to claim – or reclaim – lands considered to be important to them as Christians. See this for an alternative perspective:

    There are also other sources available online.

    • Agree completely with this post . . not a lot of understanding here of the Crusades or people who play / watch rugby (of which I am one).

    • The crusaders were an invasion force, D’esterre. They had as much right being in the ME as British, Amerucan, French, Russians, etc, have now. In other words, NONE!!

      If you can justify the crusades of antiquity, then logic follows you have no problem with the illegal US invasion of Iraq a few years ago

      It was political/religious back then. Its resource (oil) now

      • MJOLNIR – Please note that the ME was largely Christian before it was invaded by Muslims – The 1st Crusade was launched to relaim Jerusalem after it initially fell to the Muslims.

  2. As usual you come across as the only one that knows the correct outcome of this problem never mind that to my understanding there is no pressure from Muslim Cantabrians for a change .The pressure is from that group of mainly green voters who are offended at most things that white people do or say. The Stuff poll was 80% against change a name change .

    • But the canterbury rugby union did a survey In April of crusaders territory people, asking their views on a name change and why they did or did not want a change?

      I would suggest that the majority who answered the survey approved of a name change .

      I myself stated in that survey, that the name “crusaders with the swordsman and all” had been opposed right from the very beginning of super rugby and the reason being, it’s historical usage i.e the Middle east crusades etc.

      So The Canterbury super rugby people have obviously taken all that onboard.

        • So what’s your point – Muslims can be bad people too?

          Unless the Crusaders management were planning to replace their name with the exact name of that specific muslim fighting force I don’t see how this is relevant

          • It wasn’t the Canterbury Crusaders rugby players who committed the atrocity against the Muslims and their Christchurch mosque

            …it was a terrorist Australian

    • +100 TREVOR SENNITT….I am no fan of rugby but I dont see why they should change their name

      ….afterall the Crusaders had the name before Muslims entered the country in numbers

      …( nor do the Muslims want it ….just the Greens!…again!….sigh)

      ….also “crusaders” can mean many things in the English language eg. “a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.”

  3. Why stop here? We should rename Christchurch itself, since it features both “Christ” and “church” – the former potentially offensive to Jews, the latter to atheists and Muslims. Welcome to 2019 folks, undemocratically kowtowing to a tiny minority of people to appease their fake virtue signalling and score some political correctness points.

    • What a bizarre argument – the real decision is about whether we want to name anything after a genocidal group.

      We wouldn’t call them the Canterbury Nazi’s, or Canterbury Al Qaeda so why would we name them after the Crusaders once we became aware that their history was pretty similar?

      Calling it political correctness doesn’t change the fact that the Crusades involving a lot of murder and bloodshed

      • “so why would we name them after the Crusaders once we became aware that their history was pretty similar?”

        Because anyone with any education knew that history all along and it was nonetheless never an issue that was raised previously? If not, why not? This is what virtue signalling is. You can apply your retroactive “logic” to just about anything.

      • crusader


        1.a fighter in the medieval Crusades.
        synonyms: campaigner, fighter, battler; More
        champion, advocate, promoter, enthusiast;

        2.a person who campaigns vigorously for political, social, or religious change; a campaigner.
        “crusaders for early detection and treatment of mental illnesses”

        Removing the knights on horse back with swords could be argued a good move.

    • I made a similar point in an earlier post about Christchurch. This Crusaders name issue really has little to do with rugby its players or fans and a whole lot to do with people beating their little PC drums.

  4. It is now upto the Crusaders management and playing team to give the word Crusaders its mana. And it’s not about winning or aesthetics. It’s about giving back to the Muslim community.

      • They could call themselves mud for all I care.

        The only conceivable way I can think of to change the Crusaders name is if the franchise is deregistered and moved across town.

  5. The twirling of the swords always struck me as inappropriately effete, much like sipping tea with your pinky finger up. That twirling was such a facepalm.

    There can be no time for twirls when you’re a crazy eyes psycho knocking out brains with a spiked mace (a prudent knight knows you don’t wreck the good sword on filthy peasants) and wading through blood river streets of Holy Jerusalem. So it was historically inaccurate. But if they rode their trusty steeds actually into the crowd and trampled them while smashing their skulls you could see what they were really like. The sin bin won’t cover it

    • Rugby has always been a boys game…look at it that way….a game for the boys…then you will understand

      Boys will be boys

  6. While we are on the subject of religious sensibilities isn’t it time the New Zealand taxpayer stopped funding religious schools?…via the Integration of private religious schools into the state system act?

    Personally I do not want my money going towards any religious integrated schools…whether they be Zionist, Christian or Muslim

    ( these religions are old outmoded Patriarchal Monotheistic and do not have a good record on ideology and womens or gay rights)…the Catholic Church has got a disgraceful history and has been prosecuted under State law for pedophilia

    New Zealand is a secular society with a secular human rights law and proud of it!…All schools in New Zealand should be state and secular if funded by the New Zealand taxpayer.

    ( If people want to be indoctrinated in their patriarchal monotheistic religions they should do so out of school hours)

    I am a great admirer of Turkish statesman Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who advocated a secular state

    …”Mustafa Kemal’s first order of business was to modernize and secularize the country, which he did by studying Western governments and adapting their structure for the people of Turkey. He believed that modernization necessarily entailed Westernization, and he established a policy of state secularism, with a constitution that separated the government from religion.”…

    ( If religious groups want to come to New Zealand they should recognise and respect New Zealand is a secular society)

  7. Perhaps I am a cynic, but if the Crusaders HAD decided to change their name wouldn’t you have immediately denounced it as a victory for the “woke left”, Martyn?

  8. Sense prevails over political correctness. Whose fucking side are you on? We need ANOTHER Crusades to cleanse Europe of its filth.

  9. OK, this Crusaders business. The 1st crusade was launched after the Eastern Roman Empire (which we now call the Byzantine Empire) appealed to western Christian powers for help against the invading Seljuq Turks (predecessors of the Ottomans). As well as gaining control of most of the Middle East, the Turks had conquered most of Anatolia. This latter development posed two very serious threats to the Byzantines: (1) the Turks were getting uncomfortably close to Constantinople, and (2) the Byzantines’ ability to defend themselves had been severely compromised by the loss of their largest and most loyal recruiting ground. The western Christians obliged by helping push the Turks out of western and southern Anatolia (but not out of the interior), and then got on with their own agenda – taking the “Holy Land” back from the Muslims. As we all know, some of the things they did were pretty ugly. But let’s remember it was the Middle Ages – human life was very cheap, and there was no such thing as “human rights” then. The Turks weren’t exactly saints either.

    Changing the name of the Crusaders rugby team would be wrong for all sorts of reasons. Why make a permanent change in response to a one-off atrocity (well let’s hope it’s a one-off) perpetrated by a deluded maniac who had nothing to do with the club, and who wasn’t even a Kiwi? And contrary to popular current belief, someone feeling “offended” isn’t always a good reason for change. If some NZ Muslims feel offended by the name (and I’m led to believe it’s only a minority who are), I wonder how well they actually know the history of the Crusades – Suzie Ferguson’s description of them as just “Christians killing Muslims” suggests she might benefit from a history course too. And another thing – in a liberal democracy, everybody stands to have their sensibilities offended at some stage – it goes with the territory. Muslims aren’t exempt from that.

    I think you can do better, Martyn.

  10. After the defeat of the Christians in the Battle of Hattin Saladin had all of the Templar and Hospitallers who were now captives of the victorious Muslims decapitated (approx 200 of them).

    The history of the Muslim conquest of what had been a predominantly Christian Middle East / the subsequent Crusades to ‘reclaim’ parts of these lost lands / the eventual reconquest by the Muslims is replete with massacres on both sides . . and I very much doubt that Saladin will ever be viewed in the Islamic World with anything other than reverence.

    It looks like postulating ourselves for the ‘sins of our ancestors’ is purely a Western phenomenon.

  11. There’s one hell of a lot of nonsense and historic untruths spoken about the Crusades. And most seems currently to be about defending world views, both from the Left and Right that are quite frankly horse excrement.

    Right wing white supremacy is self evidently warped, yet it’s mirror image of Leftist hysteric Wokesterism is equally absurd. Facts don’t matter to either.

    The attack on the mosque is self evidently a crime of extreme proportion s. Yet to respond with flailing self flagellation at Canterbury and NZ society and institutions as being “racist” and historically “inappropriate is just plain wrong.

    So for those who reject their own cultural history, good and bad, where is their own self respect? Isn’t that what they would wish different cultures afford one another? Let’s get really brutally honest here. Do we write cannibalism out of Maori history? Do we write the Islamic invasions of Europe out of history? Do we write the land grabbing colonial pakeha state out of history?

    So with regard to the name Crusaders and horses and swords. Let’s go back to the return of those same people to their homes. They would have been celebrated in the same way Saladin was celebrated. Like him their deeds resonate with their cultures over centuries. Would we ask Egyptians and Levantines to stop celebrating his memory?

    What kind of cultural self loathing demands we revise our past, good or bad?

  12. Canterbury does have a (high) disproportionate number of people having sex with animals. Crusaders history too?
    A 16-year-old youth appeared in the Christchurch District Court charged with bestiality after allegedly having sex with a four-year-old donkey he had taken into the middle of a suburban reserve.

    A North Canterbury man who admitted trying to have sex with a goat believed he wouldn’t get caught because “animals couldn’t talk”.

    • You are saying the Crusaders are into bestiality?

      …that is ridiculous

      …would you prefer they were called the Cannibals?

  13. The name is in bad taste a look at what the Crusaders of old stood for and carried out will show why. I await the call of being PC, what is PC? , Good taste, manners and respect in my book but the bigots will say otherwise. The franchise needs to be renamed in line with its roots in Canterbury.

    • @ Fan (?)definitions of “in bad taste”:

      “Inappropriate or offensive; vulgar or crude …rude; vulgar; obscene”

      So you are arguing the Canterbury Crusaders rugby team is in “bad taste”?

      ( are you a Green? …or are you a new import?…because 80% of those in a Stuff Poll did not want a change of name)

      …as Nick J concludes …”What kind of cultural self loathing demands we revise our past, good or bad?”

Comments are closed.