Comments on: Does Duncan Garner want to rename the Crusaders ‘The Canterbury Snowflakes’?

By: RED BUZZARD

RED BUZZARD — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 22:22:09 +0000

the bottlers of Christchurch aquifers are the Chinese aided and abetted by the Christchurch Labour Party Mayor’s husband

…the bottlers are not rugby players or Crusaders

By: peterlepaysan

peterlepaysan — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 07:41:48 +0000

The answer is so bloody obvious only cantabrians would object.

It is very historically relevant, and therefore has some “cultural relevance”.

CANTERBURY LAMBS.

By: Keepcalmcarryon

Keepcalmcarryon — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 06:14:53 +0000

In reply to Nitrium. “All blacks” does have ironic connotations, deliberately I think to initially mock the English who “mis spoke” commentating on the playing style of the originals. “All whites” as a lame copy is the dumbest name in world history for a sports team IMO also probably offensive to some.

By: Frank Macskasy

Frank Macskasy — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 05:03:02 +0000

In reply to Nitrium. The names would probably have to be explained to those unaware of our official national colours, Nitrium.

By: Nitrium

Nitrium — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 04:09:33 +0000

In reply to Frank Macskasy.

I’m being facetious, obviously. But if “Crusaders” is offensive for the connection to an event that occurred over 700 years ago, “All Blacks” could just as easily be offensive to a black people using the same sort of mental gymnastics. I now do wonder if e.g African Americans were to make a brouhaha about the “All Blacks” brand which side you would be inclined to take.
Come to think of it, surely “The All Whites” NZ soccer team are sounding awfully “white supremacist” now? Can’t have that.

By: Helena

Helena — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 01:12:17 +0000

In reply to RED BUZZARD. And let's take off the red cross on the NZ flag which refers to Richard Lionheart 3rd Crusade.

By: RED BUZZARD

RED BUZZARD — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 20:05:06 +0000

In reply to Keepcalmcarryon. where is my reply ...or has it been suppressed?

By: Jody Joseph

Jody Joseph — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 11:27:25 +0000

In reply to Keepcalmcarryon. The Canterbury Cowpats? Kidding, love you Christchurch. I thought the Chilblains but too negative, while the Shakers is probably the last thing Cantabrians want to be reminded of. The Kinetics? Don't know how it relates to the region but it sounds snazzy.

By: Liminal

Liminal — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 09:43:59 +0000

Just my thoughts, Mosa. It is a ridiculous storm in a teacup and beyond satire – renaming a rugby team because of supposed cultural/religious sensitivity of a very small minority.* What next? In any case, always it seems to one-sided and lacking in historical perspective – Muslims conquered half of Spain and got to the gates of Vienna. Do they cringe at flaunting Islamic symbols in the faces of other religions and peoples of Europe? The Christchurch (oops, better rename THAT one while you are at it !!) slaughterer is winning every time these pantomimes and woke discussions get aired. Truly, grow up.

*Why not “Knights”? They can still prance around on horseback but for “culturally sensitive reasons” avoid using the Christian cross as a symbol (or paint it a different colour from red).

By: RED BUZZARD

RED BUZZARD — Thu, 04 Apr 2019 08:30:28 +0000

In reply to Nitrium.

‘Crusader’ or ‘crusade’ is part of the English language now….and does not necessarily have historical religious referents

eg crusader for peace ….on a crusade for justice …crusader for animal rights ….on a crusade for getting rid of sugary drinks

( are we going to ban the word ‘crusade’ and ‘crusader’ with 10-14 years imprisonment for using it?)

…so they should keep the name Crusader imo….and rattle and wave their imaginary swords and lead the charge into the the North Island infidel…and ride their imaginary horses into the scrums…and beat em at rugby