Oh, was it Crusaders who attacked the Christchurch mosques? I hadn’t realized. My latest in FrontPage:
You will be relieved to know that the New Zealand rugby team known as the Crusaders have changed their logo, removing the sword-brandishing Crusader who up to now lurked by the C in the team’s name. According to the New Zealand Herald, the change is because of the shootings in mosques in Christchurch: “The Crusaders announced earlier this year that they would be considering a change to their name and branding following the attacks that killed 50 people and left dozens injured, insisting the status quo is ‘no longer tenable.’”
Oh, was it Crusaders who attacked the Christchurch mosques? I hadn’t realized. I guess I’m just not woke enough. The Herald explains that “the name was seen as insensitive by many, given its links to the military campaigns launched by Christians against Muslims during the medieval period.” And while the sword-bearing Crusader has been jihaded, “it is still unknown whether the franchise will go as far as changing its name, with opinion heavily divided among fans.” In reality, of course, it is about as likely that the Crusaders will keep their name as it is that Tulsi Gabbard will be Hillary Clinton’s running mate on the 2020 Democratic Party ticket.
In any case, all this anxiety about the Crusader name is completely unwarranted. Yet as The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS shows from primary sources, the Crusades were not, as the Crusaders rugby team brass evidently assume, an unprovoked exercise of proto-colonialism directed against a peaceful Muslim world.
The Crusades were in reality a late, small-scale defensive response after 450 years of jihad attacks had conquered and Islamicized what had previously been over half of the Christian world.
Armies animated by the jihad ideology (or that eventually justified their actions by recourse to it) had occupied much of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain — as well as Persia and much of India — centuries before a Crusade was even contemplated. They had entered France and besieged Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, several times.
The Seljuk Turks’ victory over the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, when they took the Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, opened all of Asia Minor to them. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.
That same year, the Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains. The Byzantine Empire, which before Islam’s wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if its demise at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent.
The Church of Constantinople considered the Pope a schismatic and had squabbled with him for centuries, but the new Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus swallowed his pride and appealed for help.
And that is how the First Crusade came about: it was a response to the Byzantine Emperor’s call for help against Muslim invaders who threatened to destroy the Christian empire.
It is undeniable that the Crusaders committed many atrocities. So did their jihadi opponents. But in the main, the Crusader endeavor was not an exercise in imperialism or proto-colonialism, but an attempt to protect Christians from jihad attacks.
So why shouldn’t this New Zealand rugby team have a Crusader mascot and take pride in its own culture and heritage? Because that culture is spent, and weak, and confused, and anxious to appease a much more confident alternative culture that regards the Crusades as an affront.
The West continues its cultural self-abnegation in the face of the chimera of “Islamophobia” — a propaganda neologism designed to make people ashamed of defending themselves and their homeland against a newly aggressive Islamic jihad.
The Crusaders rugby team, of course, is not alone. The rush to disavow any connection to Crusaders is part of a larger tendency to remain in denial about the jihad aggression that threatens so many in the world today. It manifests an acceptance of the Islamic view of history — which has been aggressively thrust upon the West in recent decades — that blames the origin of conflict between Muslims and Christians upon the evil Crusaders despite the timeline that proves this false.
At a time when the Crusaders’ ancient jihadi foes are newly invigorated and more aggressive than they have been for centuries, this cultural self-hatred is a recipe for disaster.
DHazard says
Well then it will just look like the Black Power salute from the late 60s and 70s, unless they just leave the hand slightly opened (from where the sword was) in which case it will look like anything a dirty mind can conjure.
FYI says
The thing about warriors is that they have weapons.
They are SUPPOSED to have weapons and know how to us them.
I appeal to the NZ crusaders,since they seem to wish to be emasculated,to change their name to… the Fluffy Wussies
{and instead of a sword ,so as not to offend the muslims,how about a bunch of flowers?.. ideally pansies or a box of some manly tissues to cry into}
What pathetic unmanly wimps!
One should at least respect one’s culture and be grown-up enough not to start getting all upset at the sight of a weapon.
Warriors in battle have weapons.
Only a shower of wimpy men would have a problem with a logo that has a sword in it.
Go crus…I mean Go Wussies!
Martyman39 says
Although the main thrust of the Crusaders was to repell the Muslim onslaught, there is one fact in the post which was overlooked and that is the fact that the Crusaders butchered tens of thousands of Jews both in the Holy Land and on the European continent and the image of a Crusader menacingly holding up a sword conjures up these images to Jews. It also evokes images of the Spanish Inquisition where Jews were offered the choice between the sword or the cross.
GreekEmpress says
Crusaders also sacked Constantinople in 1204 over non-payment for services rendered which weakened the Byzantine Empire immensely, and further poisoned relations between Eastern Christianity and the Latin Church.
However, Robert Spencer’s article is right on.
I agree with Battle—Robert Spencer hits nail on head—good.
Angemon says
Retaliation for the Massacre of the Latins…
GreekEmpress says
This is also true—
The Eastern and Western churches should have been fighting the Muslims instead of each other.
gravenimage says
I hardly defend everything the Crusaders did–but do you *really* believe that Muslims are mau-mauing this team because of what some Crjusaders did to the Jews or Byzantines? Of course not.
Trick_or_Treat says
Not the least little bit ashamed of the Crusades. The only mistake that was made was that they didn’t continue on to to disinfect the earth of every last single one of these scum from the face of the planet there and then in that time, and also make sure every single last piece of madman muhammad’s ‘Mein Kampf’ rantings and ravings was thoroughly destroyed and erased (wherever it was written or recorded), and then to leave behind some ‘mop up’ crews to quickly dispatch any last spot fires that might dare to raise their ugly head from behind whatever rock and shout ‘allahu Akbah’.
Nate Greene says
+1
Couldn’t agree more.
Battle says
Robert Spencer hits nail on head. Good.
gravenimage says
New Zealand: Crusaders Rugby Team Drops Sword from Logo Because of Christchurch Mosque Massacres
…………..
More cringing dhimmitude.
John says
Al-Noor mosque invited Indonesian Speakers inciting Jihad and recruited 2 mosque members who were sent to Yemen and trained with the Charlie Hebdo Terrorist trainers. So, this NZ Rugby team has effectively now by their actions, ENDORSED the Charlie Hebdo Terror Attack. Sick Weak Gutless COWARDS. Not Fit to live in a Country whose Ancestors Fought the Wars against this Satanic FILTH.
Jack Holan says
When is Saudi Arabia, The Guardian of Islam,going to remove the Sword from their National Flag. The Non-Muslim might construe its meaning as Jihad the equivalent of Crusader!
Nate Greene says
Touché!
AP says
Looks like New Zealand is heading down a one way street into oncoming traffic.
jca reid says
Pathetic, gutless sh*ts! How did a bunch of uneducated, illiterate Muslims come to be in NZ in the first place? They’ll offer absolutely ZERO to the country except misery & mayhem. Just wait until their numbers get up to 3-5% of the country. To emigrate to NZ one would have to fill in forms & score points on the system simply to qualify. But no, with Muslims it’s just turn up & we’ll give you everything & eventually we’ll hand the country over to you, so you can run it into the ground!
J D S p says
It won’t be enough to just remove he sword….the word CRUSADERS will have to go .They will have to drop it too and change their logo and name..how bout SHARIA’s for a new name.
TattooedMan77 says
Will the British Rugby team THE SARACENS follow suit?