New Valpo Team Name Ideas

[vuny98]

The Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression in historical Christian lands. They did despicable things to innocent people including rape and murder. So the crusades were simply an act of self defense, thus meeting the criteria of a just war as spelled out in the  Catholic Catechism  (CCC 2258-2317).  Augustine argued that there are just wars only if certain conditions are met. They were met in the Crusades.

If your child was being threatened by someone, possibly even to the point of death, would you be justified in doing whatever you had to do to defend your child, even killing the attacker, if necessary? This, in very simplified form, illustrates the concept of a just war. G. Osborne

The historical backdrop to the Crusades provides some eye-opening insight for us. Prior to 600 AD, North Africa, Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, Asia Minor, Spain, France, Italy, and various Mediterranean islands were all Chris­t­ian lands. But trouble begins in the early 600s, as Muslim aggression, led by its founder Muhammad, began to sweep across the ancient world, beginning with the Arabian Peninsula. By 638 Jerusalem was captured as Muslims flooded into the Holy Land, conquering the most sacred places in Christianity and forcing many Christians to either convert, flee, or endure heavy taxation, persecution, enslavement, and even death. Crusade expert Dr. Paul Crawford writes that "By A.D. 732 ... Chris­tians had lost Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and south­ern France. Italy ... (was) under threat and the (Mediterranean) islands would come under Mus­lim rule in the next cen­tury. The Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of Ara­bia were entirely destroyed ... Those in Per­sia were under severe pres­sure. Two-thirds of the for­merly Roman Chris­t­ian world was now ruled by Mus­lims." This wave of aggression continued, as Islamic armies launched attacks throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, even attacking Rome in 846. In 1009, things escalated yet again, as Muslim caliph/leader Al-Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre and countless other sacred Holy Land sites. Christian persecution also intensified, including attacks on pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land. 1065 saw the massacre of thousands of German pilgrims (some historians estimate 12,000 killed) on Good Friday, just two days from Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Seljuk Turks (non-Arab Muslims) were advancing into the heart of eastern Christianity as well, within striking distance of the great Byzantine Christian city of Constantinople. To add insult, Nicaea (think Nicaean Creed) became the invaders' capital, and Antioch also fell in 1084. By 1092 not one of the great Christian cities of Asia remained in Christian hands. Graham Osborne

War is ugly. Some Crusaders acted in an unsanctioned manner which was condemned by the church and later Popes apologized not for the purpose and execution of the Crusades, but for the acts of some Christians who acted in unsanctioned ways including the slaughter of some innocents. Pope John Paul

For the Crusaders' Sack of Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".

Such actions are deeply saddening, and can't be defended on any level. But the instances of Crusaders failing to act according to Christian principles do not invalidate the Crusades themselves or the noble intentions they were called under: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13).Osborne

Modern Aftermath of Crusades https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/modern-aftermath-of-the-crusades-1767 Catholic History is best understood by the careful record keepers and historians who were Catholics, not those who are biased against Catholicsm. This is my last word on this subject.

Again, you're making sweeping generalizations based on limited facts. No one is arguing what caused the war (and you proved my point about whether a war is justified or not is based on your perspective, given the fact that you used a Catholic definition of "just wars. And, most historians are not biased against Catholics. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about in that regard). Nonetheless, what's important, and the debate regarding the Crusader moniker, is more focused on what happened during the war (not how it started, or why). If you want to get into the history, we can. We can talk about the Crusade's massacres of Jewish people in the Rhineland. Or, how Tancred vowed to protect the innocent bystanders when Jerusalem fell and; yet, the Armed Forces broke those orders of protection and savagely killed scores of women and children. We can talk about the looting of Constantinople. These actions don't seem to be very "holy" to me. You even say yourself "war is ugly," so why would we keep a name that is synonymous with ugly actions? We know it's synonymous with the ugly because of the response from students, alumni, as well as several other universities that have taken similar actions. So, essentially, you're making our point. But, let's move on and get back to nicknames and logos. If people haven't bothered to learn the history by now, they probably never will. Plus, after all, whether you like it or not, the Crusader name is long gone. The quicker we move on, the better.

You have a very arrogant and dismissive way of responding. So I don't expect to have a productive debate with you.

You have your opinion, some based on facts, some based on emotions. Others have their own, also based on facts and emotions. I for one liked the Crusader name. I never had a problem with it. Yes atrocities happened during the Crusade's. Some will focus on the bad and only that. Other's look at the current meaning of the word and maybe the ideal of what the Crusades were supposed to be about.

If we start looking for the negative in everything, lets go change every name in this light. Spartan's. Certainly plenty to complain about there. Vikings. Yup. How about anything named after Native American tribes, who were some of the most brutal people on this earth. What about any names related to the US Military. Surely not all soldiers acted properly. You can say these names are "synonymous with ugly actions" or you can look at them for the positive attributes for what they represent in today's perspective. Spartans - Protective, Fierce. Native Americans - Nobel, Brave. Crusader - Virtuous, Defender, etc.

Not one person I know who wants to keep the Crusader name is dismissing that bad things happened during that time. That's never the argument from this side.

[valpopal]

As seen in this twitter post today announcing soccer's regular season opening against Indiana, Valpo Athletics apparently likes the shield logo. Most fans react very positively to it as well. It is also the logo used on this message board. The surface of the playing fields already have displayed the shield logo on them. Much of the campus uses the shield on various stationery and promotional materials.


Importantly, the shield logo even gives a subtle nod of respect to all those athletes and students who played or rooted for teams under the "Crusader" name, which enhances unity among the alumni, something desperately needed at this time if the numerous combative comments on social media are any indication.


The university needs to be decisive, formally embrace the shield as its official and only logo, ditching the new experiments that only cause confusion, display indecisiveness, and appear amateurish at best. Save the energy and money for other more important things that do require change.


[tweet]1428364079152865283[/tweet]

[vu72]

More whining.  Blah Blah blah.

[valpopal]

More whining.  Blah Blah blah.

So, praising the university and Athletics Department on its excellent shield logo, pointing out its popularity within the fan base, supporting a positive step that ensures more unity among alumni, plus encouraging decisiveness that inspires confidence and even saves money for the university is defined by you as "whining"?    

[vuny98]

As seen in this twitter post today announcing soccer's regular season opening against Indiana, Valpo Athletics apparently likes the shield logo. Most fans react very positively to it as well. It is also the logo used on this message board. The surface of the playing fields already have displayed the shield logo on them. Much of the campus uses the shield on various stationery and promotional materials. Importantly, the shield logo even gives a subtle nod of respect to all those athletes and students who played or rooted for teams under the "Crusader" name, which enhances unity among the alumni, something desperately needed at this time if the numerous combative comments on social media are any indication. The university needs to be decisive, formally embrace the shield as its official and only logo, ditching the new experiments that only cause confusion, display indecisiveness, and appear amateurish at best. Save the energy and money for other more important things that do require change. [tweet]1428364079152865283[/tweet]

The football shop designs all used the shield logo (along with "Protect the shield" slogan). Maybe partly because of the lack of time to build in the new logo, but its the right move regardless as you mention. The shield logo works great. if we need/want a secondary logo fine (it shouldn't be the lighthouse IMO) but keep the shield front and center.

[mp91]

The Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression in historical Christian lands. They did despicable things to innocent people including rape and murder. So the crusades were simply an act of self defense, thus meeting the criteria of a just war as spelled out in the  Catholic Catechism  (CCC 2258-2317).  Augustine argued that there are just wars only if certain conditions are met. They were met in the Crusades.

If your child was being threatened by someone, possibly even to the point of death, would you be justified in doing whatever you had to do to defend your child, even killing the attacker, if necessary? This, in very simplified form, illustrates the concept of a just war. G. Osborne

The historical backdrop to the Crusades provides some eye-opening insight for us. Prior to 600 AD, North Africa, Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, Asia Minor, Spain, France, Italy, and various Mediterranean islands were all Chris­t­ian lands. But trouble begins in the early 600s, as Muslim aggression, led by its founder Muhammad, began to sweep across the ancient world, beginning with the Arabian Peninsula. By 638 Jerusalem was captured as Muslims flooded into the Holy Land, conquering the most sacred places in Christianity and forcing many Christians to either convert, flee, or endure heavy taxation, persecution, enslavement, and even death. Crusade expert Dr. Paul Crawford writes that "By A.D. 732 ... Chris­tians had lost Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and south­ern France. Italy ... (was) under threat and the (Mediterranean) islands would come under Mus­lim rule in the next cen­tury. The Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of Ara­bia were entirely destroyed ... Those in Per­sia were under severe pres­sure. Two-thirds of the for­merly Roman Chris­t­ian world was now ruled by Mus­lims." This wave of aggression continued, as Islamic armies launched attacks throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, even attacking Rome in 846. In 1009, things escalated yet again, as Muslim caliph/leader Al-Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre and countless other sacred Holy Land sites. Christian persecution also intensified, including attacks on pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land. 1065 saw the massacre of thousands of German pilgrims (some historians estimate 12,000 killed) on Good Friday, just two days from Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Seljuk Turks (non-Arab Muslims) were advancing into the heart of eastern Christianity as well, within striking distance of the great Byzantine Christian city of Constantinople. To add insult, Nicaea (think Nicaean Creed) became the invaders' capital, and Antioch also fell in 1084. By 1092 not one of the great Christian cities of Asia remained in Christian hands. Graham Osborne

War is ugly. Some Crusaders acted in an unsanctioned manner which was condemned by the church and later Popes apologized not for the purpose and execution of the Crusades, but for the acts of some Christians who acted in unsanctioned ways including the slaughter of some innocents. Pope John Paul

For the Crusaders' Sack of Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".

Such actions are deeply saddening, and can't be defended on any level. But the instances of Crusaders failing to act according to Christian principles do not invalidate the Crusades themselves or the noble intentions they were called under: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13).Osborne

Modern Aftermath of Crusades https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/modern-aftermath-of-the-crusades-1767 Catholic History is best understood by the careful record keepers and historians who were Catholics, not those who are biased against Catholicsm. This is my last word on this subject.

Again, you're making sweeping generalizations based on limited facts. No one is arguing what caused the war (and you proved my point about whether a war is justified or not is based on your perspective, given the fact that you used a Catholic definition of "just wars. And, most historians are not biased against Catholics. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about in that regard). Nonetheless, what's important, and the debate regarding the Crusader moniker, is more focused on what happened during the war (not how it started, or why). If you want to get into the history, we can. We can talk about the Crusade's massacres of Jewish people in the Rhineland. Or, how Tancred vowed to protect the innocent bystanders when Jerusalem fell and; yet, the Armed Forces broke those orders of protection and savagely killed scores of women and children. We can talk about the looting of Constantinople. These actions don't seem to be very "holy" to me. You even say yourself "war is ugly," so why would we keep a name that is synonymous with ugly actions? We know it's synonymous with the ugly because of the response from students, alumni, as well as several other universities that have taken similar actions. So, essentially, you're making our point. But, let's move on and get back to nicknames and logos. If people haven't bothered to learn the history by now, they probably never will. Plus, after all, whether you like it or not, the Crusader name is long gone. The quicker we move on, the better.

You have a very arrogant and dismissive way of responding. So I don't expect to have a productive debate with you.

You have your opinion, some based on facts, some based on emotions. Others have their own, also based on facts and emotions. I for one liked the Crusader name. I never had a problem with it. Yes atrocities happened during the Crusade's. Some will focus on the bad and only that. Other's look at the current meaning of the word and maybe the ideal of what the Crusades were supposed to be about.

If we start looking for the negative in everything, lets go change every name in this light. Spartan's. Certainly plenty to complain about there. Vikings. Yup. How about anything named after Native American tribes, who were some of the most brutal people on this earth. What about any names related to the US Military. Surely not all soldiers acted properly. You can say these names are "synonymous with ugly actions" or you can look at them for the positive attributes for what they represent in today's perspective. Spartans - Protective, Fierce. Native Americans - Nobel, Brave. Crusader - Virtuous, Defender, etc.

Not one person I know who wants to keep the Crusader name is dismissing that bad things happened during that time. That's never the argument from this side.

I think the difference between Spartans and Native American monikers is that those are largely associated in society with the positive attributes of those groups, while the Crusaders name (rightfully or wrongfully) has a more negative connotation in society at large. It's more a question of public perception than anything else. I, for example, never personally associated the Crusades with the negative actions that occurred, but I know many people who did and, therefore, I supported a change for perception purposes.

I'm perfectly fine with anyone that disagrees with the name change. While I may have a different perspective, I have no issue with that. But, what I do find concerning are the people that are claiming the negative side of the Crusades is "inaccurate history," as several people on this message board have said. That's why I may have appeared dismissive, because I think it's important to be truthful in our analysis. And, saying these events that are in the historical record (and supported by numerous sources) are "inaccurate", frankly is an argument that should be dismissed. It's one thing to argue the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it's quite another to say that anyone that points out these negatives are historically "inaccurate." Because that's simply not true. Those events did happen. It is those people I was debating with in this message board. Like I said, I have no issue with those who simply disagree with the name change because, while I may have a different perspective, they certainly have valid arguments.

As for the shield, I think it will continue to be in the rotation. Many schools have multiple logos. Wouldn't be surprised if the lighthouse becomes a secondary logo, much the way the locomotive has become an alternate logo for Purdue behind the more popular "P."

[vu72]

ditching the new experiments that only cause confusion, display indecisiveness, and appear amateurish at best.

No. This is whining.  The "experiment" is over. It's a done deal. The Chorale isn't going to have "Beacons" across their robes.  The shield has already been acknowledged as a continuing part of the University's identity. The Beacons are for athletic purposes only. It's a nickname.  That's it.  The shield will continue to be the main emblem to the public.

[valpopal]

ditching the new experiments that only cause confusion, display indecisiveness, and appear amateurish at best.

No. This is whining.  The "experiment" is over. It's a done deal. The Chorale isn't going to have "Beacons" across their robes.  The shield has already been acknowledged as a continuing part of the University's identity. The Beacons are for athletic purposes only. It's a nickname.  That's it.  The shield will continue to be the main emblem to the public.

So, out of a whole post, you clip one section of a sentence that you don't like and, therefore, label it all as "whining." Then you further confuse the situation.


If the "experiment" is over, why is the university floating various experimental logos with lighthouses and lanterns on its Facebook page and encouraging others to use them, plus promising even more? ("As we continue to introduce the many ways in which #WeAreBeacons, watch for new visual representations and symbols of Beacons and our light that shines, from our Division I Athletics programs, to our alumni community, and across campus.") Sounds to me like the "experiment" is not over!


I have already acknowledged the university's intent to keep the shield as "a continuing part of the University identity," and I have applauded that move; however, I am suggesting it should be the only logo to avoid confusion, indecisiveness, and amateurish artwork, all opinions voiced by many in the Valpo community. For an example, just look at the header for this message board, which now contains the Victory Bell, the Shield, and now the silly Lighthouse.


Finally, and importantly, as I noted: only the shield logo even gives a subtle nod of respect to all those athletes and students who played or rooted for teams under the "Crusader" name, which enhances unity among the alumni.


 

[usc4valpo]

Shield Up Baby! Damn I miss Carlson.

[bbtds]

Shield Up Baby! Damn I miss Carlson.

You miss Dale like a hot coal under a horse's saddle

[valpotx]

ditching the new experiments that only cause confusion, display indecisiveness, and appear amateurish at best.

No. This is whining.  The "experiment" is over. It's a done deal. The Chorale isn't going to have "Beacons" across their robes.  The shield has already been acknowledged as a continuing part of the University's identity. The Beacons are for athletic purposes only. It's a nickname.  That's it.  The shield will continue to be the main emblem to the public.

If you are back in Texas, as per your profile location, I am not sure if they mentioned on your way across the border, but we don't allow Beacon supporters here.  Crusaders only

[vuny98]

The Crusades were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression in historical Christian lands. They did despicable things to innocent people including rape and murder. So the crusades were simply an act of self defense, thus meeting the criteria of a just war as spelled out in the  Catholic Catechism  (CCC 2258-2317).  Augustine argued that there are just wars only if certain conditions are met. They were met in the Crusades.

If your child was being threatened by someone, possibly even to the point of death, would you be justified in doing whatever you had to do to defend your child, even killing the attacker, if necessary? This, in very simplified form, illustrates the concept of a just war. G. Osborne

The historical backdrop to the Crusades provides some eye-opening insight for us. Prior to 600 AD, North Africa, Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, Asia Minor, Spain, France, Italy, and various Mediterranean islands were all Chris­t­ian lands. But trouble begins in the early 600s, as Muslim aggression, led by its founder Muhammad, began to sweep across the ancient world, beginning with the Arabian Peninsula. By 638 Jerusalem was captured as Muslims flooded into the Holy Land, conquering the most sacred places in Christianity and forcing many Christians to either convert, flee, or endure heavy taxation, persecution, enslavement, and even death. Crusade expert Dr. Paul Crawford writes that "By A.D. 732 ... Chris­tians had lost Egypt, Pales­tine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and south­ern France. Italy ... (was) under threat and the (Mediterranean) islands would come under Mus­lim rule in the next cen­tury. The Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of Ara­bia were entirely destroyed ... Those in Per­sia were under severe pres­sure. Two-thirds of the for­merly Roman Chris­t­ian world was now ruled by Mus­lims." This wave of aggression continued, as Islamic armies launched attacks throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, even attacking Rome in 846. In 1009, things escalated yet again, as Muslim caliph/leader Al-Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre and countless other sacred Holy Land sites. Christian persecution also intensified, including attacks on pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land. 1065 saw the massacre of thousands of German pilgrims (some historians estimate 12,000 killed) on Good Friday, just two days from Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Seljuk Turks (non-Arab Muslims) were advancing into the heart of eastern Christianity as well, within striking distance of the great Byzantine Christian city of Constantinople. To add insult, Nicaea (think Nicaean Creed) became the invaders' capital, and Antioch also fell in 1084. By 1092 not one of the great Christian cities of Asia remained in Christian hands. Graham Osborne

War is ugly. Some Crusaders acted in an unsanctioned manner which was condemned by the church and later Popes apologized not for the purpose and execution of the Crusades, but for the acts of some Christians who acted in unsanctioned ways including the slaughter of some innocents. Pope John Paul

For the Crusaders' Sack of Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?".

Such actions are deeply saddening, and can't be defended on any level. But the instances of Crusaders failing to act according to Christian principles do not invalidate the Crusades themselves or the noble intentions they were called under: "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (Jn 15:13).Osborne

Modern Aftermath of Crusades https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/modern-aftermath-of-the-crusades-1767 Catholic History is best understood by the careful record keepers and historians who were Catholics, not those who are biased against Catholicsm. This is my last word on this subject.

Again, you're making sweeping generalizations based on limited facts. No one is arguing what caused the war (and you proved my point about whether a war is justified or not is based on your perspective, given the fact that you used a Catholic definition of "just wars. And, most historians are not biased against Catholics. So I'm not really sure what you're talking about in that regard). Nonetheless, what's important, and the debate regarding the Crusader moniker, is more focused on what happened during the war (not how it started, or why). If you want to get into the history, we can. We can talk about the Crusade's massacres of Jewish people in the Rhineland. Or, how Tancred vowed to protect the innocent bystanders when Jerusalem fell and; yet, the Armed Forces broke those orders of protection and savagely killed scores of women and children. We can talk about the looting of Constantinople. These actions don't seem to be very "holy" to me. You even say yourself "war is ugly," so why would we keep a name that is synonymous with ugly actions? We know it's synonymous with the ugly because of the response from students, alumni, as well as several other universities that have taken similar actions. So, essentially, you're making our point. But, let's move on and get back to nicknames and logos. If people haven't bothered to learn the history by now, they probably never will. Plus, after all, whether you like it or not, the Crusader name is long gone. The quicker we move on, the better.

You have a very arrogant and dismissive way of responding. So I don't expect to have a productive debate with you. You have your opinion, some based on facts, some based on emotions. Others have their own, also based on facts and emotions. I for one liked the Crusader name. I never had a problem with it. Yes atrocities happened during the Crusade's. Some will focus on the bad and only that. Other's look at the current meaning of the word and maybe the ideal of what the Crusades were supposed to be about. If we start looking for the negative in everything, lets go change every name in this light. Spartan's. Certainly plenty to complain about there. Vikings. Yup. How about anything named after Native American tribes, who were some of the most brutal people on this earth. What about any names related to the US Military. Surely not all soldiers acted properly. You can say these names are "synonymous with ugly actions" or you can look at them for the positive attributes for what they represent in today's perspective. Spartans - Protective, Fierce. Native Americans - Nobel, Brave. Crusader - Virtuous, Defender, etc. Not one person I know who wants to keep the Crusader name is dismissing that bad things happened during that time. That's never the argument from this side.

I think the difference between Spartans and Native American monikers is that those are largely associated in society with the positive attributes of those groups, while the Crusaders name (rightfully or wrongfully) has a more negative connotation in society at large. It's more a question of public perception than anything else. I, for example, never personally associated the Crusades with the negative actions that occurred, but I know many people who did and, therefore, I supported a change for perception purposes. I'm perfectly fine with anyone that disagrees with the name change. While I may have a different perspective, I have no issue with that. But, what I do find concerning are the people that are claiming the negative side of the Crusades is "inaccurate history," as several people on this message board have said. That's why I may have appeared dismissive, because I think it's important to be truthful in our analysis. And, saying these events that are in the historical record (and supported by numerous sources) are "inaccurate", frankly is an argument that should be dismissed. It's one thing to argue the benefits outweigh the negatives, but it's quite another to say that anyone that points out these negatives are historically "inaccurate." Because that's simply not true. Those events did happen. It is those people I was debating with in this message board. Like I said, I have no issue with those who simply disagree with the name change because, while I may have a different perspective, they certainly have valid arguments. As for the shield, I think it will continue to be in the rotation. Many schools have multiple logos. Wouldn't be surprised if the lighthouse becomes a secondary logo, much the way the locomotive has become an alternate logo for Purdue behind the more popular "P."

I'm not sure anyone said the negative sides of the Crusades was inaccurate history. Most people, including myself, have clearly said bad things happened during the Crusades. Even the Church has said as much. What I assume most believe is "inaccurate" is that the Crusades were purely unprovoked conquest battles. I believe there is plenty of history (which at nearly 1,000 years ago, I'm sure can be up for debate) that the Crusades were in response to hundreds of years of attacks and conquest. Now the Crusades lasted hundreds of years, meaning the people that started the Crusades were long dead before they were even half way through. In that time, I am sure goalposts shifted, certain leaders had alliterative motives, and massacres occurred. I am also sure, there were similar actions from the other side leading up to and during the Crusades. War isn't pretty today, and definitely wasn't 1,000 years ago either.

This is where the meaning of the word Crusader has its debate. Some will falsely (IMO) claim that the Crusades were all/mostly about genocide and unprovoked conquest of Muslims, etc. That narrative is "inaccurate history" from my perspective and the reason why I believe the name Crusader is seen in a negative light vs the other names I have said. This agenda driven view at history and changing the meaning of words matters to some of us, which is why we push back. It's not just Crusaders. Its Columbus Day, its the 1619 project, its the Constitution. As far as it goes for Valpo, it still sucks for some of us, especially when a name we loved and had an emotional tie to is replaced, especially with something like "Beacons". But it's just a team mascot name. It doesn't matter that much. But it's all part of a bigger, and much more important discussion.

[vu72]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mMp_mBam0U

[valpopal]

Looks like the shield logo is being placed at center court. I will miss the Crusader, but the shield should look sharp.


[tweet]1428766508084338692[/tweet]

[Chitwood]

Vuny98 –

There were definitely people on the message board saying the Crusader name change was based on "inaccurate history." I also believe you can argue the merits of the change, but you can't call "fake news" on this one (as many tried to do on here). And, no one is arguing there weren't reasons for trying to get back the land, literally no one here has argued that. Also, I don't think people are changing the meaning of "Crusaders" or other terms you talk about. I just think more people are becoming more aware of what happened. In past decades, all you learned in school about Columbus was that he was an explorer and sang songs about his ships. There really wasn't much history involved. Now, people are telling both sides of the story. That's not necessarily all bad. You can't learn how to avoid pitfalls of the past if you aren't aware of them. The so-called agenda to change history is a little far-fetched. People have learned more about the past in the Internet age and, therefore, perceptions have changed. Sure, there always be some wackos arguing differently – on both sides of the aisle – but they are few and far between and don't represent the majority of people. (Side note: you brought up Columbus Day. Obviously, the destruction of the native peoples is problematic, but similarly are we also sure we want to celebrate a guy who tried to go to China and ended up going West, landed in America, but believed he was in India? LOL. I'm joking, but also serious)

But this is a tiring discussion...

More importantly, very happy to see the administration embracing name, image, and likeness policies. The AD had some good statements about that in the video.

[Just Sayin]

The only thing that matters is what is true, not how many or how few believe this or that.

[VUBBFan]

In my opinion this artist/designer has captured the essence of the Valpo Beacons in a logo(s). Simple but elegant, and not preposterous.

https://twitter.com/brydfly/status/1428799658109906953

https://twitter.com/AlBillets/status/1428869979613577224

[justducky]

Longwinded but the episode has my     Oops I thought I was in Union Street hoops!

[VUSERF]

I hope that Bryan Flynn sells merchandise with his logo on it. If the Valpo admin allows pride to dictate the continued use of mediocre logos, we should launch a GoFundMe to provide Bryan enough capital to produce some merchandise.

If you put these in the hands of the student section and if Valpo wins again on ESPN, then the Valpo admin will be forced to switch their logo.

Alternatively, get merch with these logos into the hands of alumni during Homecoming. I believe that would apply similar pressure to the administration.

[Pgmado]

Longwinded but the episode has my     Oops I thought I was in Union Street hoops!

Only now are you realizing I'm longwinded?!?!?! Are you new here?

Haha. This was a tough one to do. I wanted to talk it out a bit, but wanted to be organic with it and not try to script out too much. That led to rambling a bit. I completely missed talking about the Shield and my thoughts there. Maybe next episode. Ha.

[valpo64]

As far as talking about this subject, let's quit wasting time and space talking about this fiasco and just forget about all of these lousy logo attempts, including the School's official attempts, and use the shield, and do all that we can to get the name" Beacons" out of our mind,  GO VALPO!

[VUBBFan]

Whether or not people like it, the new nickname is the Beacons and is not going to change. The logo(s) after the shield may still be up for grabs and for that I'd rather have something professional not amateur displayed/used.

https://twitter.com/AlBillets/status/1429082129464451077

[Just Sayin]

Go Crusaders!

[valpopal]

The alternative logo got a nice boost from alum Larry Mowry, local weather broadcaster for ABC News in Chicago.


[tweet]1428913034093793281[/tweet]

[valpolaw]

Bryan Flynn's logos/designs are so much better than what they're currently using.  It's not even a comparison.  They should trash the current logos and switch to one of his designs.  His designs are sleek and very professional.  They don't look like clip art like the current logo.