I can understand why the Muslims don't like the Crusades, but so what? Muslim armies conquered the so-called Holy Land from others, why was it somehow morally wrong for the Europeans to try to wrest it from them? That anyone gives credence to the Muslim victimhood complaint both confuses and irritates me, but here we are today, over half a millenium after the last Crusade, and the Muslims complain about them as if they were yesterday and delicate snowflakes treat the complaint seriously:
The small, private liberals arts school in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania has decided to get rid of its longstanding nickname of “Crusader” because it is not a “beloved and unifying symbol..."The Crusades took place intermittently between the 11th and 15th centuries; Muslim armies challenged Europe, and were at the Gates of Vienna, well into the 17th century. Put another way, England had well-established colonies in the New World when Muslim armies were invading Europe--but it's only the "crusaders" who are bad guys.
The S.U. board has asked Lemons to “convene a committee comprising alumni, students, faculty and staff” to come up with a replacement for “Crusader,” and to design a new mascot.
I don’t know why the school needs a new mascot; it’s currently as inoffensive as possible — an orange tiger with a cape.
I'm reminded of a quote by Jean Francois Revel: A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.