Say Goodbye to the Defenders of the Cross—Will the Actual Cross Be Next?

Say Goodbye to the Defenders of the Cross—Will the Actual Cross Be Next?

The potentates of political correctness scored another victory earlier this month in their ongoing war to ensure that words and imagery do not cause any offense to any marginalized people and their communities. In this particular case, Muslims and anyone else caught up in the religious wars waged between 1095 and 1492 as sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church and historically known as “The Crusades.”

Little doubt that Muslims worldwide are now sleeping more soundly after administrators at the College of the Holy Cross announced that the school will no longer use the image of a knight for its logo and mascot due to the link between “knights” and “the violence of the Crusades.”

Interestingly, and to the apparent dismay of social justice warrior students, administrators in February voted to keep the “Crusader” moniker for the Worcester, Massachusetts-based college after a year-long review of the meaning of the word in relation to the college’s brand (administrators clearly have far too much time on their hands). While some administrators  argued that the term is too closely linked to the Christian Crusades against Islamic forces during the Middle Ages, the winning side in the debate argued that the college should “associate itself with the more modern definition of the word crusader,” that is, someone who strives for positive changes and principles.

That decision prompted more than 100 students and faculty to submit a letter of admonishment to the Holy Cross president, stating that the decision to keep the “Crusader” moniker will make the (Jesuit-founded) college seem unwelcoming to non-Christians. The letter further urged that the college drop the knight logo and mascot, arguing that the knight “is a symbol of religious intolerance directly tied to the violent medieval Crusades, not a person pursing peace and justice,” as implied by the college administrators.

Meanwhile, the student-run newspaper preempted the college’s name-change-retention decision by changing its own name from “The Crusader” to “Spire.” As stated by the student editors in announcing the change, “No matter how long ago the Crusades took place, this paper does not wish to be associated with the massacres (i.e., burning synagogues with innocent men, women, and children inside) and conquests that took place therein.”

Ahem, “synagogues?” Apparently, the brilliant minds running the “Holy Cross Spire” have been taught that the Crusades represented a series of wars against the Jews…. Oh, and never mind that the violence of the Crusades was heartily endorsed and practiced by both primary sides of the conflict—that is, Christians and Muslims (yes, Jews and others were caught up in the violence, but likely received such in equal measure from both sides). And that the Crusades only emerged after four Centuries of Islamic attacks on, and incursions into, Europe.

Of further note, just imagine the result had these Holy Cross administrators and students—or similar politically correct ilk—been running things in Europe back during the Middle Ages….

So much for Christianity—instead of magnificent cathedrals and charming chapels, every city, town and hamlet in Europe would be dotted with mosques (oh, wait, isn’t that transition happening now?), and you and I today would, in all likelihood, be bowing down to Allah five times per day in the North American region of the caliphate.

Anyhow, social justice warriors won half their battle as any “knights” officially associated with the College of the Holy Cross are now a thing of the past. Most likely not even relegated to the school’s history, as the school’s PC elite will want any such imagery or written commentary about knighthood eradicated from the history posthaste.

The school’s moniker will undoubtedly come up again on the chopping block in the near future. This is clearly evident by perusing the Holy Cross Spire, which has already done an admirable job of deleting its former name to the extent possible from its pages. In fact, any mention of “knights” or “crusaders” amongst the commentary I viewed on the online version was negative, with utter disdain for the school’s utilization of either.

The drafters of the earlier referenced letter of admonishment to administrators for failing to excise the college’s “Crusader” moniker, plan to keep up the pressure on administrators, though that pressure may remain muted until after a capital campaign targeting alumni ends in 2020. One of the student drafters of the letter surmised that administrators declined to change the moniker due to alumni pressure against the change. While this student admitted that funding from this campaign helped students like him attend the prestigious college, he vowed to keep up the pressure for eliminating the “Crusader” nickname by making sure “dissatisfaction with the name remains a talking point on campus.”

Because adherents to Islam find the Christian cross to be so offensive, and because many adherents to the PC culture espouse the view that Christianity is “oppressive,” I imagine that the College of the Holy Cross will soon have to confront—and most likely have to expunge—its very name. Just consider that the new logo, an interlocking “HC” imposed on a purple shield, has already conveniently served as a means of beginning the exorcism of the Catholic school’s imagery of the cross.

—Originally published March 20 in Discernible Truth.

—Postscript: Right after I posted this on my website, I saw the news that a “distinguished” professor at the College of the Holy Cross had published research suggesting that Jesus was a genderfluid drag king who had sex with men, citing the Last Supper as a “literary striptease” that displays Christ’s transgender nature. Political correctness is truly turning the world batshit crazy. 

Political Correctness Bites . . . Me in the Ass!

Political Correctness Bites . . . Me in the Ass!

—March 24, 2017

OK, so I experienced a first yesterday. Or perhaps I have experienced this before, but was just never aware of it. The “this” being rejection from a potential job due to my political leanings and/or politically incorrect postings made on social media.

In short, a potential client emailed me to request samples of my work because she could not open the original samples I had sent along with my initial proposal/application. A request like this is akin to getting a nibble on a fish hook, but I didn’t get super excited or bother to second guess the original samples I sent, but just resent those originals. I am confident in my skills, tend to get a fair number of bites in my constant fishing expedition for freelance editorial gigs, and felt that I had provided the client with enough initial information with which to gauge my skill set and ability to handle the job.

Not to say that there wasn’t a bit of excitement, as the job—content development for a large website dealing with subject matter I find quite interesting—would have brought in some fairly decent coin and what I believed to be likely work satisfaction.

I went about my business after responding to the request and received this email response about an hour later: “I am no longer considering you for the position. Thanks for applying.”

Rejection is a standard part of the freelance process, but in this game rejection often comes without any notice—one just never hears back from the potential client.

I appreciated that she had taken a moment to inform me that I was no longer in consideration, and so answered the email by thanking her for the politeness of letting me know. Perhaps I even let out slight sigh of dejection as I turned my attention back to other work, but within a few minutes noticed I had eight new notifications on my Twitter feed.

This seemed odd as I had not posted anything in a couple of days. Lo and behold, it was my potential client, vigorously taking issue in 140-characters-or-less with various comments I had posted over the past few months. It was quite apparent that my posts irritated her and that she heartily disagreed with them, but I will not claim that she was overly aggressive or obnoxious (though I imagine that I could easily respond in a manner that would provoke her into the screeching illogical rage that seems to be coming from so many on the Left these days).

Speaking of “logic,” most of my former-potential client’s posts were noteworthy for their lack of it. Some of her responses served as non sequiturs as they weren’t really addressing the issues I was originally posting about, and a couple of others relied on the oft-used-by-the-Left “red herring” and “strawman” fallacies. And one just served as a non-sensical sarcastic rant.

Now, to give my former-potential client a touch of leeway, she was responding to my 140-characters-or-less with her own 140-characters-or-less. It is difficult to make a succinct argument in 140 characters or less; nuances, sarcasm and humor can often be missed; and the point of such postings can easily be misinterpreted.

Anyhow, upon realizing that I had perhaps been rejected due to my Tweets, I sent her another email message stating that “I now understand that perhaps the rejection is politically motivated. And apparently you now plan on trolling me. Interesting!”

And it is interesting on so many different levels. I would like to examine her actions and other posts more at length, but the narcissist in me is telling me to bring the focus back to me, me and I.

So, my first thought upon realizing the likely reason for my rejection was, wow, do I need to be more careful with what I Tweet? And then, when I determined that she had spent a fair amount of time reviewing my website (first-time play in Oak Creek, baby!), I briefly thought, wow, maybe I should be more careful with what I put down on my website?            

….Yeah, no. Fuck that!—much like I’m not about to start checking my alleged “privilege,” I am not about to start checking my writing due to political/political correct considerations. 

Bottom line is I am who I am, believe what I believe, and will stand firmly for both (though always willing to question and debate aforementioned beliefs). And these days, with the country so significantly divided on so many different issues, it doesn’t matter where one stands on the political spectrum, as roughly 50 percent of the population stands in opposition.

And judging from today’s job rejection, I guess this pretty much means that folks should just assume that 50 percent of a given job market may be closed to them. Of course, that assumption would be a gross generalization and illogical conclusion.

Wouldn’t it?

PC Potentates Declare Yoga “Culturally Insensitive”

PC Potentates Declare Yoga “Culturally Insensitive”

—November 27, 2015

For the latest in politically correct absurdity I bring you to my adopted land up here in the North, the land of ice, moose, beavers and Eskimos known as Canada. And there I go, already committing a politically incorrect faux pas by daring to refer to Inuits as “Eskimos.” Perhaps the provincial human rights commission needs to mount an investigation to determine whether this constitutes “hate speech,” but at the very least I should obviously be vilified by all.

Anyhow, the politically correct absurdity of the week award goes to the University of Ottawa’s Student Federation, which has shut down yoga classes at the university, deeming yoga’s cultural issues too controversial for the student body.

“While yoga is a really great idea and accessible and great for students, there are cultural issues of implication involved in the practice,” stated an email ordering a yoga class long-held at the university’s Center for Students with Disabilities to be shut down. “Yoga has been under a lot of controversy lately due to how it is being practiced,” added the email, noting that the cultures from which yoga emerged have “experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy [and] we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves while practicing yoga.”

The absurdity of this is almost beyond words, but stems from “cultural appropriation,” which is basically a politically correct activist concern that the Western (primarily “white”) world is (and has long been) appropriating the rest of the world’s culture without granting appropriate reverence and recompense in return.

PC Activists began ramping up their campaign against cultural appropriation many years ago, with protests against inappropriate sports team names—Redskins, Indians, Warriors, etc—marking their first shots in this regard. Inappropriate Halloween costumes came next on their list–In case you haven’t noticed (and how could you not, as Halloween seems to really piss the PC crowd off), in the past few years dressing up as an Indian, Chinaman, or any number of other “cultures” has been strictly forbidden by the potentates of PC.

More recently they’ve been tch-tching western celebrities who dare sport clothing that incorporates features that may come from a marginalized culture. Katy Perry was harangued for dressing like a geisha during an American Music Awards performance, and several celebrities have been harassed of late for sporting bindi designs. All indications suggest that the PC activists are getting ready to seriously ramp up their war against the cultural appropriation of fashion.

And now they’ve fired the first shot against yoga.

What’s next?

Well, from trolling the websites of noted PC activists I can tell you that martial arts, ethnic foods and rock and roll, among others, are being closely examined for their cultural appropriation, so stay tuned.

Oh, but don’t let me forget to mention the inherent hypocrisy of this latest PC movement (easy to forget as PC culture is rife with hypocrisy): “Multiculturalism” is a key mantra of the politically correct, and yet, if I utilize or display anything that may have evolved from another (perhaps “marginalized”) culture I am guilty of “cultural appropriation.”

But no need to worry about this possible inconvenience should you leanScreen Shot 2015-11-27 at 10.06.16 PM PC, because remember, if you’re PC you can self identify. Cultural appropriation only applies to “privileged” white folks such as myself–If you’re politically correct you will be applauded for your multiculturalism.

“Cultural Appropriation!” Add this to the list of politically correct activist catch phrases, such as “white privilege,” “social justice,” “hate speech,” “marginalized cultures,” “inclusiveness,” “trigger warnings,” “micro-aggression,” “safe spaces,” “gender neutrality,” “self identification,” etc…

. . . and be very afraid.