Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: Rossm on July 01, 2020, 05:53:33 PM
-
A petition calling for Exeter Chiefs to change their branding has gained over 600 signatures this week
From today's Telegraph.
I guess it was only a matter of time............
A group set up by Exeter Chiefs supporters have called for the club's "racist use of Native American imagery and branding" to be dropped, comparing the use of the headdresses and chanting the Tomahawk Chop to blackface.
A petition (https://www.change.org/p/exeter-chiefs-asking-exeter-chiefs-rugby-club-to-drop-its-racist-use-of-native-american-imagery-and-branding (https://www.change.org/p/exeter-chiefs-asking-exeter-chiefs-rugby-club-to-drop-its-racist-use-of-native-american-imagery-and-branding)) started earlier this week by Exeter supporter Ashley Green has gained more than 550 signatures, with Exeter's Labour MP, Ben Bradshaw, also publicly backing the move.
Members of the group, speaking to Telegraph Sport, described Exeter's use of a Native American mascot, the tomahawk chant and adoption of headdresses by supporters as "demeaning". The group added there was no issue with keeping the 'Chiefs' name, pointing to Exeter's history of Celtic tribes in the region during the pre-Roman era and calling for the club's image to be built around that period of time as opposed to appropriating Native American culture.
Exeter Rugby adopted the 'Chiefs' brand in 1999. The club were then promoted to the Premiership in 2010 and have since established themselves as a major force in both English and European rugby, winning the Premiership title in 2017.
"I do believe that Exeter Chiefs are a great club who do so many great things both on the pitch and off it. How they have risen to become the best team in England and one of the best teams in Europe has been nothing short of remarkable," explained Ben, a season ticket holder for seven years.
"During the last few years, I have also learnt about the offence that [the branding] causes, having your culture, your identity appropriated by sports teams. The headdress or warbonnet is revered in many cultures, and we use it as a way to play fancy dress. We just use the term Native American as a catch-all, not realising that there many distinct tribes throughout North America. But we use a stereotype."
Referencing the momentum for change created recently by the Black Lives Matter movement, another petitioner, Mary, compared the use of Native American branding to blackface.
"If Exeter Chiefs had a Golliwog as their icon now, we would all have an issue with that. Essentially, what they are doing with the branding, is the First Nation equivalent of blackface. Native American people do not consent to you using their image. Why are you still doing this? It is just so demeaning."
The use of Exeter's mascot, named 'Big Chief', has also come under fire. "People might ask, how is it racist? Firstly, it’s a cultural appropriation. Second, the feathers are sacred, so there is a desacralisation," explains Abdenour, a PHD candidate at Exeter University.
Others criticised Exeter's lack of communication over the issue. "They have been consistently and shamefully silent on the issue," added Elena. "The conversation isn’t a new one. The club’s response has been the same every single time."
Laura, another long-term Exeter supporter, added that the use of the branding had prevented her from purchasing replica jerseys. "I live away from Exeter and would love to be able to wear the kit with pride and show my roots with my home town, to get the kit for my daughter, and introduce her to our family team."
Exeter Chiefs had no comment regarding the petition when contacted on Wednesday.
-
That should get a few more votes on board.
-
Honestly I back this, I lived in Canada for nearly 4 years and there is no chance any sports team could use that kind of iconography without explicit permission from a local First Nation. The USA is a bit further behind but there is still a lot of tension about the names of teams like "red skins". Exeter should get with the times and find a brand more appropriate.
-
I imagine there's no way they will keep it. Surely they need to go with Exeter Shoveovers or similar.
-
Honestly I back this, I lived in Canada for nearly 4 years and there is no chance any sports team could use that kind of iconography without explicit permission from a local First Nation. The USA is a bit further behind but there is still a lot of tension about the names of teams like "red skins". Exeter should get with the times and find a brand more appropriate.
I think Exeter stole their chant from the Atlanta Braves.. I have no idea why either club or supporters sing or dress up that way.. maybe the owners are fans of old westerns.. I don't have a problem with it.. native indians may have some reservations though (tcha boom tscch)
-
The World Wildlife Fund will be having words with our friends on the A46 soon.
What utter rubbish.
Have you not been listening to the BLM nonsense? The footballers have seen it for the shallow marxist tripe that it is, and have taken off their armbands.
-
I'll support anything that causes Chiefs to give up that dirge of a chant!
-
I dislike the chant intensely. A few of their fans complained about our drums a while back, but anything beats that bloody chant..
-
Apart from being crap, it didn't offend anyone before, suddenly its an issue..meh.
-
Apart from being crap, it didn't offend anyone before, suddenly its an issue..meh.
How do you know?
-
Have you not been listening to the BLM nonsense? The footballers have seen it for the shallow marxist tripe that it is, and have taken off their armbands.
Nonsense? Marxist tripe? BLM is an incredibly important protest about why black and other ethnic minorities still suffer worse at the hands of the police and other institutions than whites do. Not only are the figures for incarceration rates and injury and death in police custody much worse for blacks than whites, the recent bias in infection/death rates due to COVID-19 has demonstrated that either our society systematically exposes ethnic minorities to risk of infection more, consistently fails them with medical care more, or seriously lacks an understanding of ethnicity based differences in medical care. Perhaps all of them.
I really hope you are in the minority, and that you have no ability to influence any iniatives to redress the fairness in our society. Did you read Simon McIntyre's interview about BLM? Listen to the BBC podcast with Wade talking about race and rugby (along with Monye, Itoje, Obanao, Earle, Osbourne, and Watson)? I guess not. But you should.
-
Apart from being crap, it didn't offend anyone before, suddenly its an issue..meh.
Actually it did, there has been complaints to it for for years.
-
've been moaning about the infantile dressing up and that ****** dirge for 10 years at least. I would have thought it is deeply offensive to any native American.
-
As I understand it, the "Chief" in Exeter rugby originated from the term Navy Chief. The adoption of American Indian paraphernalia is much more recent.
-
Attacking this kind of thing only takes away attention from the real and despicable racism that still exists throughout the World.
-
Attacking this kind of thing only takes away attention from the real and despicable racism that still exists throughout the World.
I don't think it does act as a distraction. It increases awareness of small ways society can be better.
-
As I understand it, the "Chief" in Exeter rugby originated from the term Navy Chief. The adoption of American Indian paraphernalia is much more recent.
So they'll change their logo to a picture of Nelson.
Oh wait isn't he now a personna non-grata ?
-
The Chiefs Tribe has a very balanced and quite long thread on this subject. I found it well worth a read.
-
Still don't like it!
-
I've never been comfortable with Exe fans wearing headdresses. My wife has some native american friends and I know that they would be upset or be offended when headdresses were used as a costume or a mascot.
-
Had a look at that thread - very balanced, a credit to the supporters.
There does seem to be some consensus about associating the word chief to the ancient tribe of Dumnonii which had its seat of power in what is now Exeter. Although, according to a historian colleague, the chief of the tribe was actually a King (although the title was not an hereditary one).
-
Had a look at that thread - very balanced, a credit to the supporters.
There does seem to be some consensus about associating the word chief to the ancient tribe of Dumnonii which had its seat of power in what is now Exeter. Although, according to a historian colleague, the chief of the tribe was actually a King (although the title was not an hereditary one).
The problem with trying to associate it with past local history is that it has been usurped by a bunch of native american indian wannabes. They cannot backtrack now.
Bit like the EA fez wearers. The Ottomans liked slavery quite a bit including of the eunuch variety.
-
The Christchurch Crusaders and Canterbury Chiefs both rebranded quite successfully to get away from their, politically sensitive(?), images, whilst retaining their names.
In the case of Exeter it would be easy to rebrand and lose the headdress logo and mascot. It will be harder to persuade die-hard fans to stop the chant.
-
Attacking this kind of thing only takes away attention from the real and despicable racism that still exists throughout the World.
I don't think it does act as a distraction. It increases awareness of small ways society can be better.
I think my line of thinking is probably similar to Old Geezer's. For me, things like (which on the face of it seems much more like virue signalling than trying to make a meaningful impact, or change) this dilute the fundamental issue at heart of inequality and institutionalised racism amongst the likes of the US Police Forces. We can't change history and I'm not sure that Chiefs, or Saracens are celebrating the historic negative connotations.
We can sure as hell help shape the future and I think we're better of focussing our collectives efforts on that. For those of us who are parents, ensuring that we bring our kids up to see people as people and equals, not different because of race, colour, sexuality etc...
It's been interesting hearing from some Black friends and their parents too on their views. All said they had experienced racism in their lives, all agreed the police brutality in the US was unacceptable but all seemed sceptical of the impact of the protests and insinutated that actually, until bigger problems were solved the protests and Colston statue stuff detracted from the problems at heart more than they made things better.
Whilst I can hold my own opinion, being a white British male, I'm hardly qualified on the topic.
-
They should become the Exeter Windsocks.
-
Gathering global steam
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53276070 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53276070)
If the Redskins do change don’t see how the Chiefs can avoid it.
-
This is good news, Sport is leading the way at the moment in breaking down long existing racial discrimination which is in contrast to the Worlds Governments becoming increasingly the opposite.
-
An interesting comment in the Exeter discussion about us needing to build our “cultural sensitivity”. That seems the theme of the discussion about changing the team style.
Might be appropriate for one or two comments here too. We need to learn from history rather than keep repeating it in our own words.
-
The World Wildlife Fund will be having words with our friends on the A46 soon.
Your instinct to conflate an ethnic minority with animals perfectly demonstrates the dehumanizing effect of racial stereotypes. This is exactly what Native American advocacy groups are campaigning against, thankfully with the increasing support of wider society, regardless of colour or creed.
Apart from being crap, it didn't offend anyone before, suddenly its an issue..meh.
I'm afraid you are just plain wrong.
The National Congress of American Indians launched a campaign to address stereotypes of Native people in popular culture and media, including sports mascots in 1968. LINK (http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe)
Six years before Exeter adopted their ‘Indian’ brand in 1999, the NCAI passed a specific resolution to “condemn the racist and condescending attitude of team owners, colleges and high schools, which continue to demean the members of our Nations” and called upon “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.”
-
Attacking this kind of thing only takes away attention from the real and despicable racism that still exists throughout the World.
There's an overwhelming body of evidence in the field of social sciences that finds stereotypes, racial or otherwise, have very real harmful effects on all society. And it’s not just the harmful effect on the group being stereotyped either; exposure to any racial stereotype has been found to effect the way individuals view other completely unrelated groups. The theory is that when people are exposed to, for example, a seemingly harmless ‘American Indian’ stereotype there is a learned behaviour that reinforces the tendancy to stereotype ‘other’ groups as well. Swap the ‘Indian’ stereotype for an ‘African’ stereotype and the problem becomes clear. Native American civil rights may not currently be as visible as other groups, but that does not mean their rights are any less important.
If there are ‘bigger’ issues, the easiest way to address those is for society to make the simple changes to attitudes first. Us’ and ‘Them’ narratives are consistently found to have a negative effect on everyone involved.
The American Psychological Association, and other scientific bodies, have made specific calls for the “immediate retirement of American Indian Mascots, symbols, images, and personalities by Schools, Colleges, Universities, Athletic Teams, and Organizations.” LINK (https://www.apa.org/about/policy/mascots.pdf)
-
I can sort of see the logic there, Willie, but part of me wonders whether there's a crossover between time it'll take to reverse this ripple effect by the likes of being told not to sing Swing Low at Twickenham, or Exeter changing their name/brand from Chiefs to something else and generations who see people simply as good or bad as opposed to by their race, sexual orientation etc...
It's fair to say there's an ageing population for whom casual racism was widely deemed acceptable. I think about some family members who are in their 80's and 90's who have a very different view on the world to I do.
I just don't see the same use of condoned casual racism amongst 'my' generation and those after me. Nor do I see it in my parents generation either. I wouldn't be surprised if the antiquated attitudes towards race quite literally died out over the next 10-15 years.
I wonder if it would take much longer than that for the ripples created by getting rid of any innocently meant but potentially offensive, or inappropriate team names, mascots etc... to reach the much more prominent issues like police brutality, or board inequality etc...
So would we be better off actually tackling the major issues faced today and working our way downwards to those issues which, whilst potentially offensive, aren't actively preventing people from gaining promotions, or being involved in various sports, or simply that don't threaten peoples lives?
-
I can sort of see the logic there, Willie, but part of me wonders whether there's a crossover between time it'll take to reverse this ripple effect by the likes of being told not to sing Swing Low at Twickenham, or Exeter changing their name/brand from Chiefs to something else and generations who see people simply as good or bad as opposed to by their race, sexual orientation etc...
It's fair to say there's an ageing population for whom casual racism was widely deemed acceptable. I think about some family members who are in their 80's and 90's who have a very different view on the world to I do.
I just don't see the same use of condoned casual racism amongst 'my' generation and those after me. Nor do I see it in my parents generation either. I wouldn't be surprised if the antiquated attitudes towards race quite literally died out over the next 10-15 years.
I wonder if it would take much longer than that for the ripples created by getting rid of any innocently meant but potentially offensive, or inappropriate team names, mascots etc... to reach the much more prominent issues like police brutality, or board inequality etc...
So would we be better off actually tackling the major issues faced today and working our way downwards to those issues which, whilst potentially offensive, aren't actively preventing people from gaining promotions, or being involved in various sports, or simply that don't threaten peoples lives?
I think this raises a really interesting point.
We look at generations that came before us and we see the racist beliefs that are inherent in their behaviours, that stem from their upbringing. We do our utmost to ensure we don't fall into the same pattern of behaviours. But just as they don't see their behaviour as being wrong as it simply refelects the world they were born into, neither do we for ours.
We see ourselves as being free from racist beliefs and behaviours, yet still we bristle when someone points out that perhaps we are not as free from sin as we think.
We live in a society where black people are less likely to get good grades at school, less likely to earn high salaries if they even get a job at all, and less likely to own their own homes than white people. Where black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned by courts that white people.
Clearly there is a long way to go before equality is reality, and so the insistance of white dudes like me that racism isn't really a thing any more probably isn't helpful.
If black people say they experience racism then I for one won't disagree with them, I will simply try to look at my own behaviours and fundemental beliefs and see where I am failing.
If native Americans don't want us to use a stereotypical caricature of them as a funny mascot then maybe we should listen to them instead of telling them they worry too much and there is no harm being done.
We should be asking what we can do to help, rather than arguing that their desire for equality infringes on our god given right to be free from any inconvenience at all.
-
Had a look at that thread - very balanced, a credit to the supporters.
... and then it went downhill :(
-
I can sort of see the logic there, Willie, but part of me wonders whether there's a crossover between time it'll take to reverse this ripple effect by the likes of being told not to sing Swing Low at Twickenham, or Exeter changing their name/brand from Chiefs to something else and generations who see people simply as good or bad as opposed to by their race, sexual orientation etc...
It's fair to say there's an ageing population for whom casual racism was widely deemed acceptable. I think about some family members who are in their 80's and 90's who have a very different view on the world to I do.
I just don't see the same use of condoned casual racism amongst 'my' generation and those after me. Nor do I see it in my parents generation either. I wouldn't be surprised if the antiquated attitudes towards race quite literally died out over the next 10-15 years.
I wonder if it would take much longer than that for the ripples created by getting rid of any innocently meant but potentially offensive, or inappropriate team names, mascots etc... to reach the much more prominent issues like police brutality, or board inequality etc...
So would we be better off actually tackling the major issues faced today and working our way downwards to those issues which, whilst potentially offensive, aren't actively preventing people from gaining promotions, or being involved in various sports, or simply that don't threaten peoples lives?
We live in a society where black people are less likely to get good grades at school, less likely to earn high salaries if they even get a job at all, and less likely to own their own homes than white people. Where black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned by courts that white people.
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
-
I'm probably going to provoke quite a reaction here, but many of these views conveniently overlook a very simple fact that BAME groups are equally, and frequently more, racist than your average white person, in my experience........
-
We live in a society where black people are less likely to get good grades at school, less likely to earn high salaries if they even get a job at all, and less likely to own their own homes than white people. Where black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned by courts that white people.
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
-
We live in a society where black people are less likely to get good grades at school, less likely to earn high salaries if they even get a job at all, and less likely to own their own homes than white people. Where black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned by courts that white people.
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
Well said DGP, that was another point I was going to mention (my sister and my son being police officers), but facts like that are often wasted on the righteous......
-
We live in a society where black people are less likely to get good grades at school, less likely to earn high salaries if they even get a job at all, and less likely to own their own homes than white people. Where black people are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, more likely to be arrested, and more likely to be imprisoned by courts that white people.
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives.
Really? These statistics (source not quoted) which often get trotted out to support this point of view presumably are for large, inner cities. I live in Hastings and I can categorically state that the majority of crime locally is committed by white people.
-
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
Anything in particluar you dispute?
-
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
It's very easy to see two things and assume one causes the other, while they may both be results of a separate unknown causative factor.
I suspect, (and I accept that I do not have a source to back this up) that poverty causes violent crime, and being black makes you more likely to live in poverty. That if you compare crime figures for black vs white people in the same income brackets the figures would not be so disparate.
-
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
It's very easy to see two things and assume one causes the other, while they may both be results of a separate unknown causative factor.
I suspect, (and I accept that I do not have a source to back this up) that poverty causes violent crime, and being black makes you more likely to live in poverty. That if you compare crime figures for black vs white people in the same income brackets the figures would not be so disparate.
I’d agree with your suspicions.
I wonder if you’d see a higher proportion of violent, gang-related crime in similar income BAME communities to similar income White communities where you might see less violent gang crime and more ‘petty’ crime - burglary, theft etc...
-
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
It's very easy to see two things and assume one causes the other, while they may both be results of a separate unknown causative factor.
I suspect, (and I accept that I do not have a source to back this up) that poverty causes violent crime, and being black makes you more likely to live in poverty. That if you compare crime figures for black vs white people in the same income brackets the figures would not be so disparate.
I’d agree with your suspicions.
I wonder if you’d see a higher proportion of violent, gang-related crime in similar income BAME communities to similar income White communities where you might see less violent gang crime and more ‘petty’ crime - burglary, theft etc...
I would disagree. Sadly I don't have figures to back it up, just anecdotal evidence from several serving police officers (one of whom is black incidentally). The BAME community is very small in Devon, but the offending rate disproportionately high.
My sister belongs to Warwickshire constabulary and is quite sure that the highest incidence of "hate crime" is within the Asian Community, and is directed towards blacks as well as whites.
-
I wonder if it would take much longer than that for the ripples created by getting rid of any innocently meant but potentially offensive, or inappropriate team names, mascots etc... to reach the much more prominent issues like police brutality, or board inequality etc...
Why not do both, or all, start at both ends? ‘Ripples’ don’t generally need to be ‘reversed’. They tend to either die out or go on to make waves that bring about greater change. The ‘Swing low’ issue will likely quickly run it’s course, the tide against ‘Indian’ mascots is likely unstoppable now.
So would we be better off actually tackling the major issues faced today and working our way downwards to those issues which, whilst potentially offensive, aren't actively preventing people from gaining promotions, or being involved in various sports, or simply that don't threaten peoples lives?
There is a limit to what each of us individually can do. Speaking out against a racial stereotype being promoted by the sport I love is something I, or any individual, can do. This is the distinction between being passively ‘not racist’ and being pro-actively ‘anti-racist’.
For the record, and sorry to get all serious again, I actually think ‘Indian’ mascots are a major issue. There is plenty of evidence and data that indicate that these dehumanizing stereotypes do in fact threaten peoples lives, through the poverty and social injustice that comes with inequality. LINK (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-violence-against-american-indian-and-alaska-native-women-and-men)
I just don't see the same use of condoned casual racism amongst 'my' generation and those after me. Nor do I see it in my parents generation either.
There’s a counter petition that states “The usage of the Native American in the Exeter Chiefs logo and brand is to honour and respect their cultural beliefs.”, signed by a sizeable number of people.
They are perfectly entitled to their opinion, of course, but the idea that Exeter Rugby Club and their fans have the authority to tell an ethnic minority what is respectful and honourable to their culture, regardless of whether they agree or not, is a pretty good indicator of how prevalent casual racism still is.
In 2013, at a symposium on the use of Native American imagery in sports, U.S. Army colonel and Native American, John Orendorff, put it this way:
"I often feel that the underlying point of these 'honors' is that my Indian heritage is owned by others. The message I'm constantly getting is: 'We own you. We will define how we honor you. Don't tell us whether you like it or not, because we own you.”
-
I’d agree with your suspicions.
I wonder if you’d see a higher proportion of violent, gang-related crime in similar income BAME communities to similar income White communities where you might see less violent gang crime and more ‘petty’ crime - burglary, theft etc...
I too agree with Vespula Vulgaris’ suspicions.
When poverty, environment, educational equality etc. is factored in to the statistics, race becomes a non-issue. The conclusion that the colour of a persons skin, regardless of other factors, makes someone predisposed to crime is a racist myth.
Are you sure you ‘don't see the same same use of condoned casual racism amongst 'my' generation'? ;)
-
I would like to see the numbers as to the ethnicity of who perpetrate murder and serious injury, whether by stabbing, shooting or other heinous means. If we have the facts, we can then make a rational judgement.
-
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
Anything in particluar you dispute?
Nothing, I merely asked you a direct question as to how you substantiate that statement..so please.
-
With respect VV I think you may have slept and woken up in the 50's or you've digested someone else's opinion from the media buffet. You like to question source so what's yours to substantiate this statement?
Anything in particluar you dispute?
Nothing, I merely asked you a direct question as to how you substantiate that statement..so please.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/
-
The Chiefs logo and associated material, branding etc. is clearly cultural appropriation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation. The name Chiefs itself is not racist, however the imagery links to the leader of a Native American tribal community is nonsense, and in the spirit of respect to that particular community should be dropped, it is after all 2020. As should teams such as Washington Redskins (the suffix is a pejorative term anyway), Atlanta Braves have softened their imagery but it still portrays a Tomahawk.
What harm can changing the logo and the rest of the branding do, the simple answer is none. It isn't even a historical association but was dreamed up in 1999. I think they need to get on with it.
-
Yes, i figured you would just provide a widely available link to stats providing with no source data other than a yes/no answer and doesn't reflect society at all, just UK.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
-
Yes, i figured you would just provide a widely available link to stats providing with no source data other than a yes/no answer and doesn't reflect society at all, just UK.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
So what do those stats tell us?
-
... Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers...
Want to lend them your bootstraps?
-
When the BLM protests started, the black police officer I mentioned previously had a rant on Facebook, speaking out against BAME victim complex. He was born on a council estate in Manchester, his post was along the lines of "Black kids get bullied at school. I was bullied, but no more than any other kid and when you start hitting back bullies soon leave you alone. Black kids don't do well at school. I did. Black kids don't do the 11+ I did. Black kids don't get the same chances that white kids do. I joined the forces under the same selection criteria as white kids. Black kids don't stay in the forces. I did. Black kids don't get promoted. I did. Black kids don't join the police. I did" And so it went, I'm sure you get the drift.
As for the correlation between poverty and crime, West Devon and Cornwall are very poor areas, but overall fairly low in crime. I'd agree poverty plays some part, but I wouldn't overstate that and put it more down to mentality.
-
They tell us nothing because there is no source data supporting the results data and as such they belong in a this thread.
Ask four people why they don't eat Greggs sausage rolls.
1 doesn't like the taste.
1 doesn't like to look.
1 doesn't eat meat.
1 is pastry intolerant.
Same result for a multitude of reasons, but I know the reasons. All you know is less % of Ethnics own property and are using that in supporting your narrative.
Baseless stats can be used to support any narrative you see fit.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of future contributions on this thread now, not sure why I even bit, its a rabbit hole thread and I come here for rugby chat, I can pick up race opinion via a million other portals if I see fit.
Peace out.
-
They tell us nothing because there is no source data supporting the results data and as such they belong in a this thread.
Ask four people why they don't eat Greggs sausage rolls.
1 doesn't like the taste.
1 doesn't like to look.
1 doesn't eat meat.
1 is pastry intolerant.
Same result for a multitude of reasons, but I know the reasons. All you know is less % of Ethnics own property and are using that in supporting your narrative.
Baseless stats can be used to support any narrative you see fit.
Anyway, I'm going to bow out of future contributions on this thread now, not sure why I even bit, its a rabbit hole thread and I come here for rugby chat, I can pick up race opinion via a million other portals if I see fit.
Peace out.
I'm going to follow suit.
I would just like to add one final observation though. I think it speaks volumes about the members of this forum that everyone has remained level headed on this thread, I appreciate that it's an emotive topic at the best of times, but there's been no hysteria or anyone screaming "racist" at anyone. I'm impressed that sensible and calm discussion can still take place on the internet, thanks all.
-
Dear Matelot and Hymenoptra, please do not leave. I (and many others, I think) enjoy your contributions and your rugby knowledge very much, and also your humour; if you leave you will be greatly missed. I - for one - like you both and would certainly miss you a lot. A spat over differences of any sort is not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just let it drain away, and avoid like topics - should they arise again. Believe me, life is far far too short. Move on, yes, but don't go away. (I hope this doesn't read 'all Pollyann-ish')
-
I got the impression they would be leaving this thread, not the board.
-
I was hoping that was the case. Thanks Roger.
-
I wonder if the 'BAME victim complex' also accounts for the disproportionately high numbers of BAME deaths from Covid-19, or the higher all-cause mortality rate in previous years. Perhaps people of certain skin colours just aren't trying hard enough to survive. ::)
.
-
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives.
Really? These statistics (source not quoted) which often get trotted out to support this point of view presumably are for large, inner cities. I live in Hastings and I can categorically state that the majority of crime locally is committed by white people.
Source: Metropolitan Police statistics which are freely available and easy enough to look up. The largest of large, inner cities. Which is where the problems of violent crime of this nature are most prevalent. To introduce Hastings with 1.1% black population against London's 13.3%, not to mention a vastly different age demographic (Source: 2011 census) into a debate about violent crime among young black men is pointless. I'm sure there would be a huge disparity in overall stop and search figures between the Met and Sussex police, but life's too short for me to be looking that up.
-
The point about black people being more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested and imprisoned is accurate and backed up by police figures. However, as unpalatable as it may be to many, this is not unrelated to the fact that black people are proportionately more likely to commit crime. The figures for gun and knife crime overwhelmingly highlight black people as both perpetrators and victims. Stop and search is one way to prevent this tragic loss of life, all too often among the young, and police forces should not have to apologise for profiling based on this in order to save lives. If large numbers of innocent people need to be stopped and searched for each successful search that takes a lethal weapon and the individual intent on using it off the streets, then that is a price worth paying for the lives that will be saved. Black lives matter when they are exchanged in senseless gang related violence too.
It's very easy to see two things and assume one causes the other, while they may both be results of a separate unknown causative factor.
I suspect, (and I accept that I do not have a source to back this up) that poverty causes violent crime, and being black makes you more likely to live in poverty. That if you compare crime figures for black vs white people in the same income brackets the figures would not be so disparate.
The fact is that there is an alarming level of violent crime committed by and towards black people in inner cities, regardless of cause and effect based on standard of living which is very difficult to establish and not a debate I want to get drawn in to. Among the most effective tools the police have at their disposal to combat this scourge is stop and search, and while a particular profile based on age, gender and race is much more likely to commit such crimes then it is logical that police forces should keep that in mind when deciding who to stop and search. A man is over 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the Met than a woman (source: Met Police). Is that sexist? No, it's just intelligence based policing.
-
Throughout the years the police have always "profiled" who to stop and search, based on the current crime statistics in their area.
When I was in my early 20s (the later 1960s) I had long hair and a beard (I still have the latter but not much of the former), and drove a 1958 MG Magnette car. I was a research microbiologist and travelled between my home in Buckinghamshire to where I worked in Surrey for 2 years. During that period I was "stopped and searched" 98 times, once being forced off the Leatherhead bypass by 2 Surrey police cars. It's amazingt how the police could make the word "Sir" sound as though it was spelt "Cur".
I accepted that it was because of my appearance, and the type of crime and perpetrators that the police were looking for.
Surely the same is true now.
-
Dear Matelot and Hymenoptra, please do not leave. I (and many others, I think) enjoy your contributions and your rugby knowledge very much, and also your humour; if you leave you will be greatly missed. I - for one - like you both and would certainly miss you a lot. A spat over differences of any sort is not worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just let it drain away, and avoid like topics - should they arise again. Believe me, life is far far too short. Move on, yes, but don't go away. (I hope this doesn't read 'all Pollyann-ish')
Wonky, I only meant that I no longer wished to contribute to that particular thread, not the site as a whole! As I said, I'm chuffed to bits that we had that conversation and nobody spat their dummy out. I've not seen that anywhere else on social media over the last few months. I wouldn't want to leave a place where sane discussion can take place!
-
Hooray! So glad that I misread that!
-
Hooray! So glad that I misread that!
Did you get the PM I sent you weeks ago?
-
Throughout the years the police have always "profiled" who to stop and search, based on the current crime statistics in their area.
When I was in my early 20s (the later 1960s) I had long hair and a beard (I still have the latter but not much of the former), and drove a 1958 MG Magnette car. I was a research microbiologist and travelled between my home in Buckinghamshire to where I worked in Surrey for 2 years. During that period I was "stopped and searched" 98 times, once being forced off the Leatherhead bypass by 2 Surrey police cars. It's amazingt how the police could make the word "Sir" sound as though it was spelt "Cur".
I accepted that it was because of my appearance, and the type of crime and perpetrators that the police were looking for.
Surely the same is true now.
Jeez... stopped once a week for two years. That's mental. Imagine trying to explain that one to your boss
"Why are you late?"
"Got stopped by the Police for a random stop and search"
"Pull the other one, you used that one last week. And the week before that. And the week before that..."
-
Throughout the years the police have always "profiled" who to stop and search, based on the current crime statistics in their area.
When I was in my early 20s (the later 1960s) I had long hair and a beard (I still have the latter but not much of the former), and drove a 1958 MG Magnette car. I was a research microbiologist and travelled between my home in Buckinghamshire to where I worked in Surrey for 2 years. During that period I was "stopped and searched" 98 times, once being forced off the Leatherhead bypass by 2 Surrey police cars. It's amazingt how the police could make the word "Sir" sound as though it was spelt "Cur".
I accepted that it was because of my appearance, and the type of crime and perpetrators that the police were looking for.
Surely the same is true now.
Jeez... stopped once a week for two years. That's mental. Imagine trying to explain that one to your boss
"Why are you late?"
"Got stopped by the Police for a random stop and search"
"Pull the other one, you used that one last week. And the week before that. And the week before that..."
I read a "Viz, top tip" yesterday. "Pretend you're an Olympic athlete by speeding on the wrong side of the road and failing to stop for police." Made me chuckle and kind of relevant to this thread I suppose.....
-
You may think it funny but I have similar experiences. I grew up in Edinburgh and was not regularly but at times lifted from buses on my way home. I did look unkempt at about midnight but had a profession. The number of times I ended up in a Police Station to answer "questions" was embarrassing (usually muggings or "attempted murder" (I think this to frighten you)). I even got picked up one night then again the next morning to get to the station to find the desk sergeant telling the detective that they had the wrong one. Remember this is pre-computers and mobile phones. The thing that pee'd me off the most was getting pulled from a bus with it being the last one. "No sir we are not a taxi service" is imprinted on my brain.
I always thought it was sensible to be polite, say yes and no sir and be helpful. However, the change in attitude when asked do you have a job and you can reply quietly what you do will also stick with me.
This thread is too long and I said to myself I would not get involved. Ho hum.
-
You may think it funny but I have similar experiences. I grew up in Edinburgh and was not regularly but at times lifted from buses on my way home. I did look unkempt at about midnight but had a profession. The number of times I ended up in a Police Station to answer "questions" was embarrassing (usually muggings or "attempted murder" (I think this to frighten you)). I even got pick up one night then again the next morning to get to the station to find the desk sergeant telling the detective that they had the wrong one. Remember this is pre-computers and mobile phones. The thing that pee'd me off the most was getting pulled from a bus with it being the last one. "No sir we are not a taxi service" is imprinted on my brain.
I always thought it was sensible to be polite, say yes and no sir and be helpful. However, the change in attitude when asked do you have a job and you can reply quietly what you do will also stick with me.
This thread is too long and I said to myself I would not get involved. Ho hum.
When I was a young sailor (and a very fit young man) I used to run everywhere as I couldn't afford taxis. When on leave, after seeing my girlfriend home I would run back to my house. As a young man running during the early hours of the morning, I too was frequently stopped by police. I always found polite cooperation and actually stopping in the first place were more than enough to see me allowed on my merry way and I have even been lucky enough to be given a lift home on a couple of occasions.
-
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
Unfortunately I don't think those statements are true, or perhaps are true but not in the way meant. Poverty, consistent low level and more direct harassment, fewer positive role models in industry, and a higher level of care responsibilities can all work to gain qualifications and earn a living, and are all more prevalent for BAME people than whites. Yes there are still black people who are very successful, but across the population there are a range of factors which work to make it harder to succeed overall. Do you really believe that systematic and long-term differences in employment rates or crime are down to free choice made by individuals?
-
More related to the subject, BBC article feat. both sides: Exeter Chiefs fans at odds over use of Native American branding - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53334193
While I'm fine with people choosing to argue that the branding is not overtly offensive (happy to argue with them), I do think it is disingenuous to claim that the branding actively "honours" Native Americans, given the total lack of links or agreements between Exeter and any Native American nations...
-
Matelot ... I got the message but failed to get my head round how to send an answer. Many apologies. I'm just not tech.y alas. If I could sort it I would but I finally gave up - so sorry. Apologies also to Heathen - for the same reasons. Our daughter or g-son could probably sort it but they all live over an hours drive away and I don't drive and Sir is on 'short distance' drives.
-
Matelot ... I got the message but failed to get my head round how to send an answer. Many apologies. I'm just not tech.y alas. If I could sort it I would but I finally gave up - so sorry. Apologies also to Heathen - for the same reasons. Our daughter or g-son could probably sort it but they all live over an hours drive away and I don't drive and Sir is on 'short distance' drives.
Hahaha, bloody WAFU's!!!! No worries Wonky, it is pretty simple though, just click the "reply" option then "send message"
-
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
Unfortunately I don't think those statements are true, or perhaps are true but not in the way meant. Poverty, consistent low level and more direct harassment, fewer positive role models in industry, and a higher level of care responsibilities can all work to gain qualifications and earn a living, and are all more prevalent for BAME people than whites. Yes there are still black people who are very successful, but across the population there are a range of factors which work to make it harder to succeed overall. Do you really believe that systematic and long-term differences in employment rates or crime are down to free choice made by individuals?
I didn't want to carry on in this thread, but can't help myself. Why does a role model have to be the same ethnicity as oneself? When I first started boxing, my biggest inspiration was Marvin Hagler. His no nonsense, consummate professional approach has always impressed me, no fancy stuff, just get the job done. He remains one of my greatest sporting heroes to this day. My greatest role model when I joined the navy was a southern Irish Catholic chap. He was the first Chief that I worked for that I felt actually wanted to teach me about engineering and cared about my personal and professional development. I have never once questioned the race, colour or nationality of people I come into contact with. People are defined by their character, not colour, race, religion, gay, straight, rich or poor or whatever.
-
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
Unfortunately I don't think those statements are true, or perhaps are true but not in the way meant. Poverty, consistent low level and more direct harassment, fewer positive role models in industry, and a higher level of care responsibilities can all work to gain qualifications and earn a living, and are all more prevalent for BAME people than whites. Yes there are still black people who are very successful, but across the population there are a range of factors which work to make it harder to succeed overall. Do you really believe that systematic and long-term differences in employment rates or crime are down to free choice made by individuals?
I didn't want to carry on in this thread, but can't help myself. Why does a role model have to be the same ethnicity as oneself? When I first started boxing, my biggest inspiration was Marvin Hagler. His no nonsense, consummate professional approach has always impressed me, no fancy stuff, just get the job done. He remains one of my greatest sporting heroes to this day. My greatest role model when I joined the navy was a southern Irish Catholic chap. He was the first Chief that I worked for that I felt actually wanted to teach me about engineering and cared about my personal and professional development. I have never once questioned the race, colour or nationality of people I come into contact with. People are defined by their character, not colour, race, religion, gay, straight, rich or poor or whatever.
I completely agree that someone can be a role model regardless of ethnicity, gender, or whatever, but there are issues with seeing yourself in a position based on there being other successful people like you. Many black South Africans (and black Brits no doubt) for example consider rugby a white sport because they mostly see whites playing it. So they are less likely to pursue it.
-
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the decision to buy house, fail your exams or forge a salary producing career. Your not more likely or less likely to do any of these based on your skin color, its your decision as an individual or your own personal drivers, so the stats don't belong in this thread.
Like I said, if this was the 50's then your statement has credibility, today, sorry but no.
Unfortunately I don't think those statements are true, or perhaps are true but not in the way meant. Poverty, consistent low level and more direct harassment, fewer positive role models in industry, and a higher level of care responsibilities can all work to gain qualifications and earn a living, and are all more prevalent for BAME people than whites. Yes there are still black people who are very successful, but across the population there are a range of factors which work to make it harder to succeed overall. Do you really believe that systematic and long-term differences in employment rates or crime are down to free choice made by individuals?
I didn't want to carry on in this thread, but can't help myself. Why does a role model have to be the same ethnicity as oneself? When I first started boxing, my biggest inspiration was Marvin Hagler. His no nonsense, consummate professional approach has always impressed me, no fancy stuff, just get the job done. He remains one of my greatest sporting heroes to this day. My greatest role model when I joined the navy was a southern Irish Catholic chap. He was the first Chief that I worked for that I felt actually wanted to teach me about engineering and cared about my personal and professional development. I have never once questioned the race, colour or nationality of people I come into contact with. People are defined by their character, not colour, race, religion, gay, straight, rich or poor or whatever.
I completely agree that someone can be a role model regardless of ethnicity, gender, or whatever, but there are issues with seeing yourself in a position based on there being other successful people like you. Many black South Africans (and black Brits no doubt) for example consider rugby a white sport because they mostly see whites playing it. So they are less likely to pursue it.
Agree re South Africa, albeit, that is an entirely different situation to what we face in the UK. I'd challenge your view with regard to the UK though as perhaps being out of date? I'd say definitely so during amateur days when "the old school tie" prevailed, but with the advent of professionalism, I think the game has opened up across the board. As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
-
While I'm fine with people choosing to argue that the branding is not overtly offensive (happy to argue with them), I do think it is disingenuous to claim that the branding actively "honours" Native Americans, given the total lack of links or agreements between Exeter and any Native American nations...
Does this not also work the other way, as in given the total lack of links or agreements that it should be obvious that it was never meant to highlight any negative connotations or to cause offence and was simply Exeter building a team/fan identity to get behind?
By the same logic, should we assume that the person or persons who started the petition have done so on behalf of and not at the request of Native Americans?
Is it not just as offensive to decide on behalf of an ethnicity what should, or shouldn't offend them?
-
Bravo sir!!
-
The fact is that there is an alarming level of violent crime committed by and towards black people in inner cities, regardless of cause and effect based on standard of living which is very difficult to establish and not a debate I want to get drawn in to.
As far as I understand it, this is one of the issues groups like BLM are trying to highlight; our society consciously or unconsciously views these things (crime, gangs, drugs) as an inherently ‘black’ problem, rather than a socio-economic problem that disproportionately effects certain BAME individuals.
In the early to mid 2000's Scotland's rate of violent crime was amongst the highest in western Europe, and by some measures worldwide. Strathclyde had a significantly higher rate of knife crime than any other part of the UK. But at no point was skin colour or 'Scottish culture' assumed to be, or even suggested as, an underlying cause. The problem was recognised as a socio-economic class issue and addressed according (to various degrees of success).
The fact is that race is only ever considered a factor when it is non-white. Even the Home office has acknowledged that when other variables are accounted for, ethnicity is not a significant predictor of criminality, yet still the myth persists.
Profiled stop and search instinctively seems to make sense, but the point is whether it is done proportionately. The evidence suggests it’s not. For example, black people are nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs despite using drugs at a lower rate than white people. Then there is the compounding issue that, when an offence has been committed, black people are on average more likely to be charged and convicted, and receive longer sentences, than white people for comparable offences. LINK (http://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2018/10-October-2018/Drug-policing-drives-racial-disparity) and LINK (https://www.stop-watch.org/uploads/documents/The_Colour_of_Injustice.pdf)
There is also the uncomfortable conclusion that these stop and search statistics suggest that a worrying proportion of police officers are unable to identify possible individual suspects much beyond a broad brushstroke of skin colour.
During that period I was "stopped and searched" 98 times..
.
Being stopped (an incredibly specific) 98 times in two years is appalling, regardless of ones colour. I suspect you’d have had good grounds for police harassment in 1960; this kind of thing certainly shouldn’t be acceptable in 2020, for anyone.
-
By the same logic, should we assume that the person or persons who started the petition have done so on behalf of and not at the request of Native Americans?
Is it not just as offensive to decide on behalf of an ethnicity what should, or shouldn't offend them?
Native advocacy groups, made up of indigenous representatives, elected by indigenous peoples have clearly stated their position for for at least 50 years, and probably as long as they have had any real voice as a subjugated minority group. It should be clear by now that a degree of offence is very real and genuinely exists.
The case for ‘us’ removing the ‘Indian’ brand altogether is that it completely removes the question as to whether it is offensive or not, which is not ‘our’ decision to make either way.
No ‘Indian’ mascot, no debate. Simple.
As it stands, Exeter Rugby (all mascots) are claiming the authority to define how a completely separate culture is portrayed.
Besides that, civil rights are surely everybody’s responsibility. One doesn’t have to be a woman to support feminist issues, or a relevant race to call out racial discrimination, or disabled to fight for disability access. Etc. All major steps forward in equality and civil rights have come about when people stand up for and together with ‘others’.
-
By the same logic, should we assume that the person or persons who started the petition have done so on behalf of and not at the request of Native Americans?
Is it not just as offensive to decide on behalf of an ethnicity what should, or shouldn't offend them?
Native advocacy groups, made up of indigenous representatives, elected by indigenous peoples have clearly stated their position for for at least 50 years, and probably as long as they have had any real voice as a subjugated minority group. It should be clear by now that a degree of offence is very real and genuinely exists.
The case for ‘us’ removing the ‘Indian’ brand altogether is that it completely removes the question as to whether it is offensive or not, which is not ‘our’ decision to make either way.
No ‘Indian’ mascot, no debate. Simple.
As it stands, Exeter Rugby (all mascots) are claiming the authority to define how a completely separate culture is portrayed.
Besides that, civil rights are surely everybody’s responsibility. One doesn’t have to be a woman to support feminist issues, or a relevant race to call out racial discrimination, or disabled to fight for disability access. Etc. All major steps forward in equality and civil rights have come about when people stand up for and together with ‘others’.
We get it - Exeter sub-name and mascots=bad.
-
So Sting is also personna non grata too?????
-
I have never once questioned the race, colour or nationality of people I come into contact with. People are defined by their character, not colour, race, religion, gay, straight, rich or poor or whatever.
Absolutely, that's how I see the world too. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who don't though which is why there is so much hate towards people seen as different, in the most rabid form, which everyone recognises as racist. However, in a milder form, conscious or unconscious stereotyping of people who fit a "type" can reflect in a person's attitude, which is what I think BAME people are objecting to.
-
So Sting is also personna non grata too?????
Just Exeter for the moment. Although I do take exception to a Wolf which was hunted to extinction in this country.
-
So Sting is also personna non grata too?????
Sorry, I should have said "all Indian mascots'. People and animals / insects, very different matters. :D
-
Should I now take umbrage at the use of the 7th word?? And would Chris Packham take exception to excluding 'animals/insects'? Ouch .
-
Agree re South Africa, albeit, that is an entirely different situation to what we face in the UK. I'd challenge your view with regard to the UK though as perhaps being out of date? I'd say definitely so during amateur days when "the old school tie" prevailed, but with the advent of professionalism, I think the game has opened up across the board. As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
So was Simon McIntyre mistaken about his personal experience, or just lying for attention?
-
As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
I first played rugby at the age of 11 when I went Wycombe Technical School. I guess we were lucky that we had Welsh rugby masters at the school as there was never any suggestion of it be an elitist sport, during the 7 years that I was there. Certainly at the Tech, it played second fiddle to soccer. When I left school I played in the Colts side at my local rugby club and then moved to the lower reaches of the club's senior sides. In all the 35 years that I played I never observed anything elitist, either at the clubs I played for - High Wycombe and Marlow, either at home or away. Amongst the opposition that we played, included the likes of Wasps, Sarries, Irish, Scottish, Richmond, Rosslyn Park and Quins.
I guess we were detached from the game at the top level. I went to HQ every year to watch at least one match and never got the impression that it was a game for the privileged. Having said that, today at at HQ, attending matches there is more an us and them feel amongst those who attend, primarily driven by the corporates and those that can afford the extortionate prices that are being charged.
-
I've mostly avoided this, but lets have a go.
Two things.
Plenty of people seemingly arguing that it shouldn't be seen as offensive, I suspect they aren't indigenous Americans. Indigenous Americans have clearly stated that they find the imagery insulting. I would hope that's beyond argument by now? So there's the argument against them using it. Although some people seem to ignore that.
So, now we need the other side of the coin. Can someone please tell me the argument for them using it? They've been called the chiefs for some time (navy related I think), however it was never to do with an indigenous American that became famous in Exeter. So there's the question for me, what's the argument for them using it.
-
Agree re South Africa, albeit, that is an entirely different situation to what we face in the UK. I'd challenge your view with regard to the UK though as perhaps being out of date? I'd say definitely so during amateur days when "the old school tie" prevailed, but with the advent of professionalism, I think the game has opened up across the board. As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
So was Simon McIntyre mistaken about his personal experience, or just lying for attention?
I must confess to having not read the interview, but I'd have thought that in terms of proportionality between black professional rugby players and percentage of population, there must be a fairly good representation? If I get time later I'll look into it, the figures must be fairly easy to find.....
-
Agree re South Africa, albeit, that is an entirely different situation to what we face in the UK. I'd challenge your view with regard to the UK though as perhaps being out of date? I'd say definitely so during amateur days when "the old school tie" prevailed, but with the advent of professionalism, I think the game has opened up across the board. As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
So was Simon McIntyre mistaken about his personal experience, or just lying for attention?
I must confess to having not read the interview, but I'd have thought that in terms of proportionality between black professional rugby players and percentage of population, there must be a fairly good representation? If I get time later I'll look into it, the figures must be fairly easy to find.....
Look for a Genge quote as he made this very point about two weeks ago.
-
Agree re South Africa, albeit, that is an entirely different situation to what we face in the UK. I'd challenge your view with regard to the UK though as perhaps being out of date? I'd say definitely so during amateur days when "the old school tie" prevailed, but with the advent of professionalism, I think the game has opened up across the board. As a Northerner, I never played union until I joined up, I always regarded it as a Southern public school boy sport.
So was Simon McIntyre mistaken about his personal experience, or just lying for attention?
I must confess to having not read the interview, but I'd have thought that in terms of proportionality between black professional rugby players and percentage of population, there must be a fairly good representation? If I get time later I'll look into it, the figures must be fairly easy to find.....
Look for a Genge quote as he made this very point about two weeks ago.
That there was good representation or not? I just had a quick look and can't find a % figure of black professional players, but with a representative figure of 3% across the UK population, you have to assume the percentage of professional black players to be higher than that surely?
-
Genge quote from a podcast around about the 20th June-
"Does rugby have a racism problem?” 9/38 players in the Six Nations squad were BAME. 23.7%. Why does no one ever talk about the successes?! The public face of rugby is massively over representative of BAME! Always the negatives get the focus. Who cares about the RFU Council?!
-
Genge quote from a podcast around about the 20th June-
"Does rugby have a racism problem?” 9/38 players in the Six Nations squad were BAME. 23.7%. Why does no one ever talk about the successes?! The public face of rugby is massively over representative of BAME! Always the negatives get the focus. Who cares about the RFU Council?!
That's even higher than I thought, my guess would have been 10-15%, but I agree with his views on highlighting the positives, and good on Genge for saying it. That's what my mate was doing in his Facebook rant. I've been involved with amateur boxing for close to 40 years, all of the black lads I have come to know (and there have been many) they have had that same positive mental attitude. To quote The Clash, "I don't believe in lying back saying how bad your luck is". That really is my last word on this thread.
-
Good on Genge for bringing balance to things. He's quite right to call out the likes of the BBC for quoting him and putting up a picture of Lewis Ludlam but to also point out where good things are happening.
He's spoken a few times about the major hurdle in getting into rugby as a career is a class thing, not an ethnicity thing.
-
So Sting is also personna non grata too?????
He should be, terrible songwriter.
-
Nice one, bigad! Applause!
-
So Sting is also personna non grata too?????
Why would he be?
-
To which Sting are you referring?
-
To which Sting are you referring?
I don't know, which one are you talking about? The mascot, or the singer (or some other)? Why would any of them be?
-
Originally - the mascot. Bigad28 sneaked the singer(?) in rather cleverly.
-
Originally - the mascot. Bigad28 sneaked the singer(?) in rather cleverly.
That's what I thought. So why would the mascot need to go?
-
Because I always preferred the original Sting mascot, and the present incumbent looks asf his mother had a fling with the Leeds Rugby League mascot - that's Reggie the Rhino.
-
Unfortunately racism at a personal level is a two-way thing. The perception of one influences the behaviour of the other.
Much of what is discussed and written about is actually historic - a Caribbean cricketer is really talking about his experiences in the 70's and 80's to a greater degree than the current situation IMO.
My main concern here is the 'scab-picking' - nothing is ever allowed to settle which tends to make it worse.
DOI: I have been on the interviewing panel as Clinical Director for 12 Consultant Spinal Surgeons and Fellows at the RNOH Stanmore, and I have never appointed a White English Surgeon. There was one Romanian, but the rest were Iranian, Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Mauritius, etc etc.
If only society realised that it is what you do that matters, not your spin.
-
In today's Guardian:
Washington's NFL team will reportedly drop racist nickname on Monday
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/13/washington-announce-redskins-nickname-changed (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/13/washington-announce-redskins-nickname-changed)
-
Now official
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53390944?fbclid=IwAR1KJoxcGmpOppBpg9XWyEDh6YHh4drrIzdj3PXfJNKAJ7BkeKfysJdQzBY
-
I really hope they choose Sentinels as their new name.
-
Interesting that Washington seem to have been much influenced by their sponsors. Rather like various major corporations have now said they will remove their adverts from Facebook unless they stop of their more unattractive pieces of news. Money talks.
-
If I was going in the merch game, I’d be rubbing my hands. There’ll be a stack of new gear on sale which everyone who wants to show club loyalty will need to buy. All the old gear, instead of being retro, just becomes toxic and offensive to wider society. I’m surprised owners haven’t been more willing to change theirs clubs names. I’d probably go about making some retro club gear with the new branding on it, just to make sure all bases are covered.
-
I find it incredibly sad that a Exeter Chiefs supporters group has set up a petition group to rival the one asking the club to abolish its Native American stereotyping by claiming the club is "honouring" them! Alas it seems narrow minded racism will find any excuse to fuel it's fire.
-
When I was at school, the term ‘chief’ was was adopted as an insult. Nothing to do with Native Americans, but simply arose to common usage after Full Metal Jacket was released. In the film, among the many classic insults thrown was “Chief Numb-nuts”. Even today, when I hear the terms Chief or Chiefs, it reminds me of that phrase.
-
I don't have a problem with clubs tagging a moniker to their location club name.
I doubt the marketing person who advised Exeter at the time realised decades later that decision might be scrutinised.
Sale Sharks.. are there any sharks in Sale.. Bristol Bears.. and when did Leicester have any tigers on the loose.
Maybe Exeter RFC can use all the money it makes from cashing in on the native indian theme and build a proper stadium.
I think the west stand is new.. south stand (if I've got my bearings correct) looks like a wedding marquee.. the other sheds wouldn't be out of place in 4th division football.
Are terracing crowds still permitted?
-
I don't believe that anyone really minds them being the Exeter Chiefs, I'm sure there's plenty wanting a change of name, but the word chief is not solely used to describe indigenous Americans.
The problem is the imagery that goes along with it.
Exeter chiefs is fine. Just go for a different image, a naval chief, a Celtic chief since that is their heritage etc. Just don't use a load of imagery that has bugger all to do with the club, it's roots, or anything whatsoever, and is offensive to the people who's heritage it is.
-
Exeter Eggchasers.
-
and when did Leicester have any tigers on the loose.
I believe Tigers is derived from the Leicestershire Regiment (my dad's former regiment coincidentally), they had long service in India and their principal battle honour "Hindustan" was displayed on their cap badge, which was a tiger.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/american-football/53520772
-
The new name Washington Football Team is super classic and I like it.
Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk
-
I'm hoping my 5 mins of double checking I'm not stupid..
Washington DC.. or nearby area
So it could be Washington Potemacs.. everyone likes a river.. even if it does freeze over
Washington Independants (I'll claim the 5th on that one)
The club could pick so many options that would hopefully not offend anyone
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/27/exeter-chiefs-to-discuss-dropping-native-american-badge-and-mascot
Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk
-
The problem is that you have to keep on paying the 'wokegeld'.
-
Jeez even makes the BBC lunch news.
-
Good.
No good reason for them to have ever adopted. No good reason to actually keep it. Plenty of people from that background find the take off of their heritage highly offensive.
-
Good.
No good reason for them to have ever adopted. No good reason to actually keep it. Plenty of people from that background find the take off of their heritage highly offensive.
Hear hear!
-
The other US football teams with “inappropriate” names - e.g. Chiefs & Braves - are planning new names. Trump doesn’t like it might be a good reason to support the change here & in the US.
-
That's nearly WFT.
By the way, taking into account their often-illegal lineouts and scrums, Exe should be called Exeter Cheits. economical too, just change one letter.
-
Just announced - keeping name and logo, losing the mascot
-
That's nearly WFT.
By the way, taking into account their often-illegal lineouts and scrums, Exe should be called Exeter Cheits. economical too, just change one letter.
No need to change the name Chiefs, just all the branding.
-
Just announced - keeping name and logo, losing the mascot
I wish they'd drop the dead chickens.
-
So basically they've changed very little, the tomahawk chop, and all the fake headresses etc, will still be in place.
-
That fecking chant should be banned. That is a Red Indian chant. Certainly not PC in my view.
-
+ 1 with Heathen. Hate the head-dresses and chant.
-
They should have just ditched the lot. This will not go away if they allow elderly gents to dress up as native indians and warble their chant.
-
Not exactly a native American chant - it was invented by the Florida State University marching band sometime between 1972 1nd 1980 (FSU adopted a Seminole Indian image as the emblem for its sports teams in 1947).
So it's actually even worse than appropriating native American culture - it's adopting a parody of native American culture.
-
The club, or its owner, seems to have decided on the worst of all possibilities. Keeping the name & chant without losing anything. The worst of all decisions.
Dressing as "red Indians" has no historical links with Exeter or Devon. The American football clubs have realised that and all taken action.
-
So the most financially sound club in the country has stuck two fingers up to Racism just to save some money on rebranding!
Shame on them.
-
Exeter statement:
"The board took the view that the use of the Chiefs logo was in fact highly respectful."
Exeter Chiefs 4 Change:
"This decision will not age well for the club."
Indeed. The Washington Football Team's rhetoric was much stronger only a few years and now even they have responded. Just wait for sponsors to start expressing concern and then they'll turn. Shame they have not taken the opportunity to be proactive.
Dropping the mascot is a start I guess. Curious that they don't consider him "highly respectful"...
-
The problem is that you have to keep on paying the 'wokegeld'.
So if Exeter dropped all Native American iconography, what would they then have to do? What are you suggesting the "woke" people would demand?
-
Just wait for sponsors to start expressing concern and then they'll turn.
Their main sponsor and the one that has allowed them to show a profit consistently is SW Comms / Tony Rowe. Not sure they'll be going anywhere any time soon.
-
This is not a reference to Exeter; it is a reference to the rest of society.
-
This is not a reference to Exeter; it is a reference to the rest of society.
so it does or doesn't apply in this case?
-
I call your microaggression.
-
Exeter have sort of agreed that having the mascot is probably not the best thing.. but on the flip side aren't budging on removing similar branding?? Errr?
I can almost imagine some accountants have been crunching numbers over the last few days
"Nope.. its going to cost us too much money"
-
Exeter have sort of agreed that having the mascot is probably not the best thing.. but on the flip side aren't budging on removing similar branding?? Errr?
I can almost imagine some accountants have been crunching numbers over the last few days
"Nope.. its going to cost us too much money"
I don't know about the money side of things, but yes it is strange they are retiring the mascot but leaving the rest.
-
I can almost imagine some accountants have been crunching numbers over the last few days
"Nope.. its going to cost us too much money"
Not sure that would be the case.
lets say they change their name, so ALL merchandise will need to be updated, they would be having new shirts for the next season probably anyway, so a lot of people would want to buy the new shirt.
Conversely those who don't want it to change would be buying up unsold stock of the old ones.
win - win, I would have thought?
-
I can almost imagine some accountants have been crunching numbers over the last few days
"Nope.. its going to cost us too much money"
Not sure that would be the case.
lets say they change their name, so ALL merchandise will need to be updated, they would be having new shirts for the next season probably anyway, so a lot of people would want to buy the new shirt.
Conversely those who don't want it to change would be buying up unsold stock of the old ones.
win - win, I would have thought?
Just think of how much stuff the logo appears on.. its not just mechandise (which they might have a small warehouse full of waiting to be sold)..
-
Costs them nothing to drop the chant!
-
Things like this should rise above money.
-
Costs them nothing to drop the chant!
But they won't!!
-
The only way to be rid of the feathers and caterwauling is to hope that Exeter will realize just how offensive the fancy dress and howling really are ..... but sadly that could take years
-
That fecking chant should be banned.
Maybe that’s something individual clubs should now consider. It would be perfectly reasonable and within the rights of a club to put restrictions on entry and conduct at their venues. I doubt any club would allow regular admission to fans in blackface, and no reasonable club would tolerate the monkey chants that have plagued football terraces, regardless of claims made by some fans that racist chants are a form of respect (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49576840)… which is pretty much identical to Exeter’s current argument.
-
Exeter have sort of agreed that having the mascot is probably not the best thing.. but on the flip side aren't budging on removing similar branding?? Errr?
I can almost imagine some accountants have been crunching numbers over the last few days
"Nope.. its going to cost us too much money"
I don't know about the money side of things, but yes it is strange they are retiring the mascot but leaving the rest.
This is what surprised me most about their announcement. I thought they would drop (which they did) the clear mockery foam mascot and announce a consultation period, while in fact letting the dust settle, adjusting the finances and seeing how things pan out. From a purely public relations point of view, they’ve placed their flag on a very vulnerable hilltop with the ‘it’s highly respectful’ claim. That kind of hubris came back to bite the Washington Redskins after stating they would “never, you can print that in all caps” change the name or brand.
-
One the whole, like welsh wasp says, this seems like the worst of all possible positions they could have taken. On the one hand they’ve accepted that part of their brand is offensive enough to be removed ‘out of respect’, but on the other they've arbitrarily insisted all the other parts are ‘highly respectful’.
Up to this point there has been an (albeit poor) excuse of harmless ignorance, but now they have, to an extent, acknowledged the existence of over 50 years of indigenous opposition to these dehumanizing mascots, while effectively claiming that the Exeter boardroom know more than, or have the right to dictate to, those same indigenous voices about how a racial stereotype of them should be received.
I’m afraid to say that this looks to me like a perfect example of arrogant white superiority in action.
-
Hot potato alert.. grab as long as you can and pass on
-
Let’s ask a question or two, honest, hand on heart answers only.
Question 1 - who, 18 months ago (pre Woke warriors, BLM, BAME) had given any thought to the name of a rugby club in the south west of the country and whether that name was a problem?
Question 2 - How many Native/indigenous Americans had been in touch with Tony Rowe or the s.w. England rugby club complaining that said club’s name was offensive to said native/indigenous person? (Assume it must have been quite a few!)
Question 3 - If I’m not mistaken this is a WASPS message board. How has a thread on a WASPS message board got to 11 pages on a subject not even connected to WASPS?
-
Let’s ask a question or two, honest, hand on heart answers only.
Question 1 - who, 18 months ago (pre Woke warriors, BLM, BAME) had given any thought to the name of a rugby club in the south west of the country and whether that name was a problem?
Question 2 - How many Native/indigenous Americans had been in touch with Tony Rowe or the s.w. England rugby club complaining that said club’s name was offensive to said native/indigenous person? (Assume it must have been quite a few!)
Question 3 - If I’m not mistaken this is a WASPS message board. How has a thread on a WASPS message board got to 11 pages on a subject not even connected to WASPS?
1. I had. Plenty of people had, there's newpaper articles about it from well before that time too.
2. There's been articles explicitly pointing out that groups have complained about it. Is that important though? If it's been made clear by these people that they find it offensive, is it then down to them to go to every single organisation using such imagery to say "Yes, we find it offensive when you do it as well."?
3. We play in the same league as them. That's pretty connected. Far more than the endless thread, and on an equal basis to many of the threads currently here.
EDIT - Question for you.
If no one had thought about it before. Does that matter? If it was only yesterday that inigenous americans had woken up and said, "Actually, you know what. Seeing caricatures of my deeply held spiritual beliefs, my ancestors, and my history, especially when it suffered near genocide, makes me feel pretty shitty." Would that make it a less valid feeling now?
-
I had.
-
1. I had.
2. There have been representations to the club from at least one group of indiginous american people to the club (there was an interview with their representative in the UK yesterday - I can't find it)
3. We play in the same league and it reflects on the sport generally of which Wasps are a part.
Even if it were only to have just come to light, does it make it any better? Anyway being recently ignorant is hardly an excuse to continue racisim is it.
-
Next time we welcome Exeter to the Ricoh, will the PA announce our opponents as "the Exeter Chiefs" or maybe "the Exeter Team"? For a few years the Washington Football Team was referred to by the media as "the Washington Team" long before they dropped their other name. I don't know if any of their opponents refused to use their old name in announcements etc. It'll be interesting to see how other prl teams react to the continuing Exeter saga.
There's nothing wrong with "Chiefs" in the right context. But in the context of the Exeter logo and associated branding, it is harmful.
-
I’m wondering when attention will turn to Saracens. Surely we’ll hear soon that their name is offensive to the those in the Middle East and Turkey, and that the Fez hats are cultural appropriation. The fact that there’s a Saracens club in Abu Dhabi will probably be conveniently ignored.
-
Blood&Mud podcast put out a bonus episode yesterday with an interview (arranged pre-Exeter announcement as luck would have it) with the founders of Iroquois Roots Rugby. Whilst only 1 voice i found the passion in that voice as she explained how offensive she found it all, and how historically inaccurate the conflation of imageries into a single "indian culture" were, to be quite eye (ear??) opening.
The interviewee had made repeated efforts to engage with Exeter on the subject, apparently only receiving a generic "your message has been passed on" response.
A link to IRR here https://rootsrugby.org/ (https://rootsrugby.org/)
-
Next time we welcome Exeter to the Ricoh, will the PA announce our opponents as "the Exeter Chiefs" or maybe "the Exeter Team"? For a few years the Washington Football Team was referred to by the media as "the Washington Team" long before they dropped their other name. I don't know if any of their opponents refused to use their old name in announcements etc. It'll be interesting to see how other prl teams react to the continuing Exeter saga.
There's nothing wrong with "Chiefs" in the right context. But in the context of the Exeter logo and associated branding, it is harmful.
it is context that matters!! it's only a sports team. If we are to be so sensitive then what about say.
Apache helicopter, Ford comanche, any team called vikings, how about red arrows? teams called squaws, braves, warriors?, Aztecs? Pirates? vandals? clowns? how about teams called maniacs?....it is endless..
...oh and my favourite SARACENS is cultural appropriation complete with fez!!?
-
it is context that matters!! it's only a sports team. If we are to be so sensitive then what about say.
Apache helicopter, Ford comanche, any team called vikings, how about red arrows? teams called squaws, braves, warriors?, Aztecs? Pirates? vandals? clowns? how about teams called maniacs?....it is endless..
...oh and my favourite SARACENS is cultural appropriation complete with fez!!?
You're very nearly getting it. Keep trying.
-
Next time we welcome Exeter to the Ricoh, will the PA announce our opponents as "the Exeter Chiefs" or maybe "the Exeter Team"? For a few years the Washington Football Team was referred to by the media as "the Washington Team" long before they dropped their other name. I don't know if any of their opponents refused to use their old name in announcements etc. It'll be interesting to see how other prl teams react to the continuing Exeter saga.
There's nothing wrong with "Chiefs" in the right context. But in the context of the Exeter logo and associated branding, it is harmful.
it is context that matters!! it's only a sports team. If we are to be so sensitive then what about say.
Apache helicopter, Ford comanche, any team called vikings, how about red arrows? teams called squaws, braves, warriors?, Aztecs? Pirates? vandals? clowns? how about teams called maniacs?....it is endless..
...oh and my favourite SARACENS is cultural appropriation complete with fez!!?
It's only a sports team.
Exactly. It's reducing a huge cross section of cultures, that was nearly wiped out, and still held dear by quite a few, to a headdress waving a tomahawk and emphasing the savagery etc of a people.
The fact that it's only, doesn't make it better, it's worse. It's saying that this culture matters so little, we're fine with a middle aged white man making it into a joke by wearing a full headdress, doing a fake chant and waving around a plastic tomahawk.
-
I haven't read through the thread, so apologies if this has already been posted:
There's nothing offensive in the name 'Chiefs'. Its the usage of native American image that is questionable. The simple answer would be keep the established name of Chiefs but change the image to a British one: a Celtic chief. Job done.
-
That's the gist of many responses.
-
Yup. The solution for this at the Ricoh is to have their name in text form only instead of the current branding.
Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk
-
Let’s ask a question or two, honest, hand on heart answers only...
Short answer
1. Not standing up to be counted yesterday does not mean one cannot do so today.
2. That is not how civil societies work. Anti-Semitism is not acceptable until a Rabbi specifically tells you otherwise.
3. This is a rugby community issue.
Long answer
1. I had. About 5 years ago, after seeing a headline along the lines of ‘Exeter scalp the opposition”, and suspecting that it was in poor taste, I researched the issue and discovered that indigenous groups had been calling for an end to such stereotypes since the 1960’s. I’ve been doing what I can to amplify those voices for change, as best I can, in a community that is important to me personally.
2. Before they branded themselves with a culture they have absolutely no relation to, Exeter should have, at the very least, considered how it might effect the people they were planning to stereotype. The onus to check they were doing no harm was on them in 1999, as it is today.
But yes, the issue has been raised with the club by a number of people, native American and otherwise. The issue has been raised in various media pieces as well. There is absolutely no way the club were not aware of the issue. The fact is they chose to ignore it AND the people they claim to be respecting. Most recently several indigenous individuals, Tribal councils and other native led groups, such as Iroquois Roots Rugby, have unequivocally stated that the Exeter brand specifically is harmful and disrespectful and should be dropped. The Exeter board apparently believe they know better.
3. It’s a shame that there is any need to discuss this here, or anywhere, at all. The club that should be explaining their position refuse to comment, the fan forum that should be hosting the discussion deletes and bans anyone, including Exeter fans, that try to raise the issue. I’m personally grateful for the balanced and mature platform that this forum has provided.
-
I’m wondering when attention will turn to Saracens. Surely we’ll hear soon that their name is offensive to the those in the Middle East and Turkey, and that the Fez hats are cultural appropriation. The fact that there’s a Saracens club in Abu Dhabi will probably be conveniently ignored.
..oh and my favourite SARACENS is cultural appropriation complete with fez!!?
LeAndra Nephin, of the Omaha Tribe, Nebraska was asked specifically about the Saracens brand on 5 Live. If you are genuinely interested in the answer to your question, that would be a great place to start, shouldn’t be too hard to find.
-
Some of the interview with the afore mentioned LeAndra Nephin where she talks about why it is problematic and her response to the idea it "honours" or shows respect:
https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1288756542020476929
edit: full interview here, starts at 1:50 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000l92f
edit2: Saracens Q comes at 1:53:45, answer basically is she can't comment for other groups on what her find offensive or otherwise.