Exeter supporters petition for club to drop 'racist' Native American branding.

[Willie]

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.

[BG]

Hot potato alert.. grab as long as you can and pass on

[NorthYorksWasp]

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?

[Raggs]

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?

[Wiltshire Wasp]

I had.

[Rifleman Harris]

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.

[Trevs Big Tackle]

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.

[Skippy]

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.

[Lwasp]

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/

[Sting]

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!!?

[Trevs Big Tackle]

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.

[Raggs]

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.

[Garuda]

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.

[Rifleman Harris]

That's the gist of many responses.

[W2APS]

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