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

[InBetweenWasp]

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?

[matelot22]

Bravo sir!!

[Willie]

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 and LINK

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.

[Willie]

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’.

[Neils]

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.

[WonkyWasp]

So Sting is also personna non grata too??

[Mellie]

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.

[Neils]

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.

[Willie]

So Sting is also personna non grata too??

Sorry, I should have said "all Indian mascots'. People and animals / insects, very different matters. 

[WonkyWasp]

Should I now take umbrage at the use of the 7th word??  And would Chris Packham take exception to excluding 'animals/insects'?  Ouch .

[Vespula Vulgaris]

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?

[Heathen]

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.

[Raggs]

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.

[matelot22]

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.....

[Neils]

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.