Exeter Chiefs Headdress

First topic message reminder :

From The Guardian yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/12/wasps-ask-premiership-to-consider-ban-on-exeter-chiefs-headdresses

Wasps want to ban Exeter Chiefs fans from wearing native American style headdress to games as they believe that it may "cause offence".

I can understand Exeter's reluctance to give up on the Chiefs name but has the "Red Indian" imagery had it's time?

Would they be better to keep the Chiefs name but change the imagery, for example they could use a Saxon/Celtic warrior design to reflect the "Chief of the tribe" without using (appropriating?) native American images.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

The idea that we are more easily offended these days always seems odd to me. (Sorry to quote your words, Geordie. I have a lot of time for you, it's just that your post was there).

In my lifetime, it was illegal to be homosexual in Britain, and there were parts of the US which outlawed marriage between a man and a woman of different races. A huge number of people could be counted on take offence if you were gay, or married outside your race. If a woman had a child out of wedlock, or a couple got divorced, then the social stigma used to be immense. "Offended" doesn't really capture how disgusted people felt.

Men who grew their hair long used to risk being beaten up in the street. Mary Whitehouse was offended by swearing, the BBC, Doctor Who, and Brookside on Channel 4. She was taken extremely seriously by politicians and broadcasters. Today, "Monty Python's Life of Brian" is regarded as one of the greatest comedy films ever made. At the time, some local councils banned it from being shown in cinemas, and leading religious figures and intellectuals made public attacks on the filmakers.

I certainly don't recall people being any slower to take offence than they are today.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

The idea that we are more easily offended these days always seems odd to me. (Sorry to quote your words, Geordie. I have a lot of time for you, it's just that your post was there).

You are right, its just more visible these days due to social media. For better AND worse...

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

The idea that we are more easily offended these days always seems odd to me. (Sorry to quote your words, Geordie. I have a lot of time for you, it's just that your post was there).

You are right, its just more visible these days due to social media. For better AND worse...

Honestly, ive got pals who go aff the heed at all the "outrage" they read about online. I tell them just to turn off social media because in real life no-one is outraged, at most they are just peeved.

LordDowlais wrote: The red hand of Ulster has a very chequered history, a lot can be derived from it, half the world could be offended by the history of the red hand if they "chose" to.

"Half the world" I know we Irish get about a bit but I don't think we've upset half the world with the Red Hand of Ulster ! Would you care to elaborate please?

Tramptastic wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

The idea that we are more easily offended these days always seems odd to me. (Sorry to quote your words, Geordie. I have a lot of time for you, it's just that your post was there).

You are right, its just more visible these days due to social media. For better AND worse...

Honestly, ive got pals who go aff the heed at all the "outrage" they read about online. I tell them just to turn off social media because in real life no-one is outraged, at most they are just peeved.

Oh, I think you'll find there have been plenty outraged about such cultural appropriations.

That's why wiser organisations have listened to the real outrage and made changes.

PhilBB wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

The idea that we are more easily offended these days always seems odd to me. (Sorry to quote your words, Geordie. I have a lot of time for you, it's just that your post was there).

You are right, its just more visible these days due to social media. For better AND worse...

Honestly, ive got pals who go aff the heed at all the "outrage" they read about online. I tell them just to turn off social media because in real life no-one is outraged, at most they are just peeved.

Oh, I think you'll find there have been plenty outraged about such cultural appropriations.

That's why wiser organisations have listened to the real outrage and made changes.

Apologies, didnt mean to minimise groups who are genuinely affected by these issues. What i'm talking about is your average punter which makes up the vast majority of people i.e. your pals at the rugby club. Its very rarely that peoples online persona is the same as their Real Life persona, as such people are far less vitriolic/outraged/angry/abusive/derogatory/dismissive in real life. So when i see people complain about outrage i'll often ask them who in their social circle is outraged at them? Often as not its just people online that they don't know. Strangers shouting on the internet...

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: The red hand of Ulster has a very chequered history, a lot can be derived from it, half the world could be offended by the history of the red hand if they "chose" to.

"Half the world" I know we Irish get about a bit but I don't think we've upset half the world with the Red Hand of Ulster ! Would you care to elaborate please?

See, the very tone of Irish Londoner's post here sums it all up for me. If you can get passed the insults that get thrown at you for having a point of view on this, then a decent debate can be had.

If you look on the world wide web and search the history of the red hand of ulster there is a lot to learn. Here is just a snippet:-

Those involved in the bardic dispute of 1689 claimed that the Red Hand symbol came from a legendary ancestor who put his bloodstained hand on a banner after victory in battle: Diarmaid Mac an Bhaird claimed that Conall Cernach (a mythical Ulaid hero from the Ulster Cycle) put his bloodied hand on a banner as he avenged the death of Cú Chulainn (another mythical Ulaid hero), and it has belonged to the descendants of Conall since then.[16] This he says is backed up by medieval texts such as the Scéla Mucce Meie Da Thó ("The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig"), the Leabhar Ultach (also known as the Senchas Ulad and Senchas Síl Ír), and Ó hÚigínn's poem beginning Lámh Éireann í Eachach.[16] Eoghan Ó Donnghaile, basing his tale on the Lebor Gabála Érenn, claimed that after the Milesians defeated the Tuatha Dé Danann, they are granted three precious objects, amongst them a banner bearing the red hand.[16] This banner eventually ended up without contest in the hands of the descendants of Míl's son Érimón, from whom Conn of the Hundred Battles and thus the O'Neills are said to descend.[16] The surviving texts of the Lebor Gabála Érenn mention four treasures but not a banner.[16] Niall Mac Muireadhaigh claimed that when the Three Collas defeated the Ulaid, that one of the Collas placed their bloodied hand on a banner taken from them.[16] He then states the Clann Domhnaill have used the symbol within his own time, and accepts the poem Lámh Éireann í Eachach.[16] However, according to historian Gordon Ó Riain, Mac Muireadhaigh has mistaken the í Eachach element to mean the descendants of Echu Doimlén, father of the Collas, when in fact it is in reference to Echu Coba, legendary ancestor of the Magennises.[16] Historian Francis J. Bigger notes the use of a right hand by the O'Neills around 1335, and surmises that it may have been for them a symbol signifying divine assistance and strength, whilst also suggesting that the ancient Phoenicians may have brought the symbol to Ireland.[20] In medieval Irish literature, several real and legendary kings were given the byname 'red hand' or 'red handed' to signify that they were great warriors.[21] One is the mythical High King of Ireland, Lugaid Lámderg (Lugaid the red handed), who, according to Eugene O'Curry, is cited in one Irish legend as being king of the Cruthin of Ulaid during the reign of the mythical Conchobar Mac Nessa.[22][23] The O'Neills believed in the Middle Ages that a messianic 'red handed' king called Aodh Eangach would come to lead them and drive the English out of Ireland.[21] In a 1901 edition of the All Ireland Review, a writer called "M.M." suggests that the Red Hand is named after the founder of the Clanna Rudraige, Rudraige mac Sithrigi,[24] and that Rudraige's name may mean "red wrist".[24] In another edition a "Y.M." suggests likewise, arguing that Rudraige's name means "red arm".[25] They also suggest that the Cróeb Ruad (Red Branch) of ancient Ulaid may actually come from crob and ruadh (red hand).[25] In another legend which has become widespread, the first man to lay his hand on the province of Ulster would have claim to it.[26] As a result the warriors rushed towards land with one chopping off his hand and throwing it over his comrades and thus winning the land.[26] In some versions of the tale, the person who cuts off his hand belongs to the O'Neills, or is Niall of the Nine Hostages himself.[citation needed] In other versions, the person is the mythical Érimón.[27] wrote:

,


So there is a lot to find offensive in that, if you chose to. The red hand could be offensive to pacifists or staunch right wing religious types. The English could chose to be offended by it. You see where we are going with this ?


The thing is, if Irish Londoner is all for Exeter rebranding because it causes offence to other cultures, then he has got to take on board how the red hand of Ulster could also in equal effect be the same.

I am only using the Ulster logo as an example, there are many others, but can you see how this could go ?

No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

LordDowlais wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: The red hand of Ulster has a very chequered history, a lot can be derived from it, half the world could be offended by the history of the red hand if they "chose" to.

"Half the world" I know we Irish get about a bit but I don't think we've upset half the world with the Red Hand of Ulster ! Would you care to elaborate please?

See, the very tone of Irish Londoner's post here sums it all up for me. If you can get passed the insults that get thrown at you for having a point of view on this, then a decent debate can be had.

If you look on the world wide web and search the history of the red hand of ulster there is a lot to learn. Here is just a snippet:-

Those involved in the bardic dispute of 1689 claimed that the Red Hand symbol came from a legendary ancestor who put his bloodstained hand on a banner after victory in battle:  Diarmaid Mac an Bhaird claimed that Conall Cernach (a mythical Ulaid hero from the Ulster Cycle) put his bloodied hand on a banner as he avenged the death of Cú Chulainn (another mythical Ulaid hero), and it has belonged to the descendants of Conall since then.[16] This he says is backed up by medieval texts such as the Scéla Mucce Meie Da Thó ("The Tale of Mac Da Thó's Pig"), the Leabhar Ultach (also known as the Senchas Ulad and Senchas Síl Ír), and Ó hÚigínn's poem beginning Lámh Éireann í Eachach.[16] Eoghan Ó Donnghaile, basing his tale on the Lebor Gabála Érenn, claimed that after the Milesians defeated the Tuatha Dé Danann, they are granted three precious objects, amongst them a banner bearing the red hand.[16] This banner eventually ended up without contest in the hands of the descendants of Míl's son Érimón, from whom Conn of the Hundred Battles and thus the O'Neills are said to descend.[16] The surviving texts of the Lebor Gabála Érenn mention four treasures but not a banner.[16] Niall Mac Muireadhaigh claimed that when the Three Collas defeated the Ulaid, that one of the Collas placed their bloodied hand on a banner taken from them.[16] He then states the Clann Domhnaill have used the symbol within his own time, and accepts the poem Lámh Éireann í Eachach.[16] However, according to historian Gordon Ó Riain, Mac Muireadhaigh has mistaken the í Eachach element to mean the descendants of Echu Doimlén, father of the Collas, when in fact it is in reference to Echu Coba, legendary ancestor of the Magennises.[16] Historian Francis J. Bigger notes the use of a right hand by the O'Neills around 1335, and surmises that it may have been for them a symbol signifying divine assistance and strength, whilst also suggesting that the ancient Phoenicians may have brought the symbol to Ireland.[20]  In medieval Irish literature, several real and legendary kings were given the byname 'red hand' or 'red handed' to signify that they were great warriors.[21] One is the mythical High King of Ireland, Lugaid Lámderg (Lugaid the red handed), who, according to Eugene O'Curry, is cited in one Irish legend as being king of the Cruthin of Ulaid during the reign of the mythical Conchobar Mac Nessa.[22][23] The O'Neills believed in the Middle Ages that a messianic 'red handed' king called Aodh Eangach would come to lead them and drive the English out of Ireland.[21] In a 1901 edition of the All Ireland Review, a writer called "M.M." suggests that the Red Hand is named after the founder of the Clanna Rudraige, Rudraige mac Sithrigi,[24] and that Rudraige's name may mean "red wrist".[24] In another edition a "Y.M." suggests likewise, arguing that Rudraige's name means "red arm".[25] They also suggest that the Cróeb Ruad (Red Branch) of ancient Ulaid may actually come from crob and ruadh (red hand).[25]  In another legend which has become widespread, the first man to lay his hand on the province of Ulster would have claim to it.[26] As a result the warriors rushed towards land with one chopping off his hand and throwing it over his comrades and thus winning the land.[26] In some versions of the tale, the person who cuts off his hand belongs to the O'Neills, or is Niall of the Nine Hostages himself.[citation needed] In other versions, the person is the mythical Érimón.[27] wrote:

,


So there is a lot to find offensive in that, if you chose to. The red hand could be offensive to pacifists or staunch right wing religious types. The English could chose to be offended by it. You see where we are going with this ?


The thing is, if Irish Londoner is all for Exeter rebranding because it causes offence to other cultures, then he has got to take on board how the red hand of Ulster could also in equal effect be the same.

I am only using the Ulster logo as an example, there are many others, but can you see how this could go ?

Go on then who is going to find a medieval myth offensive, especially when that myth is tied up with the "origin history" of the people of Ulster itself? The people of Ulster identify with the Red Hand as the symbol of our province, in fact you've got this backwards, in this instance Ulster people are the native Americans - this is our "tribal symbol" and we'd be very unhappy if someone from outside our tribe appropriated it for their own use and especially for commercial gain.
If Harlequins decided to rebrand themselves as "The London Red Hands" and took the Ulster symbol as their crest, we'd be very unhappy about it as it's an important and historical part of our history and culture, just as native Americans are not happy with a team with no historic, cultural or social links to them have adopted their symbolism and culture - and even worse have adopted the "Hollywood" western film version of that culture with the "Tomahawk Chop" tune.

Irish Londoner wrote:Go on then who is going to find a medieval myth offensive, especially when that myth is tied up with the "origin history" of the people of Ulster itself? The people of Ulster identify with the Red Hand as the symbol of our province, in fact you've got this backwards, in this instance Ulster people are the native Americans - this is our "tribal symbol" and we'd be very unhappy if someone from outside our tribe appropriated it for their own use and especially for commercial gain.
If Harlequins decided to rebrand themselves as "The London Red Hands" and took the Ulster symbol as their crest, we'd be very unhappy about it as it's an important and historical part of our history and culture, just as native Americans are not happy with a team with no historic, cultural or social links to them have adopted their symbolism and culture - and even worse have adopted the "Hollywood" western film version of that culture with the "Tomahawk Chop" tune.

Again, you are proving my point. You are staunchly protesting for one thing, and as soon as somebody points something else out that "could" be offensive, you shout them down.

What if the religious community found it offensive because it represented in times gone by of worshiping a deity ?

What if people found it offensive because it represented bloodshed and war, which in these times is a touchy subject ?

What if people started saying it is about time you came to the future and put the barbaric past of the red hand behind you ?

You would do what you are doing in your reply and tell me I am wrong, and that I am being obsurd, but it is not a million miles away from what you want to change with Exeter.

What about, what about, what about. Still hasn't read the background though.

My word lord. Please put the shovel down. You can stop digging the hole is big enough.

carpet baboon wrote:My word lord. Please put the shovel down. You can stop digging the hole is big enough.

It's an amazing insight into his thinking ability, isn't it?

"It's not racist cos loads of people don't care about it"
"If you're moaning about this, let's create some straw man whatabouttery so that I can prove you live in the same moral gutter I inhabit".

It's up there with "I can see red and green, so why should they change Jerseys to appeal to the tiny number of people who have a problem differentiating those colours?"

I'm alright, Jack, so screw anybody who isn't.

And sill no comment from the Washington education he hasn't given himself.

See and here we go, you can only see it from your own point of view so now you are all shouting me down and telling me I am digging myself a hole and making things up.

Phil your response is just embarrassing, you total lack of empathy to anything outside your thought process is astonishing.

I am not allowed to report posts anymore because telling me I live in a moral gutter is to be quite frank very offensive, so I hope that comment will be edited.

You're refusing to actual read the accounts of Native Americans on this very issue so you can a least discuss it from an informed position and are instead spouting right wing lines of where will it end. It's a good topic of discussion which in the end will be locked simply because of stupid examples based on ignorance of the subject.

And just to be clear, I have said it on here once, and I will say it again, it makes no difference to me if Exeter change their logo. I just think there are more things to get irate about than a sports logo.

And there are more important things than rugby so you will obviously stop watching it and take to the streets to protest climate change.

The game is scheduled for tomorrow; I haven't actually seen any response yet from the RFU bar the old one of encouraging clubs to educate supporters around acts that are potentially deemed offensive/racist etc. Bit of a lack of leadership there.

LordDowlais wrote:
Again, you are proving my point. You are staunchly protesting for one thing, and as soon as somebody points something else out that "could" be offensive, you shout them down.

What if the religious community found it offensive because it represented in times gone by of worshiping a deity ?

What if people found it offensive because it represented bloodshed and war, which in these times is a touchy subject ?

What if people started saying it is about time you came to the future and put the barbaric past of the red hand behind you ?

You would do what you are doing in your reply and tell me I am wrong, and that I am being obsurd, but it is not a million miles away from what you want to change with Exeter.

I know I shouldn't keep engaging about this, but just for the hell of it

If your mysterious "somebody" approaches Ulster Rugby, Ulster GAA, Tyrone GAA or even Tyrone County Council, to say that they and their community find the Red Hand offensive for whatever reason, then they'll get a hearing, however none of the points you've raised have anything to do with the objections raised by native Americans to the appropriation of their cultural symbolism by a rugby team from England who have no cultural, social or historical links to them. The native Americans are not saying that Exeter using their imagery is offensive because of religious reasons, bloodshed, war, barbarism, etc. they are saying it is offensive because it's not theirs to "play with".

As I've posted already in your analogy the people of Ulster are actually the native Americans protecting the symbol of our history and culture, not the Exeter Chiefs trying to defend the bastardised use of a cultural symbol that they have no claim to.

Hands LD the shovel....your move.

PhilBB wrote:

profitius wrote:Can anyone explain why it's offensive? What do the Indians find offensive about it?

Seriously?

Cultural appropriation???

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/18/sport/indigenous-culture-in-global-sport-cmd-spt-intl/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/washington-football-fans-are-as-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-as-rachel-dolezal/2015/06/19/48e20216-1688-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-redskins-change-years-backlash/story?id=71744369

https://youtu.be/-cVhcN8hQd8

"The whole country is a melting pot of cultural appropriation!" Joe Rogan

I and others have been monitoring this thread and on the whole it hasn’t needed to have action on it. There have been a few reports, which have been dealt with. So as such, I will leave the topic open.

Let’s just keep the discussion to the matter at hand. The clue is in the title of the thread. People are entitled to have opposing opinions, but it’s key to not be so dismissive of others, no matter how blinkered or wrong they may appear.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

Oh I'm talking about the specific comments from a Native American on the Exeter situation not any wider point about Washington. And I'd fully accept that groups of people who are tied together by whatever (be it race, sexuality, accident of birth) are rarely going to have the same view across the board. As with everything, one group of people will differ from another and their makeup will be varied. Link doesn't work btw.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

Oh I'm talking about the specific comments from a Native American on the Exeter situation not any wider point about Washington. And I'd fully accept that groups of people who are tied together by whatever (be it race, sexuality, accident of birth) are rarely going to have the same view across the board. As with everything, one group of people will differ from another and their makeup will be varied. Link doesn't work btw.

Well that's even worse then as it's only one person. I think we get a bit caught up when a mainstream outlet quotes one person and makes it a big story. Lets face it the majority of people don't have the time to actually care about these sorts of things.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

Oh I'm talking about the specific comments from a Native American on the Exeter situation not any wider point about Washington. And I'd fully accept that groups of people who are tied together by whatever (be it race, sexuality, accident of birth) are rarely going to have the same view across the board. As with everything, one group of people will differ from another and their makeup will be varied. Link doesn't work btw.

Well that's even worse then as it's only one person. I think we get a bit caught up when a mainstream outlet quotes one person and makes it a big story. Lets face it the majority of people don't have the time to actually care about these sorts of things.

Like I've said throughout this, some will care some won't and to varying degrees. My point of view is that it's an issue which will rumble on as long as Exeter keep it. That leads to bad PR, questions and pestering of guys like Baxter which are probably distracting for him and the team, general bad feeling. I think whoever leads their PR team are either idiots or are simply being ignored. Opportunity to change things, sell new merch, make a bit of money and have a better reputation. My point re the short srticle was that people acknowledge they don't know the ins and outs and hence come from a POV of ignorance of perceived issues. It just leads to silly examples of well the RFU will ban Northampton from being called the Saints; detracts from the point in my view.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

Oh I'm talking about the specific comments from a Native American on the Exeter situation not any wider point about Washington. And I'd fully accept that groups of people who are tied together by whatever (be it race, sexuality, accident of birth) are rarely going to have the same view across the board. As with everything, one group of people will differ from another and their makeup will be varied. Link doesn't work btw.

Well that's even worse then as it's only one person. I think we get a bit caught up when a mainstream outlet quotes one person and makes it a big story. Lets face it the majority of people don't have the time to actually care about these sorts of things.

Like I've said throughout this, some will care some won't and to varying degrees. My point of view is that it's an issue which will rumble on as long as Exeter keep it. That leads to bad PR, questions and pestering of guys like Baxter which are probably distracting for him and the team, general bad feeling. I think whoever leads their PR team are either idiots or are simply being ignored. Opportunity to change things, sell new merch, make a bit of money and have a better reputation. My point re the short srticle was that people acknowledge they don't know the ins and outs and hence come from a POV of ignorance of perceived issues. It just leads to silly examples of well the RFU will ban Northampton from being called the Saints; detracts from the point in my view.

It can cost millions to rebrand and the season has already started, so people have already bought the new Jersey etc, no way are they making money out of that.

We are all ignorant please don't presume you know more than others just because you go along with a narrative peddled by the mainstream media, who let's face it don't actually give a damn about native Americans or anyone else for that matter.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. You haven't read the comments from the Native Americans on this point and are now on a whataboutary tour. Would you like to see the Robinson's mascot back on jars?

The great thing about polls and stats is you can basically use them to say exactly what you want them to say. For instance here's another poll done by the Washington post where ""Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html.

Now I've no idea whose correct, this is just for balance of argument.

Oh I'm talking about the specific comments from a Native American on the Exeter situation not any wider point about Washington. And I'd fully accept that groups of people who are tied together by whatever (be it race, sexuality, accident of birth) are rarely going to have the same view across the board. As with everything, one group of people will differ from another and their makeup will be varied. Link doesn't work btw.

Well that's even worse then as it's only one person. I think we get a bit caught up when a mainstream outlet quotes one person and makes it a big story. Lets face it the majority of people don't have the time to actually care about these sorts of things.

Like I've said throughout this, some will care some won't and to varying degrees. My point of view is that it's an issue which will rumble on as long as Exeter keep it. That leads to bad PR, questions and pestering of guys like Baxter which are probably distracting for him and the team, general bad feeling. I think whoever leads their PR team are either idiots or are simply being ignored. Opportunity to change things, sell new merch, make a bit of money and have a better reputation. My point re the short srticle was that people acknowledge they don't know the ins and outs and hence come from a POV of ignorance of perceived issues. It just leads to silly examples of well the RFU will ban Northampton from being called the Saints; detracts from the point in my view.

It can cost millions to rebrand and the season has already started, so people have already bought the new Jersey etc, no way are they making money out of that.

We are all ignorant please don't presume you know more than others just because you go along with a narrative peddled by the mainstream media, who let's face it don't actually give a damn about native Americans or anyone else for that matter.

Depends how long it rumbles on for, what view sponsors get, how much grief they get. There's opportunity here.

I'm not ignorant on the original complaints on Exeter, I've read around the situation so can safely say I do know more than some of the others here (specifically LD in this case, who appears to wear that as a badge of honour); you have a point though that it's important to keep up to date. As to a narrative peddled by the mainstream media...well there's not much I can add to that, mainstream media is obviously such a broad thing covering such a wide range of views, backgrounds etc that I don't really know how to respond apart from it's not really much to do with the topic.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/15/exeter-tony-rowe-were-not-trying-to-belittle-the-image-or-ancestry-of-anyone

Worth a read as well from Rowe's pov. It's a bit like bingo for those looking to tick off the points. Love the fact he's a history lover and the quote '“People want to try and change history. It’s like when they pulled down the statue in Bristol. You can’t paint over history and pretend it didn’t happen.”' Colour me surprised!

His view on change is when the members tell him to by the looks of it.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:...It can cost millions to rebrand...

Rebranding costs rise when you have to do it hurriedly, rather than to your own timetable. Exeter were naive, believing they were still everyone's second-favourite side, and regarded as plucky underdogs, who would be given the benefit of the doubt,

That is a status they once had, but life changed quite quickly, and not through any fault of their own. Once Saracens were relegated, Exeter became the Premiership target. While Sam Simmonds was celebrated, few loved their clinical finishing when they got near an opponents's goal line. Bristol seemed more attractive, and then Harlequins blew everyone away. Exeter went from plucky underdogs to old guard in the blink of an eye. Supporters of plucky underdogs might get cut some slack. Not so with top dogs.

On top of that - and this may rub some up the wrong way - Exeter were vocal opponents of COVID testing, and, at least in Henry Slade, had a publicly anti-vaccine stance. Unfortunately for the team, a lot of people who agree with that position, have turned the matter into a culture war flashpoint.

Exeter are no longer plucky underdogs with slightly unfortunate, but not intentionally offensive branding. Now, they come across as stubborn, and borderline beligerent. That's not the kind of corporate image which attracts, and keeps sponsors.

It's not as if the whole issue was playing out in a vacuum. US teams were walking away from their Native American branding, and rugby had the example of the Crusaders to learn from.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/15/exeter-tony-rowe-were-not-trying-to-belittle-the-image-or-ancestry-of-anyone


Interview on the subject with Exeter Chairman Tony Rowe.


He seems confident in is fan base, but I am not so sure.

BigGee wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/15/exeter-tony-rowe-were-not-trying-to-belittle-the-image-or-ancestry-of-anyone


Interview on the subject with Exeter Chairman Tony Rowe.


He seems confident in is fan base, but I am not so sure.

Great interview. Could have sworn I'd read that somewhere before.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/15/exeter-tony-rowe-were-not-trying-to-belittle-the-image-or-ancestry-of-anyone


Interview on the subject with Exeter Chairman Tony Rowe.


He seems confident in is fan base, but I am not so sure.

Great interview. Could have sworn I'd read that somewhere before.

Opps, sorry, i completely missed that. That's the problem when you are looking at things at work!

I see they are looking to ban the Newcastle fans from wearing tea towels on their heads now....

The Ulster comparison is, of course, totally spurious.

The Red Hand is part of our history.
It would cultural appropriation by Ulster from Ulster.
We would be offending ourselves

Plenty of good old tomhawk chops going on in the wold series. Insensitive or giving support to a small culture.

Having lived near an Indian reservation and had many friends from there most couldn't care less and thought it great that they had an NFL and Baseball team named after them.

The thing that upset them the most was the name many call a female Indian.

Here comes the full court press;

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/59247839

Again it come back to where does this stop.  Is Tigers, a symbol of Brittish Impearlism over India a step to far or will that be offensive to some person from where Tigers live.

If we remove everything sports related that is not culturally appropriate we will be changing lots of names.

I suppose the simple solution is Chiefs get rid of the head-dresses and chops and replace them with runners in Blue paint and not much else sent to the field at every stoppage and the fans can chant obscene things at the opposition how they are going to kill them in battle.  Won't be offensive because it will be cultural.

The woke logic can be used in loads of places, it doesn't end. It offends some. The concept of intent is missing though as society recently has accepted "offense taken" as being greater than "offense given". And I can always claim i've taken offense even though I rarely deliberately try to give offense. Is Notre Dame trying to offend Irish people by claiming we fight and look like leprechauns, easy to take offense there but is their intent to give offense or are they celebrating our (drunken) fighting spirit?
Wait for it to hit food. You can't eat that, that's my cuisine, that's my culture.... I'm offended. At it's very core it comes across to me as divisive rather than inclusive.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/25/exeter-chiefs-to-ditch-native-american-branding-after-consulting-fans

Inevitable really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/25/exeter-chiefs-to-ditch-native-american-branding-after-consulting-fans

Inevitable really.

Expect the rebranding shortly after the black Friday and Christmas sales...

The world is a wonderfully incosistent place.
Renamed - Washington Redskins (absolutely had to, especially given their questionable history as the last NFL team to employ a black player and then doing so only under duress)
Exeter Chiefs (poorly judged case of cultural appropriation, given no particular links to the US).

The question of where you draw the line is interesting:
I think arguing that Saints or Tigers is offensive is taking it too far, but Saracens?
Do the Minnesota Vikings have to contemplate a name change if Norway or Sweden raise the issue?
Leyton Orient?

Not (yet?) renamed:
Atlanta Braves
Kansas City Chiefs
Golden State Warriors (marginal - imagery has little if anything to do with native Americans)
Chicago Blackhawks (and check out their logo)

Surely no one group can claim to own the ‘warrior’ term as part of their history or culture? Everyone had warriors in their history. Therefore, ‘Warriors’ should be fine for any team around the world, right? Unless it’s prefixed with something relating to native Americans such as Tomahawk Warriors, or similar. And therein lies the issue I think, and it’s a good discussion point.

Warriors on its own is fine. We can all claim to have warriors in our history and culture. But Tomahawk Warriors would be offensive to native Americans so we can’t ‘borrow’ that, according to some. Celtic Warriors? Surely only Celtic nations can adopt that? But would anyone actually raise an objection to it in reality? And if they don’t does that make it fine for, say, an American team to be called Celtic Warriors or Celtic Marauders, or similar? I ‘feel’ Celtic being Welsh and have a genuine interest in it and read up a lot about Celtic history and legends. But I would love another nation to adopt a Celtic warriors name! In fact, they’d probably then become my team in something like NFL because I’d then have something to link me to them. Rather than supporting Chicago Bears as I do just because of The Fridge and Walter Payton back in the day! So I’m fine with it. Does that mean it’s ok? Does it just take one person (another 606 poster for example) to have an issue with it and then no one can use it? Who decides? How many offended do you need? How can we be consistent and apply things equally?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

Probably time to disconnect from most from the social media....

The ancient Greeks complained about the absolutism of youth. This isn’t anything new.

The Oracle wrote:Warriors on its own is fine. We can all claim to have warriors in our history and culture. But Tomahawk Warriors would be offensive to native Americans so we can’t ‘borrow’ that, according to some. Celtic Warriors? Surely only Celtic nations can adopt that? But would anyone actually raise an objection to it in reality? And if they don’t does that make it fine for, say, an American team to be called Celtic Warriors or Celtic Marauders, or similar? I ‘feel’ Celtic being Welsh and have a genuine interest in it and read up a lot about Celtic history and legends. But I would love another nation to adopt a Celtic warriors name! In fact, they’d probably then become my team in something like NFL because I’d then have something to link me to them. Rather than supporting Chicago Bears as I do just because of The Fridge and Walter Payton back in the day! So I’m fine with it. Does that mean it’s ok? Does it just take one person (another 606 poster for example) to have an issue with it and then no one can use it? Who decides? How many offended do you need? How can we be consistent and apply things equally?

You do know that there is no such thing as a Celtic race don't you ?

The word Celt was used by the Romans to brandish northern European tribes, it was a derogatory term used to describe Britons, Picts, Jutes, Welsh ect.... it was what the Romans used, it was a term to describe the people as barbaric and uncultured, wild people.

As time moved on, in modern terms people then adopted the word Celt/Celtic as a generalising term/description for the people of ancient of Britain and Northern Europe.

Just some, info for you, so perhaps, yes, people could see the name Celtic or Celt as being offensive, especially if they know the origins of it.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Warriors on its own is fine. We can all claim to have warriors in our history and culture. But Tomahawk Warriors would be offensive to native Americans so we can’t ‘borrow’ that, according to some. Celtic Warriors? Surely only Celtic nations can adopt that? But would anyone actually raise an objection to it in reality? And if they don’t does that make it fine for, say, an American team to be called Celtic Warriors or Celtic Marauders, or similar? I ‘feel’ Celtic being Welsh and have a genuine interest in it and read up a lot about Celtic history and legends. But I would love another nation to adopt a Celtic warriors name! In fact, they’d probably then become my team in something like NFL because I’d then have something to link me to them. Rather than supporting Chicago Bears as I do just because of The Fridge and Walter Payton back in the day! So I’m fine with it. Does that mean it’s ok? Does it just take one person (another 606 poster for example) to have an issue with it and then no one can use it? Who decides? How many offended do you need? How can we be consistent and apply things equally?

You do know that there is no such thing as a Celtic race don't you ?

The word Celt was used by the Romans to brandish northern European tribes, it was a derogatory term used to describe Britons, Picts, Jutes, Welsh ect.... it was what the Romans used, it was a term to describe the people as barbaric and uncultured, wild people.

As time moved on, in modern terms people then adopted the word Celt/Celtic as a generalising term/description for the people of ancient of Britain and Northern Europe.

Just some, info for you, so perhaps, yes, people could see the name Celtic or Celt as being offensive, especially if they know the origins of it.

Yes obviously Celts are not a race. Where did I say they are? It would be like saying English is a race. Absurd.

I guess my question to you LD would be this: if an NFL team decided to rebrand as Celtic Warriors would you complain and protest about it to the point of stopping them from using that branding? Would your mates ‘up the club’ do the same also?

I don't know many people who walk around defining themselves as Celtic warriors! Surely they're just doing their branding now, thinking of another catchy tune to play prior to kick off and jobs done. I'm still surprised they didn't step back from this and say you know you're right, by x date we'll unveil the new design, get ready to buy it for Christmas and just avoid any bad publicity.

There does seem to be some fragile egos around when it comes to things like this. Full denial mode initiated instead of having a moment of reflection to understand and consider whether you've actually thought about impacts (unintended most of the time).

The Oracle wrote:Surely no one group can claim to own the ‘warrior’ term as part of their history or culture? Everyone had warriors in their history. Therefore, ‘Warriors’ should be fine for any team around the world, right? Unless it’s prefixed with something relating to native Americans such as Tomahawk Warriors, or similar. And therein lies the issue I think, and it’s a good discussion point.

Warriors on its own is fine. We can all claim to have warriors in our history and culture. But Tomahawk Warriors would be offensive to native Americans so we can’t ‘borrow’ that, according to some. Celtic Warriors? Surely only Celtic nations can adopt that? But would anyone actually raise an objection to it in reality? And if they don’t does that make it fine for, say, an American team to be called Celtic Warriors or Celtic Marauders, or similar? I ‘feel’ Celtic being Welsh and have a genuine interest in it and read up a lot about Celtic history and legends. But I would love another nation to adopt a Celtic warriors name! In fact, they’d probably then become my team in something like NFL because I’d then have something to link me to them. Rather than supporting Chicago Bears as I do just because of The Fridge and Walter Payton back in the day! So I’m fine with it. Does that mean it’s ok? Does it just take one person (another 606 poster for example) to have an issue with it and then no one can use it? Who decides? How many offended do you need? How can we be consistent and apply things equally?

No that you reminded me, there is a south African team named Bloemfontein Celtic.


As mad as all this seems, just follow the money. There are hundreds or thousands of NGOs set up to milk these kind of things. Even outrage is turned to profit these days.

Never.

On another note have you heard the Wokerati are trying to cancel Christmas again this year?

There is a football team in Prague called Bohemians who have a Kangeroo as there club crest.

Australians, and especially kangaroos, are deeply offended