Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery

[Paddington Bear]

- They can keep the name, just some of the imagery needs to go
- We probably all grew up with cowboys & indians still being something that was mainstream and cool. Things have moved on
- I don't think anyone meant any offence when Exeter fans started dressing in the headgear and doing the chant. It was pretty mainstream and any Brit can be forgiven for not following the American racial debate, particularly involving an ethnicity that barely exists in Britain.
- Most rugby fans are now aware of this debate and clearly Native Americans find this offensive. It is hard to plead ignorance and those digging their heels in are being silly
- I've been regularly very critical of rugby's attempts to break America, but clearly the Prem is trying and there's no way in hell they could send Exeter over there at the moment.
- Sandy Park will still have a raucous atmosphere if people stop doing the 'war cry' chant

[Glaston]

I've been at Sandy Park when Wasps fans dressed up as Chefs.

They had a Chef chant as well.

[Tichtheid]

- They can keep the name, just some of the imagery needs to go
- We probably all grew up with cowboys & indians still being something that was mainstream and cool. Things have moved on
- I don't think anyone meant any offence when Exeter fans started dressing in the headgear and doing the chant. It was pretty mainstream and any Brit can be forgiven for not following the American racial debate, particularly involving an ethnicity that barely exists in Britain.
- Most rugby fans are now aware of this debate and clearly Native Americans find this offensive. It is hard to plead ignorance and those digging their heels in are being silly
- I've been regularly very critical of rugby's attempts to break America, but clearly the Prem is trying and there's no way in hell they could send Exeter over there at the moment.
- Sandy Park will still have a raucous atmosphere if people stop doing the 'war cry' chant

I agree with all of that, particularly that no harm or offence was meant - you don't adopt iconography unless you think that it portrays your team in a positive way.

However, it's a mishmash of Hollywood "injun" stuff and it's cartoonish and silly at best.

[inactionman]

You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

Do I have to be Jewish to be offended by what happened at Auschwitz? (or from a Gypsy/Roma background or any of the persecuted groups who were murdered en-masse?)

Do I have to be of African descent to be appalled by the slavery that funded the British Empire and others?

Do I have to be homosexual to be upset that people are violently assaulted or face glass ceilings at work because of who they love?

Do I have to be a woman to think that we all lose when women are harassed and sexually objectified and assaulted?

Do I have to be scraping around in the mud to see that the resources in our Western society are unfairly distributed and that it's not down to merit?

You've missed the point.

The point I was addressing was the one where people were being shut down and disqualified from commenting on a subject because they aren't part of the group in question or unless they've personally stood up to violent thugs, "stay the fuck out" was the term used a few posts ago.

And, of course not. But what you don't get to do as a German, a descendant of the British Empire, a heterosexual male, a man or a 1st world inhabitant is to then dictate the terms of what does and doesn't constitute those offences to the victims themselves. And you certainly cannot be more offended than the victims themselves....... which is what some are trying to be supposedly on their behalves.

I've got Raggs' and Biffer's posts in mind here but I'll not quote them in order to keep this short.

The term "being offended on someone's behalf" is a smokescreen, it allows non-engagement with an argument and is used, again, to try to shut down a discussion. It doesn't actually say or mean anything of any significance or insight.

I can remember when The Black and White Minstrel Show was the flagship "light entertainment" programme at peak time on the BBC. I cannot imagine anyone trying to defend that now, other than "it was of its time", and that is true, times were different then, but change happens and now it is looked back on with "wtf were they thinking?"
I assume no one is going to defend Black Face today? Not outside of some sects of Morris dancers anyway, and that is an on-going discussion within that community.

I've noticed that no one is standing up for the iconography Exeter fans use, but rather there is opposition to those who are calling it out.

In reference to Raggs and Biffer, I think in medicine, science and technology there are huge leaps forward when something is discovered, in art and music leaps are taken by some artists, but societal change is slower - the B&W Minstrel show was cancelled in the mid to late 70s, but Jim Davidson was still mainstream some 20 years later.
At every step of the way progress has been opposed by conservatives and the arguments are often along the lines of "harmless fun" or "it's just the way things are" with the villains of the piece being the "politically correct" and now "The Woke" (shudder), again this allows for not actually engaging with the argument itself.

For me this can be summed up in a question, if black face is not acceptable, then why are the war bonnets, drumming and chanting ok?

I'll just preface my comment by stating that I think everyone has a duty of care to be respectful of others, otherwise we start on that slippery slope of dehumanising individuals, and infantilising a culture is insensitive at best.

I do think there is a difference in making a stage show which ultimately collectively ridicules people with certain skin colours, and one which uses features of a culture out of context. I think the challenge comes where people have been brutalised and denigrated and then have their culture caricatured by those who have done the brutalising. I'm not offended by the French calling English Rosbif, or if someone wants to go on a stag do wearing bowler hats, but I'm speaking from a position of relative privilege. By comparison, I can understand why the catholic population of NI are not overly thrilled with the marches and the bonfires. Many indigenous Americans have made clear they find things such as the Washington Redskins branding and pageantry offensive, which should give any tomahawk waving Exeter fan pause for thought.

Apologies to veer towards identity politics and all that intersectional stuff, but I just feel that making out-and-out bigotry equivalent to wearing items of clothing from a different culture isn't useful or - indeed - particularly accurate.

Please note my position is more to do with my revulsion at the casual racism, sexism and homophobia that seemed to infect my childhood - I do think many appropriations of culture are grossly insensitive but in my eyes these are a separate category. Caling Indians dirty (yes, that happened a lot in my childhood to Asian kids in my school) is particularly vicious. James Bond giving an Indian character some money to 'keep him in curries' is more silly than anything else. Calling Mexicans stupid and lazy (or whatever bigots in the US use as their trope of choice) and having stag dos wearing sombreros are not the same thing.

[Tichtheid]

Apologies to veer towards identity politics and all that intersectional stuff, but I just feel that making out-and-out bigotry equivalent to wearing items of clothing from a different culture isn't useful or - indeed - particularly accurate.

Back in the 60s and early 70s the B&W Minstrel show was peak viewing, a flagship show - it wasn't seen as offensive in mainstream culture, it was just harmless fun.

I think times change and in the future this stuff with Exeter and other sporting teams in the US will be looked back on and people will wonder why anyone thought it was ok. That's just my opinion, but it's the way things are going, and imo it's for the good.

There doesn't have to be a victim of a joke for it to be funny, there doesn't have to be a butt of anyone's good time.

This bit, "wearing items of clothing from a different culture" of course there is a difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation, I think this is a case of the former.

[inactionman]

Apologies to veer towards identity politics and all that intersectional stuff, but I just feel that making out-and-out bigotry equivalent to wearing items of clothing from a different culture isn't useful or - indeed - particularly accurate.

Back in the 60s and early 70s the B&W Minstrel show was peak viewing, a flagship show - it wasn't seen as offensive in mainstream culture, it was just harmless fun.

I think times change and in the future this stuff with Exeter and other sporting teams in the US will be looked back on and people will wonder why anyone thought it was ok. That's just my opinion, but it's the way things are going, and imo it's for the good.

There doesn't have to be a victim of a joke for it to be funny, there doesn't have to be a butt of anyone's good time.

This bit, "wearing items of clothing from a different culture" of course there is a difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation, I think this is a case of the former.

It's mad isn't it - but, as you note, that should really illustrate that we need to keep questioning what we're doing to make life better for everyone.

To reiterate just how wrongheaded some of our cultural norms have been, I still can't believe we drove Alan Turing to suicide simply because he was gay.

[Tichtheid]

It's mad isn't it - but, as you note, that should really illustrate that we need to keep questioning what we're doing to make life better for everyone.

Yes, exactly this!

To reiterate just how wrongheaded some of our cultural norms have been, I still can't believe we drove Alan Turing to suicide simply because he was gay.

Quite.

Section 28 was introduced in 1988 and repealed in Scotland in 2000 and in Eng&Wales in 2003 - to quote a part of the legislation from Wiki
a local authority "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

So it was brought in 34 years after Turing's death and repealed some fifty years after that event.

[Slick]

The issue for me is that there is no one size fits all argument for this, each scenario needs to be reviewed on its own merits and not through some mythical standard lens for what is offensive or not.

Exeter Chiefs, no issue with the name, but the chants and outfits are in my view parodying a culture which again in my view is not racist, but certainly disrespectful and Exeter should consider dropping them. The B+W minstrels on the other hand i think is not a parody, but actually mocks the behaviours and lifestyles of black people and therefore is racist, banned and rightly so.

I think that's an important point, there has to be a difference in people being overtly racist and people who are being disrespectful, possibly from ignorance. The problem is that there are people marching around shouting "racist" at everything, and that's not helpful. I'm sure in Exeter there were people wearing the outfits who stopped when they realised it was being disrespectful and I'm sure there are others that baulked at being targetted as racists, don't consider themselves as being so, and have stuck their heels in against the mob.

The B&W Minstrels is maybe a good example. When they were at their height the vast majority of people watching it would never have met a black man or have an idea about black culture or predominately black countries. It's no great surprise that as people did meet and learn more about the people they were laughing at it became less popular, but that takes time and haranguing them is not the solution.

[assfly]

I think that's an important point, there has to be a difference in people being overtly racist and people who are being disrespectful, possibly from ignorance.

This is the debate I'd like to see.

My aunt is an old "Rhodesian" and has certain views I disagree with. We don't talk about it much, but occasionally she let's a comment here and there slip. She would never say anything hurtful to someone's face and would never hurt anyone.

There are other people from her generation that are foul-mouthed and have disgusting views towards black Africans.

There is a big difference between the two.

[Paddington Bear]

Fwiw if Exeter changed their logo to an Ancient Briton chief I bet a lot of those turning up in the costume would stop fairly sharpish as it wouldn't make so much sense.

[Openside]

If I recall correctly the full war bonnets were earned and only some could wear them.

The UK equivalent would be pinning a Victoria Cross on your chest, after all, it's just a bit of fun, eh?

I was quite ambivalent before but now we're taking about stolen valour I'm all aboard the outrage train.

[Niegs]

Posting this here to see if it makes it through the Friday work day. Not a huge response but almost all replies and all quote tweets are against them.



Is Ugo Monye chair of diversity and inclusion? Several have tagged him in.

[Biffer]

I think Ugo has a position in that area but he seems to have a huge blind spot in this regard.

[Tichtheid]

There is a really good reply in there, it worth a read and it's worth clicking through on the links, particularly the bingo one

https://apihtawikosisan.com/hall-of-sha ... addresses/

[Biffer]

Wasps have responded to a request from a fan podcast with a statement that they do no tolerate any form of discrimination and will be reviewing their policies wrt Exeter fans wearing headdresses etc.

[Paddington Bear]

Wasps have responded to a request from a fan podcast with a statement that they do no tolerate any form of discrimination and will be reviewing their policies wrt Exeter fans wearing headdresses etc.

Can see this leading to Exeter really digging their heels in on this. Siege mentality

[Raggs]

Wasps have responded to a request from a fan podcast with a statement that they do no tolerate any form of discrimination and will be reviewing their policies wrt Exeter fans wearing headdresses etc.

Can see this leading to Exeter really digging their heels in on this. Siege mentality

If the other clubs join in with similar statements (i.e. just about non-committal enough to not doing anything, but signal that they'd do something if someone else did), the PRL may have to do something.

[Paddington Bear]

Wasps have responded to a request from a fan podcast with a statement that they do no tolerate any form of discrimination and will be reviewing their policies wrt Exeter fans wearing headdresses etc.

Can see this leading to Exeter really digging their heels in on this. Siege mentality

If the other clubs join in with similar statements (i.e. just about non-committal enough to not doing anything, but signal that they'd do something if someone else did), the PRL may have to do something.

Yeah I think it’s the only way this doesn’t get really ugly, clearly Exeter have no interest. This is bad, bad bad for rugby and plays to a lot of people’s views about rugby’s culture.


finding some of the debate online fascinating, in a number of different ways. Not of course anywhere near the same issue but the amount of references to ‘indigenous’ from English people to refer to Native Americans is a fascinating insight into just how dominant US culture is in this country.

[Raggs]

Can see this leading to Exeter really digging their heels in on this. Siege mentality

If the other clubs join in with similar statements (i.e. just about non-committal enough to not doing anything, but signal that they'd do something if someone else did), the PRL may have to do something.

Yeah I think it’s the only way this doesn’t get really ugly, clearly Exeter have no interest. This is bad, bad bad for rugby and plays to a lot of people’s views about rugby’s culture.


finding some of the debate online fascinating, in a number of different ways. Not of course anywhere near the same issue but the amount of references to ‘indigenous’ from English people to refer to Native Americans is a fascinating insight into just how dominant US culture is in this country.

I thought native Americans was frowned on a bit these days, it's hardly a massive effort on my part to use indigenous. I mean it's rather the point isn't it? If current US culture wasn't coming over here, there'd not be as much of a problem with Exeter's get up in the first place. If I'm right about the preferred term (I may not be), then it would seem an odd hill to die on if one is saying Exeter fans playing dress up is wrong, but by god I'll call them Native Americans if I want to, and damned their opinion about wanting to be called indigenous!

[Paddington Bear]

Hard to follow the US debate - my point is that calling Native Americans ‘indigenous’ in a British context is factually incorrect and I find our interaction with US culture very interesting.

Happy to correct myself if mainstream terminology has moved on, not attempting to be edgy or overly semantic.

A point that strikes me re-reading this thread - as I mentioned above up till now I think it’s fair to give Exeter fans the benefit of the doubt on this on them genuinely not trying to offend. I think that’s over - people keeping on wearing it with all the coverage are now being wilfully offensive

[Biffer]

In my (very limited) experience there seems to be different terms used in different parts of North America. In the north west First Nation peoples is a common term.

Edit - having just checked, that’s a term in Canada used to describe a particular set of groups .

[Margin__Walker]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

[Slick]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

[Raggs]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

It's about education, if you don't know better, no problem. If you become educated on a matter, for instance, a representative telling you that it's offensive to them and their people, and you continue to act in the same way. That's when tolerance is lost. The most appropriate/approved/, least offensive name, I'm not sure of, but I'll try and be careful and if someone presents me with something showing that one is better than another, I'll do my best to follow it.

Anyone arguing that the Exeter Chief's mascot, fan's getup etc isn't offensive, is straight up wrong at this point, because they have been told.

[Tichtheid]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

There isn't one name for scores of different cultures, that is part of the whole point of this.

[Biffer]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

There isn't one name for scores of different cultures, that is part of the whole point of this.

Yeah, the names used vary and there’s no standard term for all Amerindians, American Indians, Indigenous peoples, or whatever else you’d like.

[Tichtheid]

Anyone arguing that the Exeter Chief's mascot, fan's getup etc isn't offensive, is straight up wrong at this point, because they have been told.

I get the feeling, though, that there is a knee-jerk reaction against "The Woke" and there is resistance to anything progressive and inclusive as a result.

For what it's worth, here is the Bingo card from an earlier link

[Ymx]

So would that cultural appropriation bingo not be any form of shutting down arguments, or moral superiority. Posted twice apparently.

I’d bet that would get you some great morally superior likes on Twitter.

[Tichtheid]

So would that cultural appropriation bingo not be any form of shutting down arguments, or moral superiority. Posted twice apparently.

I’d bet that would get you some great morally superior likes on Twitter.

Is the Bingo card telling anyone to stfu or is it addressing commonly heard arguments/postulations?

The source of the card is from a site written by Chelsea Vowel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Vowel


Presumably you do know that by writing that thing about getting morally superior likes on Twitter you've added a box on the Bingo card?

[Ymx]

Did I say stfu. No it is exactly what I said it is. Morally superior posturing to shut down any arguments by putting it in this childish construct. But you view it as addressing them. This is the first I’ve seen it, fwiw. But it’s something you clearly admire.

One could easily do the same lazy bingo for other matters
- it’s their lived experience.
- if you don’t see it then you’re part of it.
- blah blah blah

“ Presumably you do know that by writing that thing about getting morally superior likes on Twitter you've added a box on the Bingo card?”

Your response even oozes gallons of moral smirking.

[Ymx]

Oh and to the topic, yes they should ditch the imagery.

It paints another’s culture in a childish degrading way for a start. Why would you want to do this?

What is the actual historical reason they are marketed as this?

[Slick]

It's such an odd hill to die on for Exeter.

They are going to end up changing it at some point. It seems completely inevitable, but the club and their fans (well at least most that still post on their message boards) are so entrenched on it. It's just some nonsense branding. Why go through months/years of the aggro when you can't beat the tide anyway

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

It's about education, if you don't know better, no problem. If you become educated on a matter, for instance, a representative telling you that it's offensive to them and their people, and you continue to act in the same way. That's when tolerance is lost. The most appropriate/approved/, least offensive name, I'm not sure of, but I'll try and be careful and if someone presents me with something showing that one is better than another, I'll do my best to follow it.

Anyone arguing that the Exeter Chief's mascot, fan's getup etc isn't offensive, is straight up wrong at this point, because they have been told.

Yes of course, and anyone deliberately using the wrong name is just an arsehole.

But it’s a fast evolving thing and the vast majority of people getting on with their lives can’t keep up. There are thousands of cases of people being cancelled, humiliated even sacked, because they used a term they thought was up to date and fine, where is the education piece in that?

A lot of the time it’s spokespeople or pressure groups that come up with this without even consulting with a wider community. It’s almost like traps being laid sometimes. An example is many Africans i know and work with absolutely fucking hate being referred to as a Person of Colour, they are black, but folk on social media would be vilified by some for not using POC to describe them.

There is also the point that many people don’t have the language to express themselves on social media and that’s where things like the bingo card above are just repugnant and used as tools to humiliate them, and reinforce moral superiority over them, when they might actually be trying to learn.

[sockwithaticket]

Completely agree with this.

Although also worth noting that even some of our resident social justice folk can’t agree on a name, so maybe, as suggested above, a little more tolerance might be in order, generally.

It's about education, if you don't know better, no problem. If you become educated on a matter, for instance, a representative telling you that it's offensive to them and their people, and you continue to act in the same way. That's when tolerance is lost. The most appropriate/approved/, least offensive name, I'm not sure of, but I'll try and be careful and if someone presents me with something showing that one is better than another, I'll do my best to follow it.

Anyone arguing that the Exeter Chief's mascot, fan's getup etc isn't offensive, is straight up wrong at this point, because they have been told.

Yes of course, and anyone deliberately using the wrong name is just an arsehole.

But it’s a fast evolving thing and the vast majority of people getting on with their lives can’t keep up. There are thousands of cases of people being cancelled, humiliated even sacked, because they used a term they thought was up to date and fine, where is the education piece in that?

A lot of the time it’s spokespeople or pressure groups that come up with this without even consulting with a wider community. It’s almost like traps being laid sometimes. An example is many Africans i know and work with absolutely fucking hate being referred to as a Person of Colour, they are black, but folk on social media would be vilified by some for not using POC to describe them.

There is also the point that many people don’t have the language to express themselves on social media and that’s where things like the bingo card above are just repugnant and used as tools to humiliate them, and reinforce moral superiority over them, when they might actually be trying to learn.

The bolded feels like a bit of an exagerration, but, in general rather than with this specific case, there is certainly a tendency for correct terminology to evolve within a closedl, specific environment of relatively few individuals and gradually diffuse through the rest of population which is comprised of people for whom that terminology isn't one of their primary concerns and may not become relevant to them or be encountered by them for a considerable time after its creation. It's also true that sometimes terminology can be claimed on behalf of a people without actually having their consensus. Latinx springs to mind - this article was an interesting read comparing why African American caught on and Latinx has really struggled https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/603943/

That said, even if what someone from a particular community tells you is just how they'd like to be referred to and isn't the majority opinion, it's pretty easy to just do as requested without making a fuss and you can gently, genuinely enquire as to why that term rather than another.

[SaintK]

Daily Telegraph reporting that Wasps are "looking in to" a call to ban Exeter Chiefs fans from wearing after a supporters group raised it as cultural appropriation!
It's behind a paywall so link from Coventry Telegraph instead

Wasps will 'review its policies' after calls were made for the club to ban novelty Native American headdresses from being worn by Exeter Chiefs fans visiting the Coventry Building Society Arena.
An open later was sent to Wasps Rugby on Twitter via the Wasps Report fans page asking them to 'consider action to tackle' what it claims to be 'one of rugby's most prominent examples of cultural appropriation'.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/spor ... 1366764

[Biffer]

Oh and to the topic, yes they should ditch the imagery.

It paints another’s culture in a childish degrading way for a start. Why would you want to do this?

What is the actual historical reason they are marketed as this?

There isn't a reason. They chose it for marketing purposes in the nineties. They'd just been Exeter Rugby up to that point

[Tichtheid]

Did I say stfu. No it is exactly what I said it is. Morally superior posturing to shut down any arguments by putting it in this childish construct. But you view it as addressing them. This is the first I’ve seen it, fwiw. But it’s something you clearly admire.

One could easily do the same lazy bingo for other matters
- it’s their lived experience.
- if you don’t see it then you’re part of it.
- blah blah blah

“ Presumably you do know that by writing that thing about getting morally superior likes on Twitter you've added a box on the Bingo card?”

Your response even oozes gallons of moral smirking.

Well, I posted the bingo card because it was linked to by a person from the Metis nation.

I'm not sure that "admiration" is the right word for my reaction to it, but I think that she has the right to publicise it. Do I have the right to re-publicise it elsewhere?

If me posting it comes across as moral smirking and moral superiority on my part, then that was really not my intention so if it comes across that way I apologise, sincerely, that is really not what I meant.

I posted it because I've seen those responses to the question of (mis)appropriation.

Again, though, it seems like there is a backlash against what people call "wokeness" or "political correctness", rather than a backlash against the wearing of 50s/60s Hollywood representations of cultures.

[Biffer]

Daily Telegraph reporting that Wasps are "looking in to" a call to ban Exeter Chiefs fans from wearing after a supporters group raised it as cultural appropriation!
It's behind a paywall so link from Coventry Telegraph instead

Wasps will 'review its policies' after calls were made for the club to ban novelty Native American headdresses from being worn by Exeter Chiefs fans visiting the Coventry Building Society Arena.
An open later was sent to Wasps Rugby on Twitter via the Wasps Report fans page asking them to 'consider action to tackle' what it claims to be 'one of rugby's most prominent examples of cultural appropriation'.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/spor ... 1366764

As soon as one club does it the rest will follow, and then the guns are out for premiership rugby to take Exeter to task properly.

[Niegs]

Daily Telegraph reporting that Wasps are "looking in to" a call to ban Exeter Chiefs fans from wearing after a supporters group raised it as cultural appropriation!
It's behind a paywall so link from Coventry Telegraph instead

Wasps will 'review its policies' after calls were made for the club to ban novelty Native American headdresses from being worn by Exeter Chiefs fans visiting the Coventry Building Society Arena.
An open later was sent to Wasps Rugby on Twitter via the Wasps Report fans page asking them to 'consider action to tackle' what it claims to be 'one of rugby's most prominent examples of cultural appropriation'.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/spor ... 1366764

As soon as one club does it the rest will follow, and then the guns are out for premiership rugby to take Exeter to task properly.

The club tweeted about it if it's not shown in that link...

[ASMO]

They should just rebrand to the Exeter Dumnonii, Exeter was the tribal capital. They can still wear stupid headgear and invent some dumb chant to go with it

[sockwithaticket]

They can call themselves the Exeter Supercalifragilistics if they like (and Disney willing, I guess...) all they need to do in a rebrand is get rid of the Native American imagery.

It'll be interesting to see what Wasps do here. I suspect banning the attire of opposition fans on these grounds isn't something they thought they might need to do, so someone's now hastily having to come up with a policy, but since this has come from their own fans and has been picked up bu the media they can't just ignore the issue and hope it goes away.