Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery

[Raggs]

It definitely gets fuzzy. There's no black and white simple line.

However in this case we have specific local individuals, we have specific tribe representatives, we have general groups with large representation, all saying that this sort of thing is wrong.

We also have clear examples of things the groups do find acceptable, but as that involves local groups, customs and cultures being respected and celebrated, i don't see how Exeter can manage that.

[Slick]

operate by the 'don't be a dick' principle

And that should be the end of it.

[Raggs]

operate by the 'don't be a dick' principle

And that should be the end of it.

It should be, but then you get Tony Rowe telling people they're wrong when they explain he's being is being a dick to them. He's telling them he's respecting them by ignoring what they're telling him.

[Tichtheid]

operate by the 'don't be a dick' principle

And that should be the end of it.

The trouble is that one man's dick is another man's.... err no, that's not going to work

[Kawazaki]

What I take his general point to be, and if so I agree with it, is that one should approach the issue with positive intent rather than a default negative one (as can seem to be the case sometimes). So, assume that someone is using a cultural reference for good reasons unless they clearly are not. Unfortunately, people assume the negative too often and it stops positive cultural interchange.

A person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.

The moment you're told what you're doing isn't positive by someone who's actually part of the group your imitating, then you no longer even have the excuse of doing it for good reasons.

This is like a Monty Python sketch.

[PornDog]

I don't often agree with Rod Little, but his general point is a good one. Much cultural aping is done for positive reasons and should be accepted and acceptable.

On an individual basis I would largely agree*, but there's a much smaller scope to how you do that on an institution level, especially after receiving complaints from cultural groups that you have been "aping".

* The Aussie fans dressing up in Radike Samo blackface - it was coming from a place of love and appreciation, but you still can't be doing that shit.

[Woddy]

I don't often agree with Rod Little, but his general point is a good one. Much cultural aping is done for positive reasons and should be accepted and acceptable.

On an individual basis I would largely agree*, but there's a much smaller scope to how you do that on an institution level, especially after receiving complaints from cultural groups that you have been "aping".

* The Aussie fans dressing up in Radike Samo blackface - it was coming from a place of love and appreciation, but you still can't be doing that shit.

For the record, I agree that the Chiefs should change their logo,. Nor would I dare to dress up in blackface anywhere now, even if meant in total love and appreciation. But I consider the latter to be a shame. Would you mind if, say, an Indian cricket fan turned up at the MCG or the Oval mocked up as Richie Benaud? (Was going to say Lords, but no fancy dress allowed there at all!) If saw such a person, I'd assume it was done as a homage to the man, not to take the piss.

On a more general level, where I think it goes wrong is e.g. people complaining about white people with dreds or cornrows, or if someone goes to a fancy dress party as the Queen of Sheba.

Btw, aping is a normal word.

[Kawazaki]

Any fancy dress is some form of appropriation.

[sockwithaticket]

I don't often agree with Rod Little, but his general point is a good one. Much cultural aping is done for positive reasons and should be accepted and acceptable.

On an individual basis I would largely agree*, but there's a much smaller scope to how you do that on an institution level, especially after receiving complaints from cultural groups that you have been "aping".

* The Aussie fans dressing up in Radike Samo blackface - it was coming from a place of love and appreciation, but you still can't be doing that shit.

For the record, I agree that the Chiefs should change their logo,. Nor would I dare to dress up in blackface anywhere now, even if meant in total love and appreciation. But I consider the latter to be a shame. Would you mind if, say, an Indian cricket fan turned up at the MCG or the Oval mocked up as Richie Benaud? (Was going to say Lords, but no fancy dress allowed there at all!) If saw such a person, I'd assume it was done as a homage to the man, not to take the piss.

On a more general level, where I think it goes wrong is e.g. people complaining about white people with dreds or cornrows, or if someone goes to a fancy dress party as the Queen of Sheba.

Btw, aping is a normal word.

As a white person you can show appreciation for an individual of another race without blacking up, however innocently. Wasps used to sell wigs so fans could show their respect and admiration for Ashley Johnson. Funnily enough, the wigs alone were sufficient for everyone to get the idea.

Anyone whiting up is pretty weird, but it doesn't carry the lamentable history of the inverse.

I think you'd find very few of even those of us on the 'woke' side of this debate disagreeing with the bolded considering you can very easily document white people in the past having dreaded and or braided their hair. Dreads and braided hair do not belong to any single culture or ethnicity, regardless of what some members of the African-American community have convinced themselves.

[Woddy]

On an individual basis I would largely agree*, but there's a much smaller scope to how you do that on an institution level, especially after receiving complaints from cultural groups that you have been "aping".

* The Aussie fans dressing up in Radike Samo blackface - it was coming from a place of love and appreciation, but you still can't be doing that shit.

For the record, I agree that the Chiefs should change their logo,. Nor would I dare to dress up in blackface anywhere now, even if meant in total love and appreciation. But I consider the latter to be a shame. Would you mind if, say, an Indian cricket fan turned up at the MCG or the Oval mocked up as Richie Benaud? (Was going to say Lords, but no fancy dress allowed there at all!) If saw such a person, I'd assume it was done as a homage to the man, not to take the piss.

On a more general level, where I think it goes wrong is e.g. people complaining about white people with dreds or cornrows, or if someone goes to a fancy dress party as the Queen of Sheba.

Btw, aping is a normal word.

As a white person you can show appreciation for an individual of another race without blacking up, however innocently. Wasps used to sell wigs so fans could show their respect and admiration for Ashley Johnson. Funnily enough, the wigs alone were sufficient for everyone to get the idea.

Anyone whiting up is pretty weird, but it doesn't carry the lamentable history of the inverse.

I think you'd find very few of even those of us on the 'woke' side of this debate disagreeing with the bolded considering you can very easily document white people in the past having dreaded and or braided their hair. Dreads and braided hair do not belong to any single culture or ethnicity, regardless of what some members of the African-American community have convinced themselves.

I guess that because for me, colour of skin is just a thing, devoid of any corresponding judgement, it's no different from colour of hair and I instinctively see blacking/whiting up as simply a descriptive change, just as donning a black or white wig would be. Being aware of how other people think differently, I would not do it but still cannot understand the difference in principle.

Unfortunately, some people do complain about appropriating hairstyles. An ex-Little Mix signer was being criticised the other week for wearing a basketball vest in a video and hence apparently appropriating some form of black culture (she's white). My son, who's doing a fashion degree, had a complaint made about him that he has racist eye-liner because they make his eyes look more oval (the complainants are of oriental heritage). All relatively small complaints made by few people in each case, but together they represent a lack of tolerance of others doing what Someone disagrees with. Which is ironic, given that the entire topic is ultimately supposed to be about eradicating racial intolerance.

[Woddy]

PS. Where are you on someone going to a fancy-dress party as the Queen of Sheba?

[sockwithaticket]

For the record, I agree that the Chiefs should change their logo,. Nor would I dare to dress up in blackface anywhere now, even if meant in total love and appreciation. But I consider the latter to be a shame. Would you mind if, say, an Indian cricket fan turned up at the MCG or the Oval mocked up as Richie Benaud? (Was going to say Lords, but no fancy dress allowed there at all!) If saw such a person, I'd assume it was done as a homage to the man, not to take the piss.

On a more general level, where I think it goes wrong is e.g. people complaining about white people with dreds or cornrows, or if someone goes to a fancy dress party as the Queen of Sheba.

Btw, aping is a normal word.

As a white person you can show appreciation for an individual of another race without blacking up, however innocently. Wasps used to sell wigs so fans could show their respect and admiration for Ashley Johnson. Funnily enough, the wigs alone were sufficient for everyone to get the idea.

Anyone whiting up is pretty weird, but it doesn't carry the lamentable history of the inverse.

I think you'd find very few of even those of us on the 'woke' side of this debate disagreeing with the bolded considering you can very easily document white people in the past having dreaded and or braided their hair. Dreads and braided hair do not belong to any single culture or ethnicity, regardless of what some members of the African-American community have convinced themselves.

I guess that because for me, colour of skin is just a thing, devoid of any corresponding judgement, it's no different from colour of hair and I instinctively see blacking/whiting up as simply a descriptive change, just as donning a black or white wig would be. Being aware of how other people think differently, I would not do it but still cannot understand the difference in principle.

Unfortunately, some people do complain about appropriating hairstyles. An ex-Little Mix signer was being criticised the other week for wearing a basketball vest in a video and hence apparently appropriating some form of black culture (she's white). My son, who's doing a fashion degree, had a complaint made about him that he has racist eye-liner because they make his eyes look more oval (the complainants are of oriental heritage). All relatively small complaints made by few people in each case, but together they represent a lack of tolerance of others doing what Someone disagrees with. Which is ironic, given that the entire topic is ultimately supposed to be about eradicating racial intolerance.

I would love it if we lived in a world where black/brown/yellow face hadn't occurred or where we had sufficient historical distance from those things that they don't still make a lot of people very uncomfortable, but we don't. I think it's easy to not see it as a big deal if it never was to your people.

There will always be outliers who take things too far and put out opinions not backed by many or that have had insufficient thought put into them, especially, dare I say, amongst earnest young people. Without wanting to be too wishy washy, case needs to be taken on its own merits. The eyeliner thing sounds fucking stupid to me, but I'd hear the complainants out to try and establish where they're coming from. Ultimately, it doesn't feel right for someone to try and assert that a culture owns oval-ish eye make up and I struggle to conceive of a convincing argument otherwise.

So long as someone manages it without blacking up, dress up as Queen of Sheba.

[Woddy]

As a white person you can show appreciation for an individual of another race without blacking up, however innocently. Wasps used to sell wigs so fans could show their respect and admiration for Ashley Johnson. Funnily enough, the wigs alone were sufficient for everyone to get the idea.

Anyone whiting up is pretty weird, but it doesn't carry the lamentable history of the inverse.

I think you'd find very few of even those of us on the 'woke' side of this debate disagreeing with the bolded considering you can very easily document white people in the past having dreaded and or braided their hair. Dreads and braided hair do not belong to any single culture or ethnicity, regardless of what some members of the African-American community have convinced themselves.

I guess that because for me, colour of skin is just a thing, devoid of any corresponding judgement, it's no different from colour of hair and I instinctively see blacking/whiting up as simply a descriptive change, just as donning a black or white wig would be. Being aware of how other people think differently, I would not do it but still cannot understand the difference in principle.

Unfortunately, some people do complain about appropriating hairstyles. An ex-Little Mix signer was being criticised the other week for wearing a basketball vest in a video and hence apparently appropriating some form of black culture (she's white). My son, who's doing a fashion degree, had a complaint made about him that he has racist eye-liner because they make his eyes look more oval (the complainants are of oriental heritage). All relatively small complaints made by few people in each case, but together they represent a lack of tolerance of others doing what Someone disagrees with. Which is ironic, given that the entire topic is ultimately supposed to be about eradicating racial intolerance.

I would love it if we lived in a world where black/brown/yellow face hadn't occurred or where we had sufficient historical distance from those things that they don't still make a lot of people very uncomfortable, but we don't. I think it's easy to not see it as a big deal if it never was to your people.

There will always be outliers who take things too far and put out opinions not backed by many or that have had insufficient thought put into them, especially, dare I say, amongst earnest young people. Without wanting to be too wishy washy, case needs to be taken on its own merits. The eyeliner thing sounds fucking stupid to me, but I'd hear the complainants out to try and establish where they're coming from. Ultimately, it doesn't feel right for someone to try and assert that a culture owns oval-ish eye make up and I struggle to conceive of a convincing argument otherwise.

So long as someone manages it without blacking up, dress up as Queen of Sheba.

Problem is that they're not really outliers. It's part of (in my view) a general tendency towards outraged intolerance in the name of tolerance, which covers many spheres other than race and culture. By their logic, I could nix all your arguments above by virtue of having been victim of racial stereotyping and negative prejudice as a white person abroad and mocked by imitation and general piss-take. That you might disbelieve me or dismiss it as insignificant only adds to and perpetuates the problem [so the logic carries on...].

[Biffer]

operate by the 'don't be a dick' principle

And that should be the end of it.

That’s my fundamental piece of life advice to my nephews.

[Slick]

operate by the 'don't be a dick' principle

And that should be the end of it.

That’s my fundamental piece of life advice to my nephews.

It’s the single greatest bit of advice I’ve ever been given. The world would be a much better place if it was taught in schools.

Not claiming I live up to it all the time, obvs.

[Biffer]

National Congress of American Indians have written to Exeter Chiefs directly asking them to remove the imagery and branding they’ve been using.

NCAI is the oldest and largest organisation representing the rights of Native Americans.

[Kawazaki]

I find it ironic that the NCAI refer to themselves as 'American Indians' if I'm being honest. That is the name we colonialists gave them isn't it?

I've been referring to then as 'Native Americans' as I thought 'American Indians' would be deemed racist.

[Tichtheid]

I find it ironic that the NCAI refer to themselves as 'American Indians' if I'm being honest. That is the name we colonialists gave them isn't it?

I've been referring to then as 'Native Americans' as I thought 'American Indians' would be deemed racist.

America, Americas and Americans are colonialist too if "Indians" are, the comes from an Italian explorer's name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerigo_Vespucci

I think it's probably wise to accept whatever nomenclature the people themselves choose.

[Kawazaki]

I think it's probably wise to accept whatever nomenclature the people themselves choose.

Well quite, but they erm, didn't choose it did they.

[Tichtheid]

I think it's probably wise to accept whatever nomenclature the people themselves choose.

Well quite, but they erm, didn't choose it did they.

Err, yes they have chosen it, it says so in the title of their organisation

[Kawazaki]

I think it's probably wise to accept whatever nomenclature the people themselves choose.

Well quite, but they erm, didn't choose it did they.

Err, yes they have chosen it, it says so in the title of their organisation

Well done for not understanding. Try Wikipedia again.

[Tichtheid]

Well quite, but they erm, didn't choose it did they.

Err, yes they have chosen it, it says so in the title of their organisation

Well done for not understanding. Try Wikipedia again.

You've shifted the goalposts in order to try to undermine the message and it won't work.

Exeter have been asked to cease and desist with their caricature branding by a large representative body, that is what you should be taking on board here, not trying to be right on the internet.

[Slick]

Murrayfield on Saturday had an anti racism announcement then everyone, including the players, clapped and cheered.

It was a nice moment and didn’t have the whole knee debate undermining what was actually being supported

[Biffer]

Err, yes they have chosen it, it says so in the title of their organisation

Well done for not understanding. Try Wikipedia again.

You've shifted the goalposts in order to try to undermine the message and it won't work.

Exeter have been asked to cease and desist with their caricature branding by a large representative body, that is what you should be taking on board here, not trying to be right on the internet.

No, no, it’s far more important that Kawa gets a warm feeling inside.

[Kawazaki]

Err, yes they have chosen it, it says so in the title of their organisation

Well done for not understanding. Try Wikipedia again.

You've shifted the goalposts in order to try to undermine the message and it won't work.

Exeter have been asked to cease and desist with their caricature branding by a large representative body, that is what you should be taking on board here, not trying to be right on the internet.

I don't give a crap about Exeter, I hate the twats.

HTH

I was just commenting on the irony that native Americans choose to use a name that was ascribed to them by colonial oppressors. There is an inconsistency there.

[Tichtheid]

Well done for not understanding. Try Wikipedia again.

You've shifted the goalposts in order to try to undermine the message and it won't work.

Exeter have been asked to cease and desist with their caricature branding by a large representative body, that is what you should be taking on board here, not trying to be right on the internet.

I don't give a crap about Exeter, I hate the twats.

HTH

I was just commenting on the irony that native Americans choose to use a name that was ascribed to them by colonial oppressors. There is an inconsistency there.

The only inconsistency is in your own head.

They chose the name for their own organisation, it can't be too difficult to acknowledge that, but seemingly it is.

I wonder why you seek to undermine their choice?

All the way through this discussion you've been on the "other side" of it, from not seeing a problem with the headdresses and chants to ignoring the bombardment of information as to why it's a bad thing.

[Kawazaki]

You've shifted the goalposts in order to try to undermine the message and it won't work.

Exeter have been asked to cease and desist with their caricature branding by a large representative body, that is what you should be taking on board here, not trying to be right on the internet.

I don't give a crap about Exeter, I hate the twats.

HTH

I was just commenting on the irony that native Americans choose to use a name that was ascribed to them by colonial oppressors. There is an inconsistency there.

The only inconsistency is in your own head.

They chose the name for their own organisation, it can't be too difficult to acknowledge that, but seemingly it is.

I wonder why you seek to undermine their choice?

All the way through this discussion you've been on the "other side" of it, from not seeing a problem with the headdresses and chants to ignoring the bombardment of information as to why it's a bad thing.

The name they choose to call themselves is a derogatory throwback to a time when their ancestors were being slaughtered. I'm just pointing out that I find it odd that they choose to continue with that name, especially when they clearly don't have to.

It's an observation, it's is not connected to Exeter. It's just a related tangent.. This happens on threads.

HTH

[Tichtheid]

I don't give a crap about Exeter, I hate the twats.

HTH

I was just commenting on the irony that native Americans choose to use a name that was ascribed to them by colonial oppressors. There is an inconsistency there.

The only inconsistency is in your own head.

They chose the name for their own organisation, it can't be too difficult to acknowledge that, but seemingly it is.

I wonder why you seek to undermine their choice?

All the way through this discussion you've been on the "other side" of it, from not seeing a problem with the headdresses and chants to ignoring the bombardment of information as to why it's a bad thing.

The name they choose to call themselves is a derogatory throwback to a time when their ancestors were being slaughtered. I'm just pointing out that I find it odd that they choose to continue with that name, especially when they clearly don't have to.

It's an observation, it's is not connected to Exeter. It's just a related tangent.. This happens on threads.

HTH

It's their choice, end of.

Don't get your knickers in such a twist about it.

[Kawazaki]

It's their choice, end of.

Don't get your knickers in such a twist about it.

Well clearly I'm not. It's an observation, an inconsistency as I pointed out. It's all in the words really, I'm not trying to catch you out.

[Tichtheid]

It's their choice, end of.

Don't get your knickers in such a twist about it.

Well clearly I'm not. It's an observation, an inconsistency as I pointed out. It's all in the words really, I'm not trying to catch you out.

Well, all I can suggest is that you write to the National Congress of American Indians and explain their mistake, tell them that their name is incongruous and ask what their thinking is.

Perhaps you could add a suggestion for an improvement at the same time.

[Kawazaki]

It's their choice, end of.

Don't get your knickers in such a twist about it.

Well clearly I'm not. It's an observation, an inconsistency as I pointed out. It's all in the words really, I'm not trying to catch you out.

Well, all I can suggest is that you write to the National Congress of American Indians and explain their mistake, tell them that their name is incongruous and ask what their thinking is.

Perhaps you could add a suggestion for an improvement at the same time.

The obvious answer is to call themselves whatever name they used as a mass noun for themselves 10 generations ago. Or Native Americans. 'Indian' was used pejoratively to describe them by white settlers.

[Tichtheid]

Well clearly I'm not. It's an observation, an inconsistency as I pointed out. It's all in the words really, I'm not trying to catch you out.

Well, all I can suggest is that you write to the National Congress of American Indians and explain their mistake, tell them that their name is incongruous and ask what their thinking is.

Perhaps you could add a suggestion for an improvement at the same time.

The obvious answer is to call themselves whatever name they used as a mass noun for themselves 10 generations ago. Or Native Americans. 'Indian' was used pejoratively to describe them by white settlers.

Don't tell me, tell The National Congress of Native American Indians, you seem to know what is best for them.

Write to them, explain their mistakes to them.

[Kawazaki]

Well, all I can suggest is that you write to the National Congress of American Indians and explain their mistake, tell them that their name is incongruous and ask what their thinking is.

Perhaps you could add a suggestion for an improvement at the same time.

The obvious answer is to call themselves whatever name they used as a mass noun for themselves 10 generations ago. Or Native Americans. 'Indian' was used pejoratively to describe them by white settlers.

Don't tell me, tell The National Congress of Native American Indians, you seem to know what is best for them.

Write to them, explain their mistakes to them.

You can take a view on things you know. You can think if you want to. You won't get in trouble or deplatformed here.

[Tichtheid]

The obvious answer is to call themselves whatever name they used as a mass noun for themselves 10 generations ago. Or Native Americans. 'Indian' was used pejoratively to describe them by white settlers.

Don't tell me, tell The National Congress of Native American Indians, you seem to know what is best for them.

Write to them, explain their mistakes to them.

You can take a view on things you know. You can think if you want to. You won't get in trouble or deplatformed here.

and you can address the actual subject matter as opposed to addressing the person, it's not the first time you've done this.

The subject matter is whether or not Exeter now have any grounds for keeping the caricature silliness.

The side matter is a name you are not comfortable with, I have no control over that, but I've already stated that I have no concern regarding their choice of name, if it is a problem for you then I suggest you contact the people who do have control over it, ie The National Congress of Native American Indians

Is that clear enough?

[Kawazaki]

Don't tell me, tell The National Congress of Native American Indians, you seem to know what is best for them.

Write to them, explain their mistakes to them.

You can take a view on things you know. You can think if you want to. You won't get in trouble or deplatformed here.

and you can address the actual subject matter as opposed to addressing the person, it's not the first time you've done this.

The subject matter is whether or not Exeter now have any grounds for keeping the caricature silliness.

The side matter is a name you are not comfortable with, I have no control over that, but I've already stated that I have no concern regarding their choice of name, if it is a problem for you then I suggest you contact the people who do have control over it, ie The National Congress of Native American Indians

Is that clear enough?

You'll always find you in the kitchen at parties.

[Biffer]

Kawa indulging the traditional racist tactics by wandering off on tangential arguments and accusing the abused groups of inconsistency, and not addressing the actual points made.

[Kawazaki]

Kawa indulging the traditional racist tactics by wandering off on tangential arguments and accusing the abused groups of inconsistency, and not addressing the actual points made.

So you're calling me a racist?

[Biffer]

Kawa indulging the traditional racist tactics by wandering off on tangential arguments and accusing the abused groups of inconsistency, and not addressing the actual points made.

So you're calling me a racist?

No, I'm saying your tactics are similar to those that racists use.

[Raggs]

So paraphrasing slightly but if i recall correctly K believes that they should embrace Exeter's shitty racist behavior because it's how to keep their culture alive and recognised. But shouldn't use a name they chose to take on themselves because it's a negative name?

[Biffer]

He doesn't believe any of it. He's just being a dick.