Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery

[Sandstorm]

If you turned up in Glasgow dressed as Willie the Groundskeeper from the Simpsons and just went on and on about various Scottish stereotypes in a really bad accent I think you'd probably end up in bloody pulp down an alley.

Willie is from Inverness, he'd get a slap in Glasgow regardless.

[FujiKiwi]

Agreed re dawson

But kiwis allowed opinions about Native Americans is allowed - got it

What is the Exeter link to Native American Indians?

Apparently , lots of Exeter types went over there and oppressed them.

Umm.... That's not what I was saying. You were suggesting that Exeter fans should be allowed to perpetuate crude caricatures because they were so far removed in time and space from what happened to Native Americans. I just pointed out otherwise.

[Woddy]

Have you got any links? The few I've turned up haven't got much to do with that historical period/people. The closest is this heavily Romanised one

Lost in the mists of Twitter but along the lines of this (geographically inaccurate) one:

Yeah I saw that one too, it's a pretty straightforward Saxon design rather than anything Briton or Dumnonii specific.

More Anglian than Saxon, isn't it? Not that we really know how much either lot saw a difference in the other (if at all), even less than how the people they ruled (largely drawn from pre-existing population) might have seen it.

[bessantj]

I think when it comes to the haka we can all agree that this was offensive

[FujiKiwi]

I think when it comes to the haka we can all agree that this was offensive

Sure. I never mind when that is shown, because that WAS a joke. It was symptomatic of the lack of knowledge of and respect for tikanga Maori (Maori culture) in those years. It wasn’t till the Buck Shelford years that any effort was made at all to respect the indigenous culture in this regard.

We still have a long way to go.

[sockwithaticket]

Lost in the mists of Twitter but along the lines of this (geographically inaccurate) one:

Yeah I saw that one too, it's a pretty straightforward Saxon design rather than anything Briton or Dumnonii specific.

More Anglian than Saxon, isn't it? Not that we really know how much either lot saw a difference in the other (if at all), even less than how the people they ruled (largely drawn from pre-existing population) might have seen it.

It's not a specialist area of mine, but did study it some and the Coppergate helmet is held up more as being of the Anglian style (insofar as we can make any archetypal statements).



The full faceplate is more commonly associated with the Saxons, though there doubtless would have been crossover and variations in designs that reulted both greater and less similarity.

[FujiKiwi]

Isn't the revisionist history understanding now that distinctions between "Angles", "Saxons" and "Jutes" were made retrospectively? That disparate groups coalesced within areas of England and then formulated a common history and historical homeland for themselves afterwards? I can't remember where I read this, and it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it seemed pretty convincing.

[sockwithaticket]

Isn't the revisionist history understanding now that distinctions between "Angles", "Saxons" and "Jutes" were made retrospectively? That disparate groups coalesced within areas of England and then formulated a common history and historical homeland for themselves afterwards? I can't remember where I read this, and it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it seemed pretty convincing.

I have a great deal of scepticism for any history based heavily on interpreting a limited archaeological and even more limited written record, but also for revisionist history as it's often driven as much by an academic attempting to make a name for themself or meet expectations of publishing novel material as any genuine changes in the evidence base.

The Anglo-Saxon period also spans roughly 600 years which is long time to try and impose our modern day definitions on. My understanding is that it's fair to say they were distinct peoples in a geographic sense on the continent with some cultural variation, their initial inroads and settlement in the UK continued in this fashion, but as time and further migration from their respective homelands continued it became much more muddled and the distinctions less applicable leading to the development of an Anglo-Saxon identity. Not every Jute in successive decades and centuries landed exactly where the Jutes before them did and so the process of integration began.

[Woddy]

Yeah I saw that one too, it's a pretty straightforward Saxon design rather than anything Briton or Dumnonii specific.

More Anglian than Saxon, isn't it? Not that we really know how much either lot saw a difference in the other (if at all), even less than how the people they ruled (largely drawn from pre-existing population) might have seen it.

It's not a specialist area of mine, but did study it some and the Coppergate helmet is held up more as being of the Anglian style (insofar as we can make any archetypal statements).

It was one of mine, albeit a while back now. That design is clearly taken from the Sutton Hoo helmet which was definitely in Anglian territory. At the time of my studies, I don't think there was a contemporaneous definitively "Saxon" one to compare it to. The more recently-found Staffordshire Hoard appears to have been objects and armour of a defeated Anglo-Saxon Christian warrior caste ceremonially damaged and buried by victorious (probably Anglian and pagan) enemies. Other than that it includes possibly the earliest bishop's headgear ever found (and more similar to Jewish priests' garb than later Euro-Christian ones) I know little about the details and definitely not the style of the helmets. I don't think it's clear who the defeated were or where they were from. The strongest theory is that is was either an Anglian or combined Anglo-Saxon army from the east and/or south which was defeated by Mercians.

Anyway, one would have to be very pedantic (as I am, happily, on these things) to worry about how the Exeter Chiefs use the device.

[sockwithaticket]

Oh my only issue with Exeter using it is that if the logic behind retaining Chiefs in the name is that it's a title the Britons who inhabited the area prior to the Anglo-Saxons coming over (taking our kingdoms) would have used, then a Saxon (or Anglian or Jutish) helmet wouldn't seem the right symbol to use.

[Woddy]

Isn't the revisionist history understanding now that distinctions between "Angles", "Saxons" and "Jutes" were made retrospectively? That disparate groups coalesced within areas of England and then formulated a common history and historical homeland for themselves afterwards? I can't remember where I read this, and it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it seemed pretty convincing.

I have a great deal of scepticism for any history based heavily on interpreting a limited archaeological and even more limited written record, but also for revisionist history as it's often driven as much by an academic attempting to make a name for themself or meet expectations of publishing novel material as any genuine changes in the evidence base.

The Anglo-Saxon period also spans roughly 600 years which is long time to try and impose our modern day definitions on. My understanding is that it's fair to say they were distinct peoples in a geographic sense on the continent with some cultural variation, their initial inroads and settlement in the UK continued in this fashion, but as time and further migration from their respective homelands continued it became much more muddled and the distinctions less applicable leading to the development of an Anglo-Saxon identity. Not every Jute in successive decades and centuries landed exactly where the Jutes before them did and so the process of integration began.

Agreed. Beowulf (about peoples in modern Denmark and Sweden, but written in England) strongly suggests discernment between different groups / clans, but that cross-over was relatively common and expected. It also implies there was little difference culturally between them - it does not express many differences.

On the other hand, Bede and Gildas overtly used a sense of nationalism as a form of propaganda to bind groups together so the sense was not alien to the people of the time.

[FujiKiwi]

Isn't the revisionist history understanding now that distinctions between "Angles", "Saxons" and "Jutes" were made retrospectively? That disparate groups coalesced within areas of England and then formulated a common history and historical homeland for themselves afterwards? I can't remember where I read this, and it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it seemed pretty convincing.

I have a great deal of scepticism for any history based heavily on interpreting a limited archaeological and even more limited written record, but also for revisionist history as it's often driven as much by an academic attempting to make a name for themself or meet expectations of publishing novel material as any genuine changes in the evidence base.

The Anglo-Saxon period also spans roughly 600 years which is long time to try and impose our modern day definitions on. My understanding is that it's fair to say they were distinct peoples in a geographic sense on the continent with some cultural variation, their initial inroads and settlement in the UK continued in this fashion, but as time and further migration from their respective homelands continued it became much more muddled and the distinctions less applicable leading to the development of an Anglo-Saxon identity. Not every Jute in successive decades and centuries landed exactly where the Jutes before them did and so the process of integration began.

I know this is what the history books you read growing up said. But think about it. How likely is that? Each large, distinct tribe from the continent goes and settles in one distinct, set area in England?

No. This is a retrospective creation of an identity, and a story to go with it. It happens in prehistory and in history. Witness the "Hebrews" fabricating an epic, distinct past for themselves when now archaeological and DNA evidence proves they were actually just another Canaanite group. It fits, too, with the stories of "canoes" and "Great Fleets" and the whakapapa (Like a family tree) that were used by Maori to distinguish one iwi (tribe) from another. All shaped and molded to explain the way things were now rather than an accurate version of what happened in the past. After a hundred and fifty years, the descendants of Scots, English, Irish settlers who emigrated to New Zealand, Canada, Australia now identify themselves by the area they are now. Memories of three or four generations back are vague and the notion of being or Scottish or English descent is an indistinct, vague fancy. We're all mutts. This happened over the course of a hundred and fifty years when our people had writing. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons didn't even have that. No. It makes sense that they made higgledy-piggledy landings and settlements, intermarried with each other and the locals, and retrospectively wrote out a story for themselves as being Jutes etc.

[sockwithaticket]

Isn't the revisionist history understanding now that distinctions between "Angles", "Saxons" and "Jutes" were made retrospectively? That disparate groups coalesced within areas of England and then formulated a common history and historical homeland for themselves afterwards? I can't remember where I read this, and it goes against the conventional wisdom, but it seemed pretty convincing.

I have a great deal of scepticism for any history based heavily on interpreting a limited archaeological and even more limited written record, but also for revisionist history as it's often driven as much by an academic attempting to make a name for themself or meet expectations of publishing novel material as any genuine changes in the evidence base.

The Anglo-Saxon period also spans roughly 600 years which is long time to try and impose our modern day definitions on. My understanding is that it's fair to say they were distinct peoples in a geographic sense on the continent with some cultural variation, their initial inroads and settlement in the UK continued in this fashion, but as time and further migration from their respective homelands continued it became much more muddled and the distinctions less applicable leading to the development of an Anglo-Saxon identity. Not every Jute in successive decades and centuries landed exactly where the Jutes before them did and so the process of integration began.

I know this is what the history books you read growing up said. But think about it. How likely is that? Each large, distinct tribe from the continent goes and settles in one distinct, set area in England?

No. This is a retrospective creation of an identity, and a story to go with it. It happens in prehistory and in history. Witness the "Hebrews" fabricating an epic, distinct past for themselves when now archaeological and DNA evidence proves they were actually just another Canaanite group. It fits, too, with the stories of "canoes" and "Great Fleets" and the whakapapa (Like a family tree) that were used by Maori to distinguish one iwi (tribe) from another. All shaped and molded to explain the way things were now rather than an accurate version of what happened in the past. After a hundred and fifty years, the descendants of Scots, English, Irish settlers who emigrated to New Zealand, Canada, Australia now identify themselves by the area they are now. Memories of three or four generations back are vague and the notion of being or Scottish or English descent is an indistinct, vague fancy. We're all mutts. This happened over the course of a hundred and fifty years when our people had writing. The Jutes, Angles, Saxons didn't even have that. No. It makes sense that they made higgledy-piggledy landings and settlements, intermarried with each other and the locals, and retrospectively wrote out a story for themselves as being Jutes etc.

I don't think that's quite what I said.

Those distinct continental groups would have set sail as those groups, from different parts of the continental coast and thus would likely have hit different parts of the English coast as roughly those groups. In a foreign land they more than likely would have kept to those groups until they'd conslidated enough to start expanding. Also, while the UK isn't big, it ain't small either. When travel was by foot, horse or boat it would take a while to expand and happen upon each other. A bunch of Saxons hitting the south coast, didn't necessarily know there were Angles in the east anf they'd have to have gone majorly off course to find out. At least for an intial period of migration those going from the homeland to the new land would have been following more or less the same routes and travelling with the knowledge that others of their group were already there or at least had set off before them, something to aim for. A certain level of homogeneity for the initial fww generations is not out of the question. Over the course of the 600 years of the so-called Anglo-Saxon period it is not within our gift to pinpoint when intermingling of the continental peoples took place, only that we know it eventually did. Mingling with the Britons would have occurred a lot sooner.

[FujiKiwi]

Well perhaps it was that. Or my version, something in between or something completely different from any of these scenarios. Will be interesting to see what archaeology and DNA studies turn up in the coming years.

[assfly]

I did answer your question, but maybe you didn't like the answer so deliberately misunderstood it.

Wouldn't it be silly to say "Who decides 2+2+4"? Or, "Who decides that bees sting"?. Those would be idiotic questions. Your question as to "Who decides what is mockery" is similarly fatuous.

The thing is, you think it's a clever qyestion, because you read it somewhere on the internet and it sounded good to you. It reinforced your need to keep thinking the way you always have. No doubt, "Social Justice Warrior" and "Politically Correct" are also expressions you use often along with "Virtue Signaling". They're handy expressions for you to hide behind, because it means you never have to really engage in the discussion, and you can keep on thinking and living the way you always have.

So you're saying that nobody has to decide, this is just something that everybody should accept without debate or question? That mockery is not at all subjective and is actually a scientific fact?

The rest of your post attacking me is unnecessary. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

[FujiKiwi]

I did answer your question, but maybe you didn't like the answer so deliberately misunderstood it.

Wouldn't it be silly to say "Who decides 2+2+4"? Or, "Who decides that bees sting"?. Those would be idiotic questions. Your question as to "Who decides what is mockery" is similarly fatuous.

The thing is, you think it's a clever question, because you read it somewhere on the internet and it sounded good to you. It reinforced your need to keep thinking the way you always have. No doubt, "Social Justice Warrior" and "Politically Correct" are also expressions you use often along with "Virtue Signaling". They're handy expressions for you to hide behind, because it means you never have to really engage in the discussion, and you can keep on thinking and living the way you always have.

So you're saying that nobody has to decide, this is just something that everybody should accept without debate or question? That mockery is not at all subjective and is actually a scientific fact?

The rest of your post attacking me is unnecessary. I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

"The Simpsons" TV show is mockery. The aforementioned Matt Dawson haka is mockery. A caricature of a Native American in a headdress, with a simulated "tomahawk" chop is mockery. Nobody would really debate those things. Would you (Genuine question. not a smart-alecky one)?

[FujiKiwi]

So we don't need an arbiter to "decide" what is mockery. That is my answer to your original question.

[assfly]

So we don't need an arbiter to "decide" what is mockery. That is my answer to your original question.

So basically it's mockery because you say it is. The loudest voice wins the argument.

No, the Simpons is not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", it is a TV show with funny characters. A very successful one at that.

No, the Chiefs fans are not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", they are rugby fans who go to support their team.

If both of these things were as bad as you're making out, how on earth did they last for as long as they did?

[Yeeb]

[SaintK]

As long as they stop with all that drumming and droning I'm happy

[Sandstorm]

I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

2+2+4 = 8

You're welcome

[FujiKiwi]

So we don't need an arbiter to "decide" what is mockery. That is my answer to your original question.

So basically it's mockery because you say it is. The loudest voice wins the argument.

No, the Simpons is not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", it is a TV show with funny characters. A very successful one at that.

No, the Chiefs fans are not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", they are rugby fans who go to support their team.

If both of these things were as bad as you're making out, how on earth did they last for as long as they did?

Wow, did you read that wrong.

I just gave the Simpsons as an example of mockery. It's making fun. That's just what it does. I chose that as an obvious instance that we didn't anyone need to "decide" if it was poking fun or not.

Of course the Chiefs fans are mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide. That's not subjective at all. It's an objective fact.

And your last point is comical. Something is necessarily good if it lasts a long time?

Anyway, I see that Yeeb has brought his "beating a dead horse" emoji out. He's mocking me (See? It's not really a matter of subjective debate, assfly), and suggesting that this subject has been done to death. Perhaps he's right. I'll leave you with the last word.

[notfatcat]

So we don't need an arbiter to "decide" what is mockery. That is my answer to your original question.

So basically it's mockery because you say it is. The loudest voice wins the argument.

No, the Simpons is not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", it is a TV show with funny characters. A very successful one at that.

No, the Chiefs fans are not "mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide", they are rugby fans who go to support their team.

If both of these things were as bad as you're making out, how on earth did they last for as long as they did?

Of course the Chiefs fans are mocking and ridiculing cultures that have suffered from genocide. That's not subjective at all. It's an objective fact.

Go on, explain how they're mocking and ridiculing a culture.


mock
/mɒk/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: mock; 3rd person present: mocks; past tense: mocked; past participle: mocked; gerund or present participle: mocking

1.
tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

[FujiKiwi]

Go on, explain how they're mocking and ridiculing a culture.


mock
/mɒk/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: mock; 3rd person present: mocks; past tense: mocked; past participle: mocked; gerund or present participle: mocking

1.
tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

How convenient of you to only provide the first available definition of the word.

4 b: to mimic in sport or derision

Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary link. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mock

[notfatcat]

It's pretty obvious they're mimicking, no?

You used the words mocking and ridiculing and that just doesn't ring true to me. If you can explain what you meant by mocking and ridiculing, fine. If you can't, that's also fine.

[FujiKiwi]

It's pretty obvious they're mimicking, no?

You used the words mocking and ridiculing and that just doesn't ring true to me. If you can explain what you meant by mocking and ridiculing, fine. If you can't, that's also fine.

OK. Let’s just say they’re “playfully mimicking” elements from cultures decimated by genocide. I think that’s a bad thing. You think it’s OK?

[notfatcat]

I was taking issue with the way you described Exeter/their fans, that's all.

[FujiKiwi]

I was taking issue with the way you described Exeter/their fans, that's all.

At the risk of , mockery means “to mimic for sport”, as the dictionary says. That’s what Exeter have been doing. So you didn’t need to “take issue” with the way I described it.

You seem reluctant to share your opinion as to whether it’s acceptable to mimic and caricature victims of atrocities. It’s your right to keep your views on that to yourself. It’s my right to share mine.

[notfatcat]

Sigh. It's mimic in sport, not for sport. And you moaned about the definition I posted which I think, bearing in mind your pairing of the word 'mocking' with 'ridiculing', was the most apt. I read your post to be describing Exeter as treating the culture with scorn and contempt.

As for my opinion - I'm undecided.

[FujiKiwi]

Sigh. It's mimic in sport, not for sport. And you moaned about the definition I posted which I think, bearing in mind your pairing of the word 'mocking' with 'ridiculing', was the most apt. I read your post to be describing Exeter as treating the culture with scorn and contempt.

As for my opinion - I'm undecided.

In the definition, “sport” means fun, if that helps. I don’t think anyone believes the tomahawk chop and the caricatured headdress etc. are used in a serious, respectful fashion.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Here is the Merriam-Webster dictionary link. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mock

What kind of wanker uses an American English dictionary to educate us on the use of English? Are you mocking us with their attempts to mimic our language?


(in truth it's a fine dictionary house bar their often weird position on the use of IPA)

[notfatcat]

Sigh. It's mimic in sport, not for sport. And you moaned about the definition I posted which I think, bearing in mind your pairing of the word 'mocking' with 'ridiculing', was the most apt. I read your post to be describing Exeter as treating the culture with scorn and contempt.

As for my opinion - I'm undecided.

In the definition, “sport” means fun, if that helps. I don’t think anyone believes the tomahawk chop and the caricatured headdress etc. are used in a serious, respectful fashion.

Is this your way of accepting that Exeter and their fans aren't treating an indigenous culture, sorry an indigenous culture decimated by genocide, with scorn and contempt?

[FujiKiwi]

Is this your way of accepting that Exeter and their fans aren't treating an indigenous culture, sorry an indigenous culture decimated by genocide, with scorn and contempt?

I'm sure the "tomahawk chop" is performed with great sensitivity and respect.

[Un Pilier]

Interesting discussion chaps. FWIW my opinion is that Exeter Chiefs need to take this opportunity to bin this branding : they should have done so some years ago in truth. They are a club with much to be proud about but this is a stain on their otherwise sound reputation. It’s time to grasp the moment in a positive way and the longer they delay, the more grudging any change in approach will appear.

If I was advising them I would steer towards the ancient local tribal connections already discussed in this fred.

(Oooh. Do we have freds or have we left those at the bored?)

[JM2K6]

I can't see there being any argument that the Chiefs logo, branding, and choice of song is anything other than a caricature.

[ASMO]

Interesting discussion chaps. FWIW my opinion is that Exeter Chiefs need to take this opportunity to bin this branding : they should have done so some years ago in truth. They are a club with much to be proud about but this is a stain on their otherwise sound reputation. It’s time to grasp the moment in a positive way and the longer they delay, the more grudging any change in approach will appear.

If I was advising them I would steer towards the ancient local tribal connections already discussed in this fred.

(Oooh. Do we have freds or have we left those at the bored?)

I can't really see a gap in the market for a team known as The Exeter Cunts

[notfatcat]

Is this your way of accepting that Exeter and their fans aren't treating an indigenous culture, sorry an indigenous culture decimated by genocide, with scorn and contempt?

I'm sure the "tomahawk chop" is performed with great sensitivity and respect.

I see that for you it's a very black and white issue. The only options are they're doing it our of great reverence or they're callously sneering and deriding the culture.

[ASMO]

Is this your way of accepting that Exeter and their fans aren't treating an indigenous culture, sorry an indigenous culture decimated by genocide, with scorn and contempt?

I'm sure the "tomahawk chop" is performed with great sensitivity and respect.

I see that for you it's a very black and white issue. The only options are they're doing it our of great reverence or they're callously sneering and deriding the culture.

I would hazard a suggest that in the selection of the brand there was absolutely no bad intent, it was viewed purely through the marketing lens as something that would be fun, catchy, and give the supporters an identity they could hold on to. All these suggestions about it showing disrespect, or devaluing the native american peoples are labels attributed to it by the current woke trend. It is pretty simple, if it is offending the Native Americans it should be changed, if its just a few woke types looking for something to be offended on behalf of something else, tell them to fuck off.

[assfly]

I would hazard a suggest that in the selection of the brand there was absolutely no bad intent, it was viewed purely through the marketing lens as something that would be fun, catchy, and give the supporters an identity they could hold on to. All these suggestions about it showing disrespect, or devaluing the native american peoples are labels attributed to it by the current woke trend. It is pretty simple, if it is offending the Native Americans it should be changed, if its just a few woke types looking for something to be offended on behalf of something else, tell them to fuck off.

Well said.

[JM2K6]

Dunno why you lot are posting so much about it, then. Native Americans have said this is offensive, and have for a long time explained why the caricatures are offensive.