Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery

Where goats go to escape
Yeeb
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:20 am
ASMO wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 9:55 am 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.
Boom , headshot

That still doesn’t answer why Exeter was directly responsable for wiping out the Cherokee with their West Country Hogs puddings and Scones, or why that’s worse than what Europeans were doing to Maoris hundreds of years later
User avatar
Mr Bungle
Posts: 744
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:14 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:24 am 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.
The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
Yeeb
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Mr Bungle wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:18 am
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:24 am 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.
The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
How?
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Yeeb, decide if you just want to shitpost or if you want to actually discuss it. Pick one and stick to it.
Yeeb
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:28 am Yeeb, decide if you just want to shitpost or if you want to actually discuss it. Pick one and stick to it.
How ?
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Hilarious.
User avatar
notfatcat
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pm

Mr Bungle wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:18 am
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:24 am 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.
The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
I could just as truthfully say Native Americans are not offended by it. I guess the question is how many need to be offended for things to change.
Chris Jack, 67 test All Black - "I was voted most useless and laziest cunt in the English Premiership two years on the trot"
Yeeb
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

notfatcat wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 pm
Mr Bungle wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:18 am
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:24 am 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.
The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
I could just as truthfully say Native Americans are not offended by it. I guess the question is how many need to be offended for things to change.
Tbf I’ve already done the ‘How?’ gag
User avatar
sturginho
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:51 pm

notfatcat wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 pm
Mr Bungle wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:18 am
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:24 am 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.
The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
I could just as truthfully say Native Americans are not offended by it. I guess the question is how many need to be offended for things to change.
And you presumably have sauces to back up this claim?
User avatar
ASMO
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:08 pm

sturginho wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:12 pm
notfatcat wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 1:52 pm
Mr Bungle wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:18 am

The real headshot. Many seem tone deaf on this one.
I could just as truthfully say Native Americans are not offended by it. I guess the question is how many need to be offended for things to change.
And you presumably have sauces to back up this claim?
It is an interesting question, i did a quick google and its a complicated answer...some studies have shown that there are very different results if the question is asked to people who self identify as native American as opposed to those who are actively participating in the culture. You also have to distinguish between those who are offended by the term "redskins" as in Washington Redskins, and Chiefs like Kansas City and Exeter. It would seem more are offended by the former than the latter (rightly so in my own view as one is definately more perjorative.) In short i dont think there is a simple answer as it very much depends on the question being asked and to whom.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

The complaint is not about the Chiefs name. It's about the logo, mascot, and the crowd chant - i.e. the caricatures.

We already have a native american cultural ambassador's views on how and why this is considered offensive.
User avatar
assfly
Posts: 4507
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:30 am

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:35 pm We already have a native american cultural ambassador's views on how and why this is considered offensive.
Why does their opinion matter, do they live near the stadium, or do they watch a lot of rugby?
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:49 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:35 pm We already have a native american cultural ambassador's views on how and why this is considered offensive.
Why does their opinion matter, do they live near the stadium, or do they watch a lot of rugby?
So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
assfly
Posts: 4507
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:30 am

Raggs wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:52 pm So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
That's not what I'm getting at, and not comparable.

The chanting and chopping of the Chiefs fans is such a non-event. It's a few hundred fans having a bit of harmless fun. How does this lead to someone on the other side of the pond getting offended. Surely there must be more offensive things closer to home for them to get upset about?
Yeeb
Posts: 868
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:58 pm
Raggs wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:52 pm So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
That's not what I'm getting at, and not comparable.

The chanting and chopping of the Chiefs fans is such a non-event. It's a few hundred fans having a bit of harmless fun. How does this lead to someone on the other side of the pond getting offended. Surely there must be more offensive things closer to home for them to get upset about?
You are forgetting that it was men from Exeter who brought smallpox to North America really recently and they should atone for their sins rather than mocking NA Indians. They are far worse than European kiwis who are always respectful and never did anything bad to Maori’s ever.
User avatar
Raggs
Posts: 3698
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:51 pm

assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:58 pm
Raggs wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:52 pm So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
That's not what I'm getting at, and not comparable.

The chanting and chopping of the Chiefs fans is such a non-event. It's a few hundred fans having a bit of harmless fun. How does this lead to someone on the other side of the pond getting offended. Surely there must be more offensive things closer to home for them to get upset about?
An internationally broadcast event with a huge amount of chanting and imagery, isn't comparable to using the n word amongst a small group.

I agree it's not comparable, but i think we disagree on which way round.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:58 pm
Raggs wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:52 pm So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
That's not what I'm getting at, and not comparable.

The chanting and chopping of the Chiefs fans is such a non-event. It's a few hundred fans having a bit of harmless fun. How does this lead to someone on the other side of the pond getting offended. Surely there must be more offensive things closer to home for them to get upset about?
Maybe if you'd read the thread you'd know that the person I'm referencing lives in Exeter. So it is pretty bloody close to home.

Moreover, we don't like in the middle ages any more. Sport is broadcast worldwide. Exeter are on TV regularly, and their thousands of fans doing the "tomahawk chop" and dressing up as caricatures of Native Americans is perpetuating ugly stereotypes and mocking real live people. The "big chief with headdress" logo is used in Exeter's commercial interests.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

I find religion to be offensive on many levels, is there good news for me that it will now be banned? Or flipped will people upset by what they take to be attacks on their religion now be able to ban any crude works, anything with a whiff of satire? Why is something offensive that worrisome?

I'm not too fussed one way or the other if Exeter keep the branding, I like the noise but they can surely found another outlet for that. The idea of taking offence whether none is perhaps intended, or the idea that something might be offensive and you can either watch it or not are something I would care about. Historically I've never enjoyed Lenny Henry doing his I'm black jokes, and I'm grateful Dawn French talked him out of it, I've never really enjoyed Jo Brand doing her I'm fat jokes, and over the last few years I've not enjoyed Rosie Jones doing her I'm disabled routine, but I don't know my dislike or finding some of their routines lazy and patronising should stop them doing it or others watching/listening
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

"Please stop using caricatures of our culture for your amusement and financial gain" is really quite some leap from "I find religion offensive, should religions be banned????"
User avatar
notfatcat
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pm

It's almost as if Life of Brian wasn't controversial when it came out.
Chris Jack, 67 test All Black - "I was voted most useless and laziest cunt in the English Premiership two years on the trot"
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:37 pm "Please stop using caricatures of our culture for your amusement and financial gain" is really quite some leap from "I find religion offensive, should religions be banned????"
It's not going to be as clear cut something is a concern and needs to be addressed when it causes offence, or it doesn't. But it's also not irrelevant in the round.

Also are we even using a caricature of their culture, or of an image of their culture which now exists in our culture? If this is an issue what things are acceptable to pass from culture to culture, is context ever an issue and so on?
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:09 pm
assfly wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:58 pm
Raggs wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:52 pm So it's OK to use the N word as long as there are no black people around to get offended by it?
That's not what I'm getting at, and not comparable.

The chanting and chopping of the Chiefs fans is such a non-event. It's a few hundred fans having a bit of harmless fun. How does this lead to someone on the other side of the pond getting offended. Surely there must be more offensive things closer to home for them to get upset about?
Maybe if you'd read the thread you'd know that the person I'm referencing lives in Exeter. So it is pretty bloody close to home.

Moreover, we don't like in the middle ages any more. Sport is broadcast worldwide. Exeter are on TV regularly, and their thousands of fans doing the "tomahawk chop" and dressing up as caricatures of Native Americans is perpetuating ugly stereotypes and mocking real live people. The "big chief with headdress" logo is used in Exeter's commercial interests.
Yep, Premiership Rugby has a weekly show on NBC Sport and the name, logo, mascot etc have been talked about on there before now.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Biffer
Posts: 9141
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:05 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:37 pm "Please stop using caricatures of our culture for your amusement and financial gain" is really quite some leap from "I find religion offensive, should religions be banned????"
It's not going to be as clear cut something is a concern and needs to be addressed when it causes offence, or it doesn't. But it's also not irrelevant in the round.

Also are we even using a caricature of their culture, or of an image of their culture which now exists in our culture? If this is an issue what things are acceptable to pass from culture to culture, is context ever an issue and so on?
The image of their culture which exists in our culture IS a caricature, that's the point.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2097
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Biffer wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:07 pm
Rhubarb & Custard wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:05 pm
JM2K6 wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 3:37 pm "Please stop using caricatures of our culture for your amusement and financial gain" is really quite some leap from "I find religion offensive, should religions be banned????"
It's not going to be as clear cut something is a concern and needs to be addressed when it causes offence, or it doesn't. But it's also not irrelevant in the round.

Also are we even using a caricature of their culture, or of an image of their culture which now exists in our culture? If this is an issue what things are acceptable to pass from culture to culture, is context ever an issue and so on?
The image of their culture which exists in our culture IS a caricature, that's the point.
which I have to say doesn't perturb me much. whereas if it was intended as mockery that would
User avatar
Un Pilier
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:22 am

It’s relatively straight forward for me since I believe in treating all people with respect until they have demonstrated they don’t deserve it. I don’t think, Big Chief, the Tomahawk Chop and loads of blokes in feather headdresses shows respect. I have only met maybe 7 or 8 First Nation americans over the years, and one who was 50% Cherokee who I got to know quite well. Proud people. I don’t know where I’d start to try to tell them they would be wrong for hating this stuff. Because hate it they would.
User avatar
notfatcat
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pm

I don’t know where I’d start to try to tell them they would be wrong for hating this stuff.
I'm not sure that anyone has said that.
Chris Jack, 67 test All Black - "I was voted most useless and laziest cunt in the English Premiership two years on the trot"
User avatar
Un Pilier
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 9:22 am

notfatcat wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:44 pm
I don’t know where I’d start to try to tell them they would be wrong for hating this stuff.
I'm not sure that anyone has said that.
So please remind me why people think it’s okay to carry on doing it.
User avatar
notfatcat
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pm

Un Pilier wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:50 pm
notfatcat wrote: Thu Jul 16, 2020 5:44 pm
I don’t know where I’d start to try to tell them they would be wrong for hating this stuff.
I'm not sure that anyone has said that.
So please remind me why people think it’s okay to carry on doing it.
What does that have to do with telling people they're wrong for hating it?
Chris Jack, 67 test All Black - "I was voted most useless and laziest cunt in the English Premiership two years on the trot"
User avatar
assfly
Posts: 4507
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:30 am

Exeter Chiefs were accused on Wednesday of being “tone deaf” and “sticking up two fingers” to all minority groups after resisting calls to drop their name and logo out of respect for the Native American community.

The club’s board met on Wednesday following a petition from the fans’ pressure group Exeter Chiefs For Change which demanded an end to the club’s use of “harmful imagery and branding”, which included a Native American headdress, saying there was no place for it in a predominantly white British environment.

Another supporters group launched a counter-petition, saying the club’s use since 1999 of a Native American in its logo was a mark of respect and honour. The board considered both petitions and voted against a rebrand with its one concession being to retire the club’s mascot, Big Chief.

“It is extremely disappointing that Exeter Chiefs has thrown away this opportunity to show itself as an inclusive club,” Exeter Chiefs 4 Change said in a statement after the board decision. “Indigenous people have made it clear time and again that all uses of their imagery in this way are offensive, harmful and unacceptable.

“Exeter’s refusal to fully listen to these pleas is tone deaf and sticks two fingers up not only to them but to all minorities. We accept that the intention of the club for the branding was originally positive and not derogatory, but now they know it is not perceived in that way, they are making a conscious decision to be intentionally offensive by continuing to use it.”

The NFL’s Washington team this month dropped its Redskins name and imagery before the new season after 87 years, having come under scrutiny amid the Black Lives Matter movement. They have adopted the temporary name of Washington Football Team.

Exeter have been known informally as the Chiefs for some 100 years. The nickname was adopted because of a tradition of clubs in Devon at the time to refer to their first teams as the Chiefs but in 1999, four years after professionalism, a rebranding led to the introduction of the existing badge and mascot.

The club said in a statement that it had considered lengthy submissions from those who wanted the club to drop its nickname and all the imagery associated with it and supporters who felt the branding was not disrespectful to indigenous groups.

“A detailed dossier of all evidence was compiled ahead of the meeting and was reviewed by all members of the board,” the statement read. “Part of the club’s review has seen it engage with sponsors and key partners to seek their views – and we have also listened to the response of our supporters, the wider rugby community and certain sections from the Native American community, all of whom have provided us with detailed observations in letters, emails, social content and videos.

“Content provided to the board indicated that the name Chiefs dated back into the early 1900s and had a long history with people in the Devon area. The board took the view that the use of the Chiefs logo was in fact highly respectful. It was noted over the years we have had players and coaches from around the world with a wide range of nationalities and cultures. At no time have any players, coaches or their families said anything but positive comments about the branding or culture that exists at the club.”

An assistant professor in modern American history at Cardiff University, Rachel Herrmann, had argued that supporters who wore Native American headdresses and war paint at matches and brandished tomahawks were evoking a history of settler colonialism, but Exeter’s only concession was to get rid of the club mascot ahead of the Premiership’s resumption next month.

“This decision will not age well for the club,” said Exeter Chiefs For Change. “There is no doubt the branding will eventually have to change. By refusing to deal with it now, the club is lining itself up for extensive reputational and commercial damage and bringing shame on all those connected to it. It reflects badly on rugby.”
Sanity prevails.
User avatar
JM2K6
Posts: 9797
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:43 am

Silly of them, this'll not go away. Nothing wrong with the name; they just need to stop co-opting native American culture for commercial ends.
User avatar
FujiKiwi
Posts: 3666
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:30 am

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with the name "Chiefs". The internet tells me it's an old English word deriving from Latin via Anglo-French.

It's the keeping of the logo that's particularly stupid. People on this very thread have shown you could have a cool design based on Anglo Saxon/Celtic tradition.
Sinkers
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:04 am

I really don’t get how they’re not looking at this and thinking the local imagery wouldn’t be a better fit anyway.

I appreciate that you don’t just throw away a brand image you’ve created over years, but even so....
Slick
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Slightly torn thinking well done for not bowing down completely but removing the worst of the offending parts and agreeing that this is not going to go away so why not use it as a chance to rebrand with something more local.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
sockwithaticket
Posts: 8663
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

Trying to find a good reason not to embrace a wholesale change...

Cost? It's no secret that rugby finances are particularly squeezed at the moment, so maybe they're hoping to kick the can down the road until a time when things have recovered and they can absorb the expense of a re-brand more readily?
Glaston
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:35 am

Are there objections against co-opting other cultures in general?

Could they become the Exeter Cossacks with requisite dance, attire and chanting ?
Or the Exeter Pharoahs



They could keep the name, change the chant to "Hail to the Chief" and wear Uncle Sam outfits .
Would that be culturally inappropriate?
Jock42
Posts: 2444
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:01 pm

I'm not that fussed. If Native Americans find it offensive then they should probably get rid. I've never understood why it was used in the first place, surely they've enough local history to draw on?
Lemoentjie
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:11 am

When you think that this is basically the equivalent of people wearing straw hats and singing 'ching chong!' if they were called 'Exeter Panda Bears' or something like that, it's pretty clear why the name should go.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10884
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Jock42 wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:22 am I've never understood why it was used in the first place, surely they've enough local history to draw on?
I think this is a fair question. Sounds like a logo someone dreams up on their own (at midnight) just before they order the jerseys for the pub team tour of The Midlands.
Now that the Chiefs are a Premiership Team with global exposure, it's time to change it.
User avatar
FujiKiwi
Posts: 3666
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:30 am

Glaston wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:13 am Are there objections against co-opting other cultures in general?

Could they become the Exeter Cossacks with requisite dance, attire and chanting ?
Or the Exeter Pharoahs




They could keep the name, change the chant to "Hail to the Chief" and wear Uncle Sam outfits .
Would that be culturally inappropriate?
I think a bit of quick research would show that the club adopting your first two suggestions would end up making a lot of people feel like shit, just like the current situation does.

I can't see any problems with your third suggestion. Everyone loves America. It has treated everyone so well.
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8223
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

FujiKiwi wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:30 am
Glaston wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:13 am Are there objections against co-opting other cultures in general?

Could they become the Exeter Cossacks with requisite dance, attire and chanting ?
Or the Exeter Pharoahs




They could keep the name, change the chant to "Hail to the Chief" and wear Uncle Sam outfits .
Would that be culturally inappropriate?
I think a bit of quick research would show that the club adopting your first two suggestions would end up making a lot of people feel like shit, just like the current situation does.

I can't see any problems with your third suggestion. Everyone loves America. It has treated everyone so well.
The, "Exeter Shitgibbons"


Fans can paint themselves Orange, & chant Covfefe; & wear trousers 4 inches too short over their sumo suits.
Post Reply