NPR

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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????"

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.

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?

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.

I don’t know where I’d start to try to tell them they would be wrong for hating this stuff.

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.

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.

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.”

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?

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?

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.