NPR

Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:12 pm We should extend this to
- Crusaders. Clearest case of all given the root of the world's major strifes currently.
- Saints. Absolutely offensive to god botherers.
- Saracens. Hard to see how this differs from the Chiefs scenario.
- English fans singing "Swing Low".

Only just seen this, but the original name of the club was Northampton St James, for the area of town the club is based in. And seeing as we were started up by a local Reverend, we actually are the god botherers

Saint wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:14 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:12 pm We should extend this to
- Crusaders. Clearest case of all given the root of the world's major strifes currently.
- Saints. Absolutely offensive to god botherers.
- Saracens. Hard to see how this differs from the Chiefs scenario.
- English fans singing "Swing Low".

Only just seen this, but the original name of the club was Northampton St James, for the area of town the club is based in. And seeing as we were started up by a local Reverend, we actually are the god botherers

Torq is just being a prick with whataboutery and straw men. Don’t bother.

Saint wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:14 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:12 pm We should extend this to
- Crusaders. Clearest case of all given the root of the world's major strifes currently.
- Saints. Absolutely offensive to god botherers.
- Saracens. Hard to see how this differs from the Chiefs scenario.
- English fans singing "Swing Low".

Only just seen this, but the original name of the club was Northampton St James, for the area of town the club is based in. And seeing as we were started up by a local Reverend, we actually are the god botherers

You go ahead and ruin it. Jimmy's End possibly less virtuous than it used to be.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:24 am

Saint wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:14 am

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 2:12 pm We should extend this to
- Crusaders. Clearest case of all given the root of the world's major strifes currently.
- Saints. Absolutely offensive to god botherers.
- Saracens. Hard to see how this differs from the Chiefs scenario.
- English fans singing "Swing Low".

Only just seen this, but the original name of the club was Northampton St James, for the area of town the club is based in. And seeing as we were started up by a local Reverend, we actually are the god botherers

Torq is just being a prick with whataboutery and straw men. Don’t bother.

Nothing quite as tedious as privileged, middle class white boys falling over each other in the race to be seen as the most offended by proxy.

Keep it up and you just might surpass JMK.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:20 am Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Since I already explained that very few native American tribes wore war bonnets, the pool would have to be considerably less than than the number you cite. So in this instance you can only be offended on behalf of a much smaller number so you lose "look at me" points.

I doubt Exeter were honouring anyone and would be surprised if they were silly enough to claim so.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:20 am Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Since I already explained that very few native American tribes wore war bonnets, the pool would have to be considerably less than than the number you cite. So in this instance you can only be offended on behalf of a much smaller number so you lose "look at me" points.

I doubt Exeter were honouring anyone and would be surprised if they were silly enough to claim so.

I’m willing to bet that none of the people who are apparently celebrating their culture know that and couldn’t name one that does wear them.

If anyone is trying to chalk up look at me points here, it’s you and your edgelord persona.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:20 am Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Since I already explained that very few native American tribes wore war bonnets, the pool would have to be considerably less than than the number you cite. So in this instance you can only be offended on behalf of a much smaller number so you lose "look at me" points.

I doubt Exeter were honouring anyone and would be surprised if they were silly enough to claim so.

This isn't a quibble over numbers, but for information's sake, those groups likely to wear feathered war bonnets would cover a big chunk of America and Canada...



I've seen paintings from the 1700s that suggests a feather or feathers might have also been part of the regalia of peoples east of that region as well. Not only were raptors revered (all over the world, surely?), groups from the Pacific Northwest to the Great Lakes region all seem to have the Thunderbirdin their oral histories/mythology, probably showing how far back it goes into their culture, having traveled or at least been passed between groups for centuries.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:55 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:24 am

Saint wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:14 am

Only just seen this, but the original name of the club was Northampton St James, for the area of town the club is based in. And seeing as we were started up by a local Reverend, we actually are the god botherers

Torq is just being a prick with whataboutery and straw men. Don’t bother.

Nothing quite as tedious as privileged, middle class white boys falling over each other in the race to be seen as the most offended by proxy.

Keep it up and you just might surpass JMK.

Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:20 am Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Since I already explained that very few native American tribes wore war bonnets, the pool would have to be considerably less than than the number you cite. So in this instance you can only be offended on behalf of a much smaller number so you lose "look at me" points.

I doubt Exeter were honouring anyone and would be surprised if they were silly enough to claim so.

They're offended by themselves, they don't need anyone to be offended for them. Still I guess if there's not many of them left, we don't need to listen to them...

Raggs wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:20 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 12:59 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 8:20 am Btw, if anyone still clings on to the idea that Exeter are in some saying honouring or paying tribute to Native American culture, which one of the 500+ Nations are they honouring? Because if they can’t tell you, then they’re lumping all of them together, homogenising different cultures thousands of miles apart into a single stereotyped whole and lessening their cultures by doing so.

Which sounds pretty racist to me.

Since I already explained that very few native American tribes wore war bonnets, the pool would have to be considerably less than than the number you cite. So in this instance you can only be offended on behalf of a much smaller number so you lose "look at me" points.

I doubt Exeter were honouring anyone and would be surprised if they were silly enough to claim so.

They're offended by themselves, they don't need anyone to be offended for them. Still I guess if there's not many of them left, we don't need to listen to them...

Torq doesn't understand that you can recognise something is offensive to a group of people without getting angry and personally offended by it yourself.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:18 pm Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

So, here's a thing. 30 years ago a Ghanaian friend had an oft used phrase and I'll quote her:
"White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism. White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too."

Back then I was less disposed to her standpoint. After a couple of decades of watching you keyboard warriors, my stance has hardened.

A bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs competing with a bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs over who can be the most right on? I feel safer already.

No. Wait. I don't.

Now, if you want to turn up at The Den and deal with some c**ts making monkey noises or confront the baddies at an EDL march, then I'll pay attention rather than merely feeling patronised.

Until then, stay the f**k out unless you are invited or are really going to be doing something other than massaging your own consciences and egos safely behind your monitors. As Jennifer used to say too: "We don't need your kind of f**king help."

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:18 pm Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

So, here's a thing. 30 years ago a Ghanaian friend had an oft used phrase and I'll quote her:
"White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism. White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too."

Back then I was less disposed to her standpoint. After a couple of decades of watching you keyboard warriors, my stance has hardened.

A bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs competing with a bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs over who can be the most right on? I feel safer already.

No. Wait. I don't.

Now, if you want to turn up at The Den and deal with some c**ts making monkey noises or confront the baddies at an EDL march, then I'll pay attention rather than merely feeling patronised.

Until then, stay the f**k out unless you are invited or are really going to be doing something other than massaging your own consciences and egos safely behind your monitors. As Jennifer used to say too: "We don't need your kind of f**king help."

You can pretend all you like that Native Americans don’t find it offensive. That only goes to prove how much of a fool you are.

Biffer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:46 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:18 pm Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

So, here's a thing. 30 years ago a Ghanaian friend had an oft used phrase and I'll quote her:
"White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism. White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too."

Back then I was less disposed to her standpoint. After a couple of decades of watching you keyboard warriors, my stance has hardened.

A bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs competing with a bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs over who can be the most right on? I feel safer already.

No. Wait. I don't.

Now, if you want to turn up at The Den and deal with some c**ts making monkey noises or confront the baddies at an EDL march, then I'll pay attention rather than merely feeling patronised.

Until then, stay the f**k out unless you are invited or are really going to be doing something other than massaging your own consciences and egos safely behind your monitors. As Jennifer used to say too: "We don't need your kind of f**king help."

You can pretend all you like that Native Americans don’t find it offensive. That only goes to prove how much of a fool you are.

I think they are being ridiculous and should just change it. At the same time, how many Native Indians do you think are being offended by a rugby club in Devon?

I remember reading years ago that only 10% of polled native americans were offended by the Washington Redskins name. That number increased dramatically over the years. Needless to say we now live in a culture where taking offence seems to be a national pastime and is encouraged in pretty much every avenue of society. It's not acceptable to say you don't give a fuck if someone is offended by something. It's a sad state of affairs but it'll be a good while yet before there's any significant pushback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

Very good. So where is the natural end? If one person is offended then do we all have to demand change?

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

Very good. So where is the natural end? If one person is offended then do we all have to demand change?

I don't understand your question, the point here is that a culture is being reduced to a caricature, or "it's just for a laugh" whereas it's actually "stolen valour" as Jock very eloquently put it - this is not like me calling you Big Nose or whatever, it's not something just one person can get offended at.

If I did call you Big Nose, then the demand for change would be that we all stop being so fucking rude to each other

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:18 pm Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

So, here's a thing. 30 years ago a Ghanaian friend had an oft used phrase and I'll quote her:
"White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism. White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too."

Back then I was less disposed to her standpoint. After a couple of decades of watching you keyboard warriors, my stance has hardened.

A bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs competing with a bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs over who can be the most right on? I feel safer already.

No. Wait. I don't.

Now, if you want to turn up at The Den and deal with some c**ts making monkey noises or confront the baddies at an EDL march, then I'll pay attention rather than merely feeling patronised.

Until then, stay the f**k out unless you are invited or are really going to be doing something other than massaging your own consciences and egos safely behind your monitors. As Jennifer used to say too: "We don't need your kind of f**king help."

Ahhh I see how it is. You're offended that anyone who isn't a Native American has an opinion on this that doesn't match yours.

So let's see:

1) Native American opinion doesn't count because we can't tell how many there are who would find it offensive
2) A Native American cultural ambassador who lives in Exeter pointing out that of course it's offensive to Native Americans doesn't count because something to do with Native tribes being misogynistic and because she only represents one tribe
3) Non Native Americans are "keyboard warriors" if they express an opinion in line with the idea that yeah, it is offensive to Native Americans
4) The only kind of racism or offensive behaviour is monkey chants and explicit white supremacist groups, everything else is just invented
5) Something to do with the number of tribes that actually wore headdresses, because that's incredibly relevant when talking about caricatures of Native American peoples as a whole
6) English club rugby supporters shouldn't have an opinion on an English rugby club, and if they do express an opinion on a rugby forum populated by about fifty people it means they're trying to enact change on something you think doesn't matter, as opposed to just... making posts on a rugby forum practically no-one reads

Honestly, you're a fucking mess. I don't know what happened that made you like this, but quoting "White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too" when you, as a non Native American, have tried so hard to dismiss the testimony of Native Americans, followed by twattish posts mocking the entire idea that they might find it offensive, is absolutely hilarious. Why don't YOU stay the fuck out? It's nothing to do with you, after all. Or at the very least have the bollocks to follow fatcat's lead and admit you just don't give a fuck about anyone except yourself.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:29 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:15 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

Very good. So where is the natural end? If one person is offended then do we all have to demand change?

I don't understand your question, the point here is that a culture is being reduced to a caricature, or "it's just for a laugh" whereas it's actually "stolen valour" as Jock very eloquently put it - this is not like me calling you Big Nose or whatever, it's not something just one person can get offended at.

If I did call you Big Nose, then the demand for change would be that we all stop being so fucking rude to each other

This is so hilariously over the top though. The suggestion that a rugby team in Devon called Chiefs is reducing a culture on the other side of the world to a caricature, or stealing its valour (please…), particularly when so few people actually from that culture seem to care, makes me wonder what the primary motive for the hand wringing is.

It's not about the naaaaaaaaaaaame

(edit: And I know you know this, Slick, as you made some fairly thoughtful posts in the early stages of this very thread - so I'm not sure why you've suddenly decided the caricatures aren't caricatures after all)

(edit the second: I'm off to bed, then I'm off on holiday for a week, so sadly Torq's incoherent ranting will be going to a black hole. Toodle-pip!)

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:48 pm It's not about the naaaaaaaaaaaame

(edit: And I know you know this, Slick, as you made some fairly thoughtful posts in the early stages of this very thread - so I'm not sure why you've suddenly decided the caricatures aren't caricatures after all)

(edit the second: I'm off to bed, then I'm off on holiday for a week, so sadly Torq's incoherent ranting will be going to a black hole. Toodle-pip!)

Are you in Edinburgh next week?

Edit: did I? I’ll check back, I surprise myself sometimes

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:47 pm

This is so hilariously over the top though. The suggestion that a rugby team in Devon called Chiefs is reducing a culture on the other side of the world to a caricature, or stealing its valour (please…), particularly when so few people actually from that culture seem to care, makes me wonder what the primary motive for the hand wringing is.

You've woefully misunderstood, and not for the first time.

The stolen valour was that the UK equivalent to wearing the full war bonnet was someone who had never been in the forces pinning a Victoria Cross on themselves, just for how it looks - an accessory if you like.
Do you know what the Victoria Cross is?

People from that culture do care, there are on going disputes with that iconography with several sporting teams in the US.

Or at the very least have the bollocks to follow fatcat's lead and admit you just don't give a fuck about anyone except yourself.

Wrong twat is wrong.

Stolen from the Tigers board:

"Ok, let's look at it this way. Worcester Warriors (a perfectly valid if manufactured non- racist nickname) decides to use Zulu iconography and encourage fans to turn up in blackface..
If anyone thinks that would be ok I would be happier if you weren't on the site TBH."

I think Exeter could easily keep the Chiefs name and dispense with the Native American garb. My ancient history has gaps but no doubt a quick google would find some old Ancient Britons chiefs from the South West they could model it on instead.

Not to mention there's something exceptionally tedious about seeing a bunch of middle class white guys wearing Native American headgear to a rugby match in a provincial English city. Leaving aside all other issues, it's a bit tragic.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:14 am I think Exeter could easily keep the Chiefs name and dispense with the Native American garb. My ancient history has gaps but no doubt a quick google would find some old Ancient Britons chiefs from the South West they could model it on instead.

Not to mention there's something exceptionally tedious about seeing a bunch of middle class white guys wearing Native American headgear to a rugby match in a provincial English city. Leaving aside all other issues, it's a bit tragic.

That's exactly what the campaigners are saying - it's not the name, it's the imagery.

These days people just take offence for every little thing. Poor kids cant even play cowboys & injuns without being educated on "cultural misappropriation"

The whole worlds gone fokon soft.

Not to mention there's something exceptionally tedious about seeing a bunch of middle class white guys

How does this work then? Lower class Asians would be okay? Upper class Armenians? Middle class white women? Council estate transsexuals?

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:19 pm

Not to mention there's something exceptionally tedious about seeing a bunch of middle class white guys

How does this work then? Lower class Asians would be okay? Upper class Armenians? Middle class white women? Council estate transsexuals?

No adult should really be playing dress up to go to a club rugby match but it's particularly sad when it's the kind of bloke I referenced.

Okay, although I doubt I'll ever find out why it's particularly sad when middle class white guys do it.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:33 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 6:39 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 3:18 pm Nah, you're being a disingenuous arsehole again. Why not just come out and admit you don't give a shit whether it's offensive to native americans? At least it would be honest and not this tedious bad-faith bullshit you do every time. You jumped into a thread you didn't bother to read with a firmly set opinion that everyone could've guessed, and whenever you were faced with unfortunate facts that countered your viewpoint you moved the goalposts so that your usual line could still be followed.

Just be honest! People might even respect you for it.

So, here's a thing. 30 years ago a Ghanaian friend had an oft used phrase and I'll quote her:
"White people invented racism. White people perpetuated racism. White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too."

Back then I was less disposed to her standpoint. After a couple of decades of watching you keyboard warriors, my stance has hardened.

A bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs competing with a bunch of privileged, white, middle class blokes in armchairs over who can be the most right on? I feel safer already.

No. Wait. I don't.

Now, if you want to turn up at The Den and deal with some c**ts making monkey noises or confront the baddies at an EDL march, then I'll pay attention rather than merely feeling patronised.

Until then, stay the f**k out unless you are invited or are really going to be doing something other than massaging your own consciences and egos safely behind your monitors. As Jennifer used to say too: "We don't need your kind of f**king help."

Ahhh I see how it is. You're offended that anyone who isn't a Native American has an opinion on this that doesn't match yours.

So let's see:

1) Native American opinion doesn't count because we can't tell how many there are who would find it offensive
2) A Native American cultural ambassador who lives in Exeter pointing out that of course it's offensive to Native Americans doesn't count because something to do with Native tribes being misogynistic and because she only represents one tribe
3) Non Native Americans are "keyboard warriors" if they express an opinion in line with the idea that yeah, it is offensive to Native Americans
4) The only kind of racism or offensive behaviour is monkey chants and explicit white supremacist groups, everything else is just invented
5) Something to do with the number of tribes that actually wore headdresses, because that's incredibly relevant when talking about caricatures of Native American peoples as a whole
6) English club rugby supporters shouldn't have an opinion on an English rugby club, and if they do express an opinion on a rugby forum populated by about fifty people it means they're trying to enact change on something you think doesn't matter, as opposed to just... making posts on a rugby forum practically no-one reads

Honestly, you're a fucking mess. I don't know what happened that made you like this, but quoting "White people don't now get to f**king tell me what is and what isn't racist too" when you, as a non Native American, have tried so hard to dismiss the testimony of Native Americans, followed by twattish posts mocking the entire idea that they might find it offensive, is absolutely hilarious. Why don't YOU stay the fuck out? It's nothing to do with you, after all. Or at the very least have the bollocks to follow fatcat's lead and admit you just don't give a fuck about anyone except yourself.

Nice shifting of the posts there defending your position across the boards as self appointed judge, jury and executioner of all things moral ranging from rugby foul play, through women's rights and into racism. Now, I know you know about rugby and it's a rugby forum so fair enough. I'm not interested in any role you may have as a woman and anyway, there are no women here to care. I suspect the closest you've to an understanding of racism is doing a runner with some chums from your local Ruby.

Explain what role/right you have in this debate at all? Remember, you brought up the cultural ambassador because she had a stake and a right in the debate (which does not necessarily mean she is correct) so you clearly recognise that validity. Other than your own arrogant belief, what are your credentials here? Looks like a case of "We've told them what's good for them but these damned natives are so ungrateful".

The point is it's you who doesn't really give a fuck about anyone else in this regard. All this posturing and playing to the crowd in search of sainthood is at least as cringeworthy as anything you so frequently accuse Globus of.

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:47 pm makes me wonder what the primary motive for the hand wringing is.

You know the answer to that. It's so JMK and his ilk can make themselves feel morally superior whereas they are nothing more than playground activists.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd just wish they'd stop beating the drums and the bloody annoying chant.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:11 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

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

As privileged white males, are we allowed to support the fact that people who are spokespeople for their people, have said that it's offensive?

Not that we're offended, but recognising that they've said it's offensive. Recognise how it can be offensive to them and others. And therefore point out that it's likely not a very nice thing to do.

I'm not Jewish, but I'm fairly aware that anti-semitic actions are not good. I don't have to be offended on anyone's behalf to recognise that someone else is being a cunt to another group of people, even if I don't belong to that group..

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:28 pm

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:19 pm

Not to mention there's something exceptionally tedious about seeing a bunch of middle class white guys

How does this work then? Lower class Asians would be okay? Upper class Armenians? Middle class white women? Council estate transsexuals?

No adult should really be playing dress up to go to a club rugby match but it's particularly sad when it's the kind of bloke I referenced.

HK 7's
Barmy Army and lots of other cricket games would be less entertaining if dressing up went out of fashion.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:29 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:11 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

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

As privileged white males, are we allowed to support the fact that people who are spokespeople for their people, have said that it's offensive?

Not that we're offended, but recognising that they've said it's offensive. Recognise how it can be offensive to them and others. And therefore point out that it's likely not a very nice thing to do.

I'm not Jewish, but I'm fairly aware that anti-semitic actions are not good. I don't have to be offended on anyone's behalf to recognise that someone else is being a cunt to another group of people, even if I don't belong to that group..

Exactly this. Torq's argument relies on having no empathy.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 2:11 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Aug 14, 2021 9:00 pm You can start at the extreme end and work back from there , and with no apologies for the Godwin's Law invocation -

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

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

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

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

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

You've missed the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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