ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 2:53 pm
They should just rebrand to the Exeter Dumnonii, Exeter was the tribal capital. They can still wear stupid headgear and invent some dumb chant to go with it
That Iceland football clap seems popular. They can just co-opt that.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 am
by Plim
I always assumed that sports teams in the US and elsewhere chose Native American imagery because of these peoples’ (supposed) reputation as warrior tribes. There was something tough about it. But I expect that Exeter just came up with it in a session with some provincial advertising agency when some Dickie Beasley said “Devon is in the West of England. What’s a good western motif? No, the ‘Exeter Rustlers’ doesn’t work. Let’s try Exeter Chiefs or Braves…”
If Native American voices say the club’s branding is insulting then get shot of it. Nobody has a right gratuitously to undermine another’s dignity.
Not sure that I buy the more general cultural appropriation indignation though. Cross-adoption of food, dress, language, ritual etc etc is the story of the human race. There have been a couple of silly rows in the UK over the last few years about ‘appropriation’ of cultural foods by Anglo chefs: curry sauces and West Indian jerk chicken, I believe. That is a complaint without any basis at all.
Each objection on its facts, IMO.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 10:43 am
by Lobby
Plim wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 am
I always assumed that sports teams in the US and elsewhere chose Native American imagery because of these peoples’ (supposed) reputation as warrior tribes. There was something tough about it. But I expect that Exeter just came up with it in a session with some provincial advertising agency when some Dickie Beasley said “Devon is in the West of England. What’s a good western motif? No, the ‘Exeter Rustlers’ doesn’t work. Let’s try Exeter Chiefs or Braves…”
If Native American voices say the club’s branding is insulting then get shot of it. Nobody has a right gratuitously to undermine another’s dignity.
Not sure that I buy the more general cultural appropriation indignation though. Cross-adoption of food, dress, language, ritual etc etc is the story of the human race. There have been a couple of silly rows in the UK over the last few years about ‘appropriation’ of cultural foods by Anglo chefs: curry sauces and West Indian jerk chicken, I believe. That is a complaint without any basis at all.
Each objection on its facts, IMO.
I recently saw a rather bizarre argument BTL on the Guardian food pages where someone from Aberdeen complained that a recipe for Jerk Chicken by a chef with origins in St Vincent was ‘inauthentic’ and a ‘ caricature of Jamaican food’. When it was pointed out to him that other Caribbean islands also produced their own versions of Jerk, he stated that only Jamaican Jerk was authentic. As one of the other posters stated:
“If you believe only Jamaican jerk is jerk and everything else is… I don’t know, do you want them to use a different name? that’s fine. Personally, I think that saying that someone from Saint Vincent can’t make jerk unless it’s Official Authentic Jamaican Jerk is taking authenticity further than I’m interested in following it. History is great, good food is better, and different cultures will change it as it goes.”
Plim wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 am
I always assumed that sports teams in the US and elsewhere chose Native American imagery because of these peoples’ (supposed) reputation as warrior tribes. There was something tough about it. But I expect that Exeter just came up with it in a session with some provincial advertising agency when some Dickie Beasley said “Devon is in the West of England. What’s a good western motif? No, the ‘Exeter Rustlers’ doesn’t work. Let’s try Exeter Chiefs or Braves…”
If Native American voices say the club’s branding is insulting then get shot of it. Nobody has a right gratuitously to undermine another’s dignity.
Not sure that I buy the more general cultural appropriation indignation though. Cross-adoption of food, dress, language, ritual etc etc is the story of the human race. There have been a couple of silly rows in the UK over the last few years about ‘appropriation’ of cultural foods by Anglo chefs: curry sauces and West Indian jerk chicken, I believe. That is a complaint without any basis at all.
Each objection on its facts, IMO.
I recently saw a rather bizarre argument BTL on the Guardian food pages where someone from Aberdeen complained that a recipe for Jerk Chicken by a chef with origins in St Vincent was ‘inauthentic’ and a ‘ caricature of Jamaican food’. When it was pointed out to him that other Caribbean islands also produced their own versions of Jerk, he stated that only Jamaican Jerk was authentic. As one of the other posters stated:
“If you believe only Jamaican jerk is jerk and everything else is… I don’t know, do you want them to use a different name? that’s fine. Personally, I think that saying that someone from Saint Vincent can’t make jerk unless it’s Official Authentic Jamaican Jerk is taking authenticity further than I’m interested in following it. History is great, good food is better, and different cultures will change it as it goes.”
Well there is an issue from the start . No one from Aberdeen knows what culture even is, let alone Cultural Appropriation
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 11:37 am
by Tichtheid
Jerry Sadowitz used to have a character in his act called Rabbi Burns from Aberdeen, the tightest man on the planet.
The mention of Aberdeen made me think of that and then I remembered the story about Sadowitz in Montreal, from wiki
In 1991, Sadowitz was knocked unconscious by an irate audience member during a performance at the Just for Laughs Comedy Festival in Montreal, where he mocked French Canadians, starting with the greeting "Hello moosefuckers! I tell you why I hate Canada, half of you speak French, and the other half let them."
The rarely quoted follow up line, which Sadowitz claims is what actually led to him being attacked was "Why don't you speak Indian? You might as well speak the language of the people you stole the country off of in the first place
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:57 pm
by Niegs
Plim wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 9:37 am
I always assumed that sports teams in the US and elsewhere chose Native American imagery because of these peoples’ (supposed) reputation as warrior tribes. There was something tough about it. But I expect that Exeter just came up with it in a session with some provincial advertising agency when some Dickie Beasley said “Devon is in the West of England. What’s a good western motif? No, the ‘Exeter Rustlers’ doesn’t work. Let’s try Exeter Chiefs or Braves…”
Yes, and I'm willing to bet most date back to the early 20th Century when there was this cultural notion of the 'noble savage' (while treating those living on reservations, generally, like shit), or if into the 30s-60s, when Westerns were all the rage on TV / in film.
I don't imagine any pro teams / amateur clubs / schools took on that sort of imagery as a new thing from the 90s onward?
Interestingly, some have had referendums to replace mascots where students end up voting on something atypical, like the Banana Slug
... or create something where there wasn't a mascot (Dartmouth had an 'Indian' but didn't replace it, students weren't unanimously happy with the 'Moose' suggestion so 'no mascot' prompted some to create Keggy)
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:32 pm
by notfatcat
Here is a detailed good read from the unpopular side of the aisle, from a part-native American.
I think the key here is why they're wearing them, which he pretty much touches on in the article. If the intent is just because it looks nice, it's not really a problem.
Call Out #5:
It is the same as wearing black-face.
No. Wearing a feathered bonnet to a concert festival is not the same thing as wearing blackface.If you’re going to argue that comparison you need to show that the offenders’ specific intent was the degradation of Native culture. There is a difference between engaging in an activity/tradition whose primary intent is the degradation and dehumanization of a specific group of people, and making an ill-advised fashion statement by wearing feathers in your hair because you find them aesthetically pleasing. Intent is everything. (Whether or not performers in blackface are knowingly degrading people of color is, perhaps, a legitimate argument. But not here.)
Some music festivals have subcultures that participate by wearing festival regalia. If they add the warbonnet to their regalia it is not so they can pretend to be a Native American.
Black face was used to make a character who did stupid things look even more stupid. People wearing headdresses at a concert– they’re wearing them because (in their opinions) they are cool looking. That is not racial stereotyping.
Black face is intended to mock blacks. Wearing a headdress is not intended to mock Native Americans. The festivalgoer is not making a statement about Native Americans. They want to wear colorful feathers. They’re style copying a piece of a foreign culture and wearing it.
Black face represents someone’s physical appearance rather than a symbol or an item.
Festival goers are not pretending to be Native Americans. Chief's fan's getting dressed up, waving plastic tomahawks and chanting, absolutely are.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:47 pm
by Plim
notfatcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:32 pm
Here is a detailed good read from the unpopular side of the aisle, from a part-native American.
Raggs, the most interesting point for me was how certain tribes "culturally appropriated" the war bonnets themselves and the contradictions that come from discussing 500+ recognised tribes vs one broad group.
Plus I would disagree that Chiefs fans are pretending to be Native Americans - that's a real stretch.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:27 pm
by ASMO
notfatcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:24 pm
Raggs, the most interesting point for me was how certain tribes "culturally appropriated" the war bonnets themselves and the contradictions that come from discussing 500+ recognised tribes vs one broad group.
Plus I would disagree that Chiefs fans are pretending to be Native Americans - that's a real stretch.
They are parodying them which in itsrlf is highly disrespectful.
notfatcat wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 3:24 pm
Raggs, the most interesting point for me was how certain tribes "culturally appropriated" the war bonnets themselves and the contradictions that come from discussing 500+ recognised tribes vs one broad group.
Plus I would disagree that Chiefs fans are pretending to be Native Americans - that's a real stretch.
They are parodying them which in itsrlf is highly disrespectful.
Not in the sense that they are mocking Native Americans. I've seen no evidence of that.
Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 1:58 pmExplain 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".
My "credentials" are that I'm an English club rugby fan who was born in Exeter, grew up in Devon, and that they are my 'second' team. Everyone has the right to an opinion on this, but bizarrely you seem to think that holding an opinion on an obscure rugby forum is the same thing as being offended and running a campaign. You just don't get that I and other fans are perfectly entitled to talk about this stuff. All you're doing is looking for reasons to dismiss the opinion of everyone who isn't you - you were the one who started yelling about this being "nothing to do" with me, so the fact that I have more connection to this than you do should matter according to your own logic. But I won't hold my breath.
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.
The usual right-wing response - utter refusal to believe that anyone might be discussing things in good faith. Instead it's all "playing to the crowd" instead of honestly held opinions. Doubly funny given how happy I have been (and continue to be) to piss people off by sticking to my guns when holding a contrary opinion. Maybe - shock! horror! - this is just me stating my opinion and not looking for cred on <checks notes> an obscure rugby forum populated by a tiny percentage of the people I know from a bigger obscure rugby forum I used to post on
if I was playing to a crowd, I'd pick somewhere that has a fucking crowd to begin with
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:43 am
by Kawazaki
I'm no fan of Exeter Chiefs, and I could quite easily take vicarious pleasure out of seeing them exposed and humiliated, but, quite frankly, this letter is absolute bullshit.
"We accept the original intention was positive and not derogatory...
... continued use of it is intentionally offensive"
The hyperbole used could literally have been lifted straight out of a Viz comic 'Millie Tant' cartoon strip.
I'm no fan of Exeter Chiefs, and I could quite easily take vicarious pleasure out of seeing them exposed and humiliated, but, quite frankly, this letter is absolute bullshit.
"We accept the original intention was positive and not derogatory...
... continued use of it is intentionally offensive"
This is total and utter rubbish.
I don’t see the problem with the letter. Something being done in good intentions, but later on, as times and views change, being considered a bit insulting, has happened previously and can happen. When you’re made aware of this, but choose to ignore it, then you’re deliberately doing something which you now know is offensive to some people.
I'm no fan of Exeter Chiefs, and I could quite easily take vicarious pleasure out of seeing them exposed and humiliated, but, quite frankly, this letter is absolute bullshit.
"We accept the original intention was positive and not derogatory...
... continued use of it is intentionally offensive"
This is total and utter rubbish.
I don’t see the problem with the letter. Something being done in good intentions, but later on, as times and views change, being considered a bit insulting, has happened previously and can happen. When you’re made aware of this, but choose to ignore it, then you’re deliberately doing something which you now know is offensive to some people.
You offend me, please desist from posting on this forum ever again. If you now continue to post here then you are posting in full knowledge that I'm offended. You should be shamed of yourself.
Rowan Atkinson speech from 2014/5 says it far better than I can. And I assume he's not considered a raging fascist by the faint of heart.
I'm no fan of Exeter Chiefs, and I could quite easily take vicarious pleasure out of seeing them exposed and humiliated, but, quite frankly, this letter is absolute bullshit.
"We accept the original intention was positive and not derogatory...
... continued use of it is intentionally offensive"
The hyperbole used could literally have been lifted straight out of a Viz comic 'Millie Tant' cartoon strip.
It is total and utter rubbish.
I’m naturally resistant to campaigning groups, so I tend to read a message and consider it without ever wanting to join or help the group itself. That is a pretty spectacular example of self-important campaigning: the ‘mission statement’ is so wordy and pompous it’s embarrassing. Plus the “For immediate release” - as if anyone’s going to think this is so significant that it might be under an embargo. And the grammar’s poor.
But I still don’t think the central point is wrong. It’s just less likely to be achieved now that a clique of tedious hectorers has taken it up.
I'm no fan of Exeter Chiefs, and I could quite easily take vicarious pleasure out of seeing them exposed and humiliated, but, quite frankly, this letter is absolute bullshit.
"We accept the original intention was positive and not derogatory...
... continued use of it is intentionally offensive"
This is total and utter rubbish.
I don’t see the problem with the letter. Something being done in good intentions, but later on, as times and views change, being considered a bit insulting, has happened previously and can happen. When you’re made aware of this, but choose to ignore it, then you’re deliberately doing something which you now know is offensive to some people.
You offend me, please desist from posting on this forum ever again. If you now continue to post here then you are posting in full knowledge that I'm offended. You should be shamed of yourself.
Rowan Atkinson speech from 2014/5 says it far better than I can. And I assume he's not considered a raging fascist by the faint of heart.
Great fallacy thinking fella. I’m quite happy to offend you by being against racism.
I don’t see the problem with the letter. Something being done in good intentions, but later on, as times and views change, being considered a bit insulting, has happened previously and can happen. When you’re made aware of this, but choose to ignore it, then you’re deliberately doing something which you now know is offensive to some people.
You offend me, please desist from posting on this forum ever again. If you now continue to post here then you are posting in full knowledge that I'm offended. You should be shamed of yourself.
Rowan Atkinson speech from 2014/5 says it far better than I can. And I assume he's not considered a raging fascist by the faint of heart.
Great fallacy thinking fella. I’m quite happy to offend you by being against racism.
You offend me, please desist from posting on this forum ever again. If you now continue to post here then you are posting in full knowledge that I'm offended. You should be shamed of yourself.
Rowan Atkinson speech from 2014/5 says it far better than I can. And I assume he's not considered a raging fascist by the faint of heart.
Great fallacy thinking fella. I’m quite happy to offend you by being against racism.
So now I'm a racist?
This is how obscene this farce becomes.
Where did I say that? All is said was that I am anti racist. If that offends you, that’s something I’ll let other people form an opinion on. You seem somewhat sensitive to it though.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:06 am
by ASMO
Again, stop conflating racism and disrespect, they are absolutely not the same, in fact they are poles apart, nothing Exeter is doing could reasonably be construed as racist except by people who get professionally offended.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:10 am
by notfatcat
Has anyone ever seen a debate or reasonably comprehensive discussion involving an offended Native American and someone who holds an opposing view on this subject?
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:17 am
by Tichtheid
notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:10 am
Has anyone ever seen a debate or reasonably comprehensive discussion involving an offended Native American and someone who holds an opposing view on this subject?
There are references here to discussions between teams and representations from nations, the direction of travel seems to be pretty much one way
Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:54 am
Where did I say that? All is said was that I am anti racist. If that offends you, that’s something I’ll let other people form an opinion on. You seem somewhat sensitive to it though.
My earlier reference to you offending me was facetiousness. I'd rather hoped that wouldn't require pointing out.
Accusing a person or institution of being a racist or of racism is said by some people nowadays with a flippancy as if you were commenting on their hair colour or which car they drive. It renders the word virtually pointless.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:34 pm
by laurent
How is that even a topic ?
Native Americans in the US/Canada have been going through the courts to get this type of imagery stopped.
Apart from the marketing idiots having to come up with some new gimmick is there a reason not to pre-empt and get rid of it?
The franchise /nickname thing is just a load of bollock for most of the clubs anyway. (excepted for Tigers and sarries there is no basis AFAIK).
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:44 pm
by sockwithaticket
laurent wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:34 pm
How is that even a topic ?
Native Americans in the US/Canada have been going through the courts to get this type of imagery stopped.
Apart from the marketing idiots having to come up with some new gimmick is there a reason not to pre-empt and get rid of it?
The franchise /nickname thing is just a load of bollock for most of the clubs anyway. (excepted for Tigers and sarries there is no basis AFAIK).
Chiefs does actually have history with Exeter, going back quite a long way it was the traditional name for the first team iirc.
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:46 pm
by Niegs
I caught a bit of the Wasps v Exeter women's match on youtube yesterday with two Ex players on the comms. At one point the chant can be heard and, iirc, one of the women praises the fans for it and mentions the chop as well. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting what she said but she did acknowledge it, brought up the chop herself, and certainly didn't say it was cringy or address any of the backlash at all.)
It made me wonder how much the women know about this on-going issue? Surely some of the men's players have been @'ed on twitter and maybe been told not to address it? Interestingly, the women have five Americans and four Canadians in their squad. I wonder if they're just putting their heads in the sand over having bright orange 'Indian' on their jerseys with all the controversy such a thing would cause back home (and it's happened here in Canada, too, with the Edmonton Eskimos CFL team switching to the 'Elk').
Re: Exeter Chiefs chop and imagery
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:49 pm
by Raggs
Niegs wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:46 pm
I caught a bit of the Wasps v Exeter women's match on youtube yesterday with two Ex players on the comms. At one point the chant can be heard and, iirc, one of the women praises the fans for it and mentions the chop as well. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting what she said but she did acknowledge it, brought up the chop herself, and certainly didn't say it was cringy or address any of the backlash at all.)
It made me wonder how much the women know about this on-going issue? Surely some of the men's players have been @'ed on twitter and maybe been told not to address it? Interestingly, the women have five Americans and four Canadians in their squad. I wonder if they're just putting their heads in the sand over having bright orange 'Indian' on their jerseys with all the controversy such a thing would cause back home (and it's happened here in Canada, too, with the Edmonton Eskimos CFL team switching to the 'Elk').
Being honest, given some of the opinions that have come out of the Exeter men's team, they may be well aware of it, and just not care. As for the women, I suspect they'd have to be aware on some level surely?
Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:54 am
Where did I say that? All is said was that I am anti racist. If that offends you, that’s something I’ll let other people form an opinion on. You seem somewhat sensitive to it though.
My earlier reference to you offending me was facetiousness. I'd rather hoped that wouldn't require pointing out.
Accusing a person or institution of being a racist or of racism is said by some people nowadays with a flippancy as if you were commenting on their hair colour or which car they drive. It renders the word virtually pointless.
Strange how you didn't pick up it was an equally facetious answer.
Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:54 am
Where did I say that? All is said was that I am anti racist. If that offends you, that’s something I’ll let other people form an opinion on. You seem somewhat sensitive to it though.
My earlier reference to you offending me was facetiousness. I'd rather hoped that wouldn't require pointing out.
Accusing a person or institution of being a racist or of racism is said by some people nowadays with a flippancy as if you were commenting on their hair colour or which car they drive. It renders the word virtually pointless.
Strange how you didn't pick up it was an equally facetious answer.
Which bit was facetiousness?
That Chiefs fans are racist for wearing feathers on their heads or by not supporting the campaign to stop them wearing it is also racist?
My earlier reference to you offending me was facetiousness. I'd rather hoped that wouldn't require pointing out.
Accusing a person or institution of being a racist or of racism is said by some people nowadays with a flippancy as if you were commenting on their hair colour or which car they drive. It renders the word virtually pointless.
Strange how you didn't pick up it was an equally facetious answer.
Which bit was facetiousness?
That Chiefs fans are racist for wearing feathers on their heads or by not supporting the campaign to stop them wearing it is also racist?
I didn’t say anyone was. Where are you getting that from?
You said you are anti-racist (well done you) then linked that statement with the comment that I would be offended by you being anti-racist.
Why would I be offended that you're anti-racist?
I don’t know, I said if you were. Why are you offended by anything on this thread? Because if you’re not then I don’t see why you’re going on about this.
