NPR

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:50 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:26 am It's not a ridiculous or stupid response. If BT are going to use precious broadcast time to address something that really isn't the biggest story in English rugby then at least do it properly.

And to your Dolly Parton quote, perhaps try this Stephen Fry quote (for balance of course...);

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

'precious broadcast time'

There aren't just three channels anymore. Given the amount of shite there is on hundreds of channels I don't think your handbag clutching 'think of the airtime' nonsense is a particularly good line for you.

BT Sport have cut their number of hours output for rugby per week. There's also not a highlights programme on any more.

I'm surprised you're so poorly informed. Or perhaps actually I'm not.

But they're not using it because they just like the look. They're using it because it theythink it represents native Americans and they believe them to be these warriors etc.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:01 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:44 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:37 pm

I didn't get to watch Rugby Tonight.

What were the reasons given?

Same ones that have been repeated in here multiple times but with a bit more detail and from the mouths of people whose opinions on it matter. Head dresses and warpaint on non-Native Americans is the equivalent to stolen valour and sacrilige given how they are obtained by and what they represent to Native people. Chants are generally used in specific rituals and ceremonies, so to have a made up one for a sporting event is also bordering on sacrilege and is certainly insulting.

Using a caricatured composite image of a generic Native American is reductive and an insult to the 600+ distinct tribes. It's inappropriate and offensive for non-Native Americans to appropriate the imagery even if the decision was made from a place of benign ignorance.

Of course most of those 600 tribes appropriated it themselves. If they're free to do so then so is everyone else. And if we're not free to wear, sing, cook, style hair, use make up, write, print ideas others thought of first then there are some quite shocking restrictions coming in our lives.

The idea of owning ideas is problematic, even in instances where sharing and enjoining of those ideas gives rise to offence, and whether that offence is intended or not

I hope that people offended don't eat Chinese food, especially 'Chop Suey' or maybe they've eaten an Indian Masala. All appropriated cuisine.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:06 am But they're not using it because they just like the look. They're using it because it theythink it represents native Americans and they believe them to be these warriors etc.

When have Exeter Chiefs said they are actually representing native Americans?!

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:03 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:50 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:26 am It's not a ridiculous or stupid response. If BT are going to use precious broadcast time to address something that really isn't the biggest story in English rugby then at least do it properly.

And to your Dolly Parton quote, perhaps try this Stephen Fry quote (for balance of course...);

'precious broadcast time'

There aren't just three channels anymore. Given the amount of shite there is on hundreds of channels I don't think your handbag clutching 'think of the airtime' nonsense is a particularly good line for you.

BT Sport have cut their number of hours output for rugby per week. There's also not a highlights programme on any more.

I'm surprised you're so poorly informed. Or perhaps actually I'm not.

There is no highlight programme on Channel 5 anymore
There is however an 80 minute highlights package available on BT fronted by Craig Doyle on a MOnday. Unfortunateely not free to air

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:01 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:44 pm

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:37 pm

I didn't get to watch Rugby Tonight.

What were the reasons given?

Same ones that have been repeated in here multiple times but with a bit more detail and from the mouths of people whose opinions on it matter. Head dresses and warpaint on non-Native Americans is the equivalent to stolen valour and sacrilige given how they are obtained by and what they represent to Native people. Chants are generally used in specific rituals and ceremonies, so to have a made up one for a sporting event is also bordering on sacrilege and is certainly insulting.

Using a caricatured composite image of a generic Native American is reductive and an insult to the 600+ distinct tribes. It's inappropriate and offensive for non-Native Americans to appropriate the imagery even if the decision was made from a place of benign ignorance.

Of course most of those 600 tribes appropriated it themselves. If they're free to do so then so is everyone else. And if we're not free to wear, sing, cook, style hair, use make up, write, print ideas others thought of first then there are some quite shocking restrictions coming in our lives.

The idea of owning ideas is problematic, even in instances where sharing and enjoining of those ideas gives rise to offence, and whether that offence is intended or not

I tend to see a difference between creating a culture from the ground up and appropriating long after it's been established.

The guarding of one's culture becomes a little bit more important when your people were almost exterminated and the survivors endured systematic programs of cultural erasure well into the 20th century.

It's easy, when you haven't been subjected to that, to say that liberalism entails we be able to do all the things you've listed regardless of how people feel about it. I suppose no one can legally stop you from doing so, but, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It sounds a little trite, but it's very apt.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:51 am

eldanielfire wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am I'm surprised the imagery is still a thing. I would have thought a Exeter team, being proud of being local would and should have picked something local to them for their brand. It was a relatively recent brand creation wasn't it. Smacks of hiring a bad American/americanised PR firm or consultant on it. I always thought the Native American imagery was very cheesy and at odds with the club and regions identity.

Regardless they should see that this is an opportunity to pick something more appropriate and true to the club, it's obvious that this will rumble on and on. They may as well save what good faith they have and change the image, even if they make it a case of phasing it out over time.

It basically goes back to Tony Rowe. He can't accept he's in the wrong so is digging his heels in, and making it worse by doing do. He seems to think this will all blow over. It won't.

Sounds like it. Also it was always a cheesy shite design they picked too.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:03 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:50 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:26 am It's not a ridiculous or stupid response. If BT are going to use precious broadcast time to address something that really isn't the biggest story in English rugby then at least do it properly.

And to your Dolly Parton quote, perhaps try this Stephen Fry quote (for balance of course...);

'precious broadcast time'

There aren't just three channels anymore. Given the amount of shite there is on hundreds of channels I don't think your handbag clutching 'think of the airtime' nonsense is a particularly good line for you.

BT Sport have cut their number of hours output for rugby per week. There's also not a highlights programme on any more.

I'm surprised you're so poorly informed. Or perhaps actually I'm not.

Man defending racists accuses others of being poorly informed.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

I'm not convinced there really are many Native Americans who are fine with it, those who keep claiming they exist have manifestly failed to produce any while those taking the opposite position seem to be easy to get hold of. There's also a difference between not caring and advocating in favour of. If you put the apathy of some against the firm disagreement of others, go with the latter. The apathetic won't care either way.

'Not the biggest issue' is such a mealy-mouthed dismissal. Plenty of things aren't the most pressing issue or don't affect that many people, but are still worth doing. What more worthwhile cause do you feel has been in any way set back by BT using a fraction of their overall rugby broadcast to cover this?

Well, it's not a rugby issue for starters.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:09 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

I'm not convinced there really are many Native Americans who are fine with it, those who keep claiming they exist have manifestly failed to produce any while those taking the opposite position seem to be easy to get hold of. There's also a difference between not caring and advocating in favour of. If you put the apathy of some against the firm disagreement of others, go with the latter. The apathetic won't care either way.

'Not the biggest issue' is such a mealy-mouthed dismissal. Plenty of things aren't the most pressing issue or don't affect that many people, but are still worth doing. What more worthwhile cause do you feel has been in any way set back by BT using a fraction of their overall rugby broadcast to cover this?

Well, it's not a rugby issue for starters.

A rugby marketing issue isn't a rugby issue. Yeah, well done.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:08 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:03 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:50 am

'precious broadcast time'

There aren't just three channels anymore. Given the amount of shite there is on hundreds of channels I don't think your handbag clutching 'think of the airtime' nonsense is a particularly good line for you.

BT Sport have cut their number of hours output for rugby per week. There's also not a highlights programme on any more.

I'm surprised you're so poorly informed. Or perhaps actually I'm not.

Man defending racists accuses others of being poorly informed.

There you go again. You're calling Tony Rowe, Exeter Chiefs and their fans racist. It's pathetic.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:13 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:08 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:03 am



BT Sport have cut their number of hours output for rugby per week. There's also not a highlights programme on any more.

I'm surprised you're so poorly informed. Or perhaps actually I'm not.

Man defending racists accuses others of being poorly informed.

There you go again. You're calling Tony Rowe, Exeter Chiefs and their fans racist. It's pathetic.

No, pathetic is defending them and trying to pretend that what they're doing is OK.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:28 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Fuck off, it's nothing like at all. The Wasps protest group could meet in a phone box. The minority who think this is a big issue are virtually all white middle-class Anglo-Saxons.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:15 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:13 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:08 am

Man defending racists accuses others of being poorly informed.

There you go again. You're calling Tony Rowe, Exeter Chiefs and their fans racist. It's pathetic.

No, pathetic is defending them and trying to pretend that what they're doing is OK.

I know how strong the word racist is. And when it's appropriate to use it. Clueless and pathetic.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:16 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:28 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Fuck off, it's nothing like at all. The Wasps protest group could meet in a phone box. The minority who think this is a big issue are virtually all white middle-class Anglo-Saxons.

There you go, bringing race into it again. Tsk, Tsk.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:18 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:15 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:13 am


There you go again. You're calling Tony Rowe, Exeter Chiefs and their fans racist. It's pathetic.

No, pathetic is defending them and trying to pretend that what they're doing is OK.

I know how strong the word racist is. And when it's appropriate to use it. Clueless and pathetic.

And you've demonstrated over and over you're incredibly uninformed on this particular topic.

I figured we'd get to the racist insult eventually.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:16 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:28 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:22 am BT's stated intention with that program was to explain why Exeter's branding is considered problematic, not to provide a comprehensive 'both sides' debate in 20 minutes.

Besides which, we don't always need both sides as sometimes one side is a contrary minority who don't add anything (flat earthers, climate change deniers) of substance.

Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Fuck off, it's nothing like at all. The Wasps protest group could meet in a phone box. The minority who think this is a big issue are virtually all white middle-class Anglo-Saxons.

err, I think you missed the point there, the point was as sockwithaticket said, sometimes there isn't an equally valid point of view that should be given as much credence as the initial premise, flat earthers, climate change deniers, evolution v creation.

There have been calls for proof of the views from the communities who are being misrepresented by the imagery Exeter use, that proof was given in the BT Sport programme.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:16 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:28 am


Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Fuck off, it's nothing like at all. The Wasps protest group could meet in a phone box. The minority who think this is a big issue are virtually all white middle-class Anglo-Saxons.

You've confirmed the size of the Wasps supporters group then? The other day you were only able to speculate as to how many of them there are, but now you know they can only fit into a phone box.


I've posted this link before, but slides 5 & 6 have opinions from Native Americans on the whole thing.

https://exeterchiefs4change.mailerpage.com/resources

And we can add the two individuals who appeared on BTs program too.

I eagerly await anything comparable from the other side.

Citing the demographics of who in the UK might be supporting the arguments of Native Americans against Chiefs' branding isn't some gotcha. I know we've got a census outstanding, but I suspect that will show much the same as the previous one - the vast majority of people in this country are white. Thus the vast majority of support behind any given view point will generally be white. Their ethnicity doesn't invalidate supporting and amplifying the voices of actual Native Americans.

I don't think this should be a big issue. It needn't have been if Exeter had just quietly gotten on and changed the branding to something more appropriate. The more they dig their heels in over something with an easy fix, the bigger an issue it becomes.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:26 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:16 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:28 am


Exactly, it's like calling for Creationism to be given a much credence as Evolution in schools

Fuck off, it's nothing like at all. The Wasps protest group could meet in a phone box. The minority who think this is a big issue are virtually all white middle-class Anglo-Saxons.

err, I think you missed the point there, the point was as sockwithaticket said, sometimes there isn't an equally valid point of view that should be given as much credence as the initial premise, flat earthers, climate change deniers, evolution v creation.

There have been calls for proof of the views from the communities who are being misrepresented by the imagery Exeter use, that proof was given in the BT Sport programme.

Toga made a valid point and Sock and you have used a false equivalence to counter it.

I don't think this should be a big issue. It needn't have been if Exeter had just quietly gotten on and changed the branding to something more appropriate. The more they dig their heels in over something with an easy fix, the bigger an issue it becomes.

In other words - do what the loudest voices tell you to do.

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:37 am

I don't think this should be a big issue. It needn't have been if Exeter had just quietly gotten on and changed the branding to something more appropriate. The more they dig their heels in over something with an easy fix, the bigger an issue it becomes.

In other words - do what the loudest voices tell you to do.

I think it's more "respect what the people from those cultures are saying"

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:42 am

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:37 am

I don't think this should be a big issue. It needn't have been if Exeter had just quietly gotten on and changed the branding to something more appropriate. The more they dig their heels in over something with an easy fix, the bigger an issue it becomes.

In other words - do what the loudest voices tell you to do.

I think it's more "respect what the people from those cultures are saying"

You could add "without question".

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:45 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:42 am

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:37 am

In other words - do what the loudest voices tell you to do.

I think it's more "respect what the people from those cultures are saying"

You could add "without question".

Out of interest, you go (one goes) to the representatives who are calling for an end to this misuse of caricature, what would the question be?

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:45 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:42 am

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:37 am

In other words - do what the loudest voices tell you to do.

I think it's more "respect what the people from those cultures are saying"

You could add "without question".

Don't think the second part is right. Offence is relative and can be taken by anyone, and Native American issues are not front and centre of British life. Questions are fine but lead, in this case, to a clear outcome - it's needlessly offensive, it's clear that it's viewed as such by a significant majority of Native Americans and is pretty clearly in poor taste. Doesn't mean it's true in every case.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:19 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:18 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:15 am

No, pathetic is defending them and trying to pretend that what they're doing is OK.

I know how strong the word racist is. And when it's appropriate to use it. Clueless and pathetic.

And you've demonstrated over and over you're incredibly uninformed on this particular topic.

Says the fool shouting racist over everything. Steer clear, stick to the Scottish echo chamber thread.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:49 am

notfatcat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:45 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:42 am

I think it's more "respect what the people from those cultures are saying"

You could add "without question".

Don't think the second part is right. Offence is relative and can be taken by anyone, and Native American issues are not front and centre of British life. Questions are fine but lead, in this case, to a clear outcome - it's needlessly offensive, it's clear that it's viewed as such by a significant majority of Native Americans and is pretty clearly in poor taste. Doesn't mean it's true in every case.

You simply have no idea how many object. I suspect the vast majority couldn't give a toss. And why is it in poor taste, does the image they use have googly eyes and it's tongue sticking out?

The people who are affected by this - the real ones - should write to Rowe explaining their objections or better still meet with him. I suspect he'd change it all if they did that.

They have done that. Repeatedly. They've written letters, emails, social media, national news articles, and now national tv.

I suspect he knows they have an issue with it.

But whilst he's not listening to the fact that they don't want to be caricatured as some sort of generic savage courageous warrior, and he thinks that's a compliment to them (as others here seem to think they same), he's never going to change.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:01 am They have done that. Repeatedly. They've written letters, emails, social media, national news articles, and now national tv.

I suspect he knows they have an issue with it.

But whilst he's not listening to the fact that they don't want to be caricatured as some sort of generic savage courageous warrior, and he thinks that's a compliment to them (as others here seem to think they same), he's never going to change.

Rowe has sat in a room with a genuine representative of the native American people*?





* Incidentally a representative that can't exist apparently!

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:01 am They have done that. Repeatedly. They've written letters, emails, social media, national news articles, and now national tv.

I suspect he knows they have an issue with it.

But whilst he's not listening to the fact that they don't want to be caricatured as some sort of generic savage courageous warrior, and he thinks that's a compliment to them (as others here seem to think they same), he's never going to change.

In Sock's link it states, "As part of our campaign, we created a resource pack for Exeter Chiefs Official board meeting. " in reference to the slides shown.

Somebody earlier said there are 600 tribes in the USA. Exeter only need to get consent from one of them.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:10 am Somebody earlier said there are 600 tribes in the USA. Exeter only need to get consent from one of them.

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:14 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:10 am Somebody earlier said there are 600 tribes in the USA. Exeter only need to get consent from one of them.

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:17 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:14 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:10 am Somebody earlier said there are 600 tribes in the USA. Exeter only need to get consent from one of them.

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.

You don't actually take in anything that's been said by the people arguing against this do you.

I googled the question, "are any native american tribes in favour of sports teams using their imagery"

This is an interesting interview with many good points in it

https://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/fand ... an-mascots

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:32 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:17 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:14 am

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.

You don't actually take in anything that's been said by the people arguing against this do you.

Ok, well explain to me then why Exeter would need to change their imagery of a tribe chief if a native American tribe gives their consent for Exeter to use that imagery?

Fucking hell, I have close to 0 interest in this debate but it's fucking obvious. The image has to be specific to that tribe (and used with their consent), not some generic American Indian image.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:33 am I googled the question, "are any native american tribes in favour of sports teams using their imagery"

This is an interesting interview with many good points in it

https://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/fand ... an-mascots

Great find and a good read. These seem to be key to some of the points raised most recently on here. Interviewer bolded per the article format:

Everything we've discussed so far is about schools, which can offer the type of educational programs you've mentioned. But what about professional teams that use this imagery, like the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves. They're not in the education business. What's your feeling about them?

If they're not going to educate and they feel no obligation [to do so], then they have no right to use this imagery. They shouldn't have that privilege if they're not going to celebrate where it comes from.



One of the most contentious issues that comes up in these discussions is whether white people's opinions -- or any non-Natives' opinions -- should even matter. Should non-Natives have a voice in this debate? Should we simply have a vote among Native Americans and let them decide?

I have to chuckle when I hear that. We all live in this wonderful globe together. If there's a negative impact on any one group, that impacts all of us as a whole. I think everyone, collectively, can have a voice in this. We have many brothers and sisters in various minority groups who know what it means to be marginalized, so of course we welcome their voices.

And that would also apply to white Americans?

Absolutely. If we're going to have this debate and bring it to a positive conclusion, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice by limiting it.

It also mentions it needs to be a local tribe...