Exeter Chiefs Urged to Change its Offensive Name.

Exeter Chiefs have been urged to change its 'offensive' name by Native American expert

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-36965975

What do you think?

I think its bloody ridiculous considering all the troubles the world has at the moment, What's offensive about it?

The 'Native American expert' is an idiot.

I don't know if the Chiefs are named after the native Americans, but surely it's a mark of respect if they are?

Wasps should change their name too. I offended that the Wasp is being promoted as a positive force of good, I got stung by one the other day.

Of course Sale Sharks is offensive too because you can't find Sharks in Sale. It's false advertising.

No Desert Warriors in North London, maybe there are tigers in Leicester, I can't verify that.

To be honest most names of teams in the AP could be seen as offensive if a particular demographic complained.

I think the Tigers name comes form an association with a Leicester army regiment who picked it up as a nickname whilst serving in India. Links to the empire are bound to offend somebody.

You are asking the wrong group of people, unless there are more native americans on this site than I had known about. You can't just ask other white people about whats appropriate when representing other cultures. You have to engage in a dialogue, with sensitivity and tact.

Why don't you post your survey on one of these sites; explain the context and everything about the situation and canvas the opinions of posters on there- and actually listen to what they have to say.

http://www.firstnations.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

http://forums.powwows.com/f73/

http://nativeamerican.proboards.com

And beshocked- I'm sure if no offence was given by the Chiefs thing, plenty would be given by you comparing native american people to insects. Thats wasn't a very well thought through argument.

Maybe the Native American head links it to Native Americans, if it is offensive they can change the badge but keep the name
Chief isn't necessary native American, could be

Commander-in-chief, the person that exercises supreme operational command and control of a nation's military forces
Chief of the Boat, the senior enlisted sailor on a U.S. Navy submarine
Chief of police, the head of a police department
Chief Master Sergeant, in the United States Air Force
Chief petty officer, a non-commissioned officer or equivalent in many navies
Chief warrant officer, a military rank
Chief officer, the highest senior officer in the deck department on a merchant vessel
Chief of the Name, head of a family or clan
Fire chief, top rank in a fire department
Scottish clan chief, the head of a Scottish clan
Tribal chief, the head of a tribal form of self-government


Also what about The Chiefs in super rugby?
Is there an issue with Kansas City Chiefs? (I know with the Red skins there is)

or any of these others?
Johnstown Chiefs, an ice hockey team in Pennsylvania that took its name from the fictional Charlestown
Laval Chiefs, an ice hockey team in Quebec
Kaizer Chiefs F.C., a football club in South Africa
Peoria Chiefs, a minor league baseball affiliate in Peoria, Illinois of the Chicago Cubs
Syracuse Chiefs, a AAA minor league baseball team in upstate New York

I'm not offended by it so answered as such but i feel they should change the marketing.

Also the chiefs in NZ is completely different to this situation, As far as i'm aware the Maori's have no issue with the Super rugby team.

in my limited NFL knowledge i think Kansas city chiefs did receive criticism but not the name, more the stereotypes, warpaint and headdresses etc.

You got to remember it is a sore point for a lot of native Americans and rightly so IMO.

TBH i might ask one of those boards Pow Wow seems the most popular as to there thoughts (would genuinely be interested to hear it).

I am professionally offended by everything.

I've heard plenty about people wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, but nothing similar about the Kansas City Chiefs, so this seems a bit off

BamBam wrote:I've heard plenty about people wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, but nothing similar about the Kansas City Chiefs, so this seems a bit off

Because you don't see how the 'red skin' part could be offensive ?

I can see how can native American could see the Chief's badge as slightly offensive - the head dress is deeply spiritual and religious symbol for them. Its the equivalent of a rugby club calling themselves 'London Jews' and the fans wearing Kippahs.

Notch wrote:You are asking the wrong group of people, unless there are more native americans on this site than I had known about. You can't just ask other white people about whats appropriate when representing other cultures. You have to engage in a dialogue, with sensitivity and tact.

Why don't you post your survey on one of these sites; explain the context and everything about the situation and canvas the opinions of posters on there- and actually listen to what they have to say.

http://www.firstnations.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

http://forums.powwows.com/f73/

http://nativeamerican.proboards.com

And beshocked- I'm sure if no offence was given by the Chiefs thing, plenty would be given by you comparing native american people to insects. Thats wasn't a very well thought through argument.

There are I suspect no native Americans on this site. Indeed there are a vanishingly small number in the UK who could possibly be offended. There will be a slightly larger group of professional offence takers such as the university lecturer concerned. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Washington Redskins unless native Americans are scouring the world for things by which they can be offended (which I doubt) I cannot see a problem here.

Your suggestion of posting on native American websites seems perverse. You suggest that they might find the name offensive and then suggest that it be brought to their attention, thereby offending them.

Notch wrote:You are asking the wrong group of people, unless there are more native americans on this site than I had known about. You can't just ask other white people about whats appropriate when representing other cultures. You have to engage in a dialogue, with sensitivity and tact.

Why don't you post your survey on one of these sites; explain the context and everything about the situation and canvas the opinions of posters on there- and actually listen to what they have to say.

http://www.firstnations.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

http://forums.powwows.com/f73/

http://nativeamerican.proboards.com

And beshocked- I'm sure if no offence was given by the Chiefs thing, plenty would be given by you comparing native american people to insects. Thats wasn't a very well thought through argument.

People will be offended by anything if they look hard enough.

Political correctness gone mad.

I wasn't comparing native american people to insects. I am just basically saying that complaints over trivial matters are nonsensical and that if there's going to be complaints over Chiefs name I should complain about that of Wasps because I find Wasps offensive, they sting people.

It's an outrage.

Going to disagree with you on that one - its trivialising someone's culture to that of fancy dress.

Cultural appropriation is kind of a big deal.

munkian wrote:Going to disagree with you on that one - its trivialising someone's culture to that of fancy dress.

Cultural appropriation is kind of a big deal.

So should we be offended by Native americans wearing jeans and shirts? That's cultural appropriation!!

What about shoes? Phones? Living in houses not tipis?

Offense is taken, not given. Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

I was genuinely offended when i learnt of a team naming themselves San Jose Earthquakes.

the-goon wrote:

munkian wrote:Going to disagree with you on that one - its trivialising someone's culture to that of fancy dress.

Cultural appropriation is kind of a big deal.

So should we be offended by Native americans wearing jeans and shirts? That's cultural appropriation!!

What about shoes? Phones? Living in houses not tipis?

Offense is taken, not given. Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

I think that's more a case of having a culture forced upon them ? Last time I checked none of those were religious or sacred items either.

munkian wrote:

BamBam wrote:I've heard plenty about people wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, but nothing similar about the Kansas City Chiefs, so this seems a bit off

Because you don't see how the 'red skin' part could be offensive  ?

I can see how can native American could see the Chief's badge as slightly offensive - the head dress is deeply spiritual and religious symbol for them. Its the equivalent of a rugby club calling themselves 'London Jews' and the fans wearing Kippahs.

I completely understand the offence caused by the name "Redskins"

I wasn't really saying whether I agree or disagree with either, more just mentioning that the Chiefs name in the USA doesn't seem to have had the same publicity around it as the Redskins have

BamBam wrote:

munkian wrote:

BamBam wrote:I've heard plenty about people wanting the Washington Redskins to change their name, but nothing similar about the Kansas City Chiefs, so this seems a bit off

Because you don't see how the 'red skin' part could be offensive  ?

I can see how can native American could see the Chief's badge as slightly offensive - the head dress is deeply spiritual and religious symbol for them. Its the equivalent of a rugby club calling themselves 'London Jews' and the fans wearing Kippahs.

I completely understand the offence caused by the name "Redskins"

I wasn't really saying whether I agree or disagree with either, more just mentioning that the Chiefs name in the USA doesn't seem to have had the same publicity around it as the Redskins have

Fairy nuff.

munkian wrote:

the-goon wrote:

munkian wrote:Going to disagree with you on that one - its trivialising someone's culture to that of fancy dress.

Cultural appropriation is kind of a big deal.

So should we be offended by Native americans wearing jeans and shirts? That's cultural appropriation!!

What about shoes? Phones? Living in houses not tipis?

Offense is taken, not given. Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

I think that's more a case of having a culture forced upon them ? Last time I checked none of those were religious or sacred items either.

I was being facetious, simply highlighting the absurdness of the term "cultural appropriation". The notion that certain elements of a certain culture should not be used by someone who "belongs" another is absurd. By doing so, you are violating individual freedoms of expression in case someone gets "offended". What you are saying is that society should ban or censor because someone somewhere COULD take offense. You are dictating what can and cannot be said/worn, that is fascism.

We already have laws against expression that is discriminatory, lets have them include ppl having a harmless laugh (fancy dress) and our sports teams' names.

I mean all this is rhetorical anyway as no one HAS actually taken offense, let alone a native American.

What's your opinion on my earlier point ?

I can see how can native American could see the Chief's badge as slightly offensive - the head dress is deeply spiritual and religious symbol for them. Its the equivalent of a rugby club calling themselves 'London Jews' and the fans wearing Kippahs.

Apparently the Native American Council were asked if they were offended and they said

How?

Genuine question - Are Irish people offended by those around the world celebrating St Patricks Day if they aren't Irish?

It could be defined culture appropriation.... drinking Guinness, dressing up as a leprechaun and wearing green....

Not a problem for the Irish, but the leprechauns are pretty p!ssed off

Munchkin wrote:Not a problem for the Irish, but the leprechauns are pretty p!ssed off

They always are, typical small man syndrome

beshocked wrote:Genuine question - Are Irish people offended by those around the world celebrating St Patricks Day if they aren't Irish?

It could be defined culture appropriation.... drinking Guinness, dressing up as a leprechaun and wearing green....

Slightly different - The Irish have their own country - if they weren't white and Christian could of been very different.

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Not a problem for the Irish, but the leprechauns are pretty p!ssed off

They always are, typical small man syndrome

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

Munchkin wrote:I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

No offence, but how you view it isn't the issue.

This is going to have to be banned by 606

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Munchkin wrote:I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

No offence, but how you view it isn't the issue.

None taken, although I did think that we are here to give our views and, more importantly, on perception specifically.

Now, I don't know the perception of the Native American on the 'Chiefs', and as there are, unfortunately, no Native American on these boards it's interesting to read other views on the question.

Thanks for putting me right though

Right well I've done some tidying up so to avoid this thread turning into a full scale barmy debating the finer points of certain terrorist groups please stay on the topic at hand or I'll just have to lock the thread. And I'm sure we'll all be devastated if that happened....

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Right well I've done some tidying up so to avoid this thread turning into a full scale barmy debating the finer points of certain terrorist groups please stay on the topic at hand or I'll just have to lock the thread. And I'm sure we'll all be devastated if that happened....

How has my post been deleted?! I didn't even mention that thing that can't be mentioned! It was completely on point!

Its almost like there isnt any rugby on to talk about

And I really am intrigued to know whether others agree about Nigel Wray's resemblance

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Right well I've done some tidying up so to avoid this thread turning into a full scale barmy debating the finer points of certain terrorist groups please stay on the topic at hand or I'll just have to lock the thread. And I'm sure we'll all be devastated if that happened....

How has my post been deleted?! I didn't even mention that thing that can't be mentioned! It was completely on point!

Because it's a Friday afternoon and I couldn't be hooped paying overly much attention to what I was getting rid of!

Here you go - don't say I'm not good to you...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

Oh, I don't doubt it's intended as a homage. It's just that it's pretty ham-fisted in its execution, seeming more informed by the films of John Wayne than the actual history of the Native American people. As such, it's closer to pastiche or parody.

More to the point, though, if it is intended as a show of respect, wouldn't you want to drop it if you realised that actually it's more likely to be viewed as insulting?

Bambam I know you enjoy being a wind up merchant but please do try and listen to RDW Scotland and stick to the topic.

Back on topic Exeter Chiefs aren't going out of their way to deliberately antagonise, they are not hurting anyone, it's not as provocative name as the redskins, they are not demonising native americans. It's not even portraying Native Americans as lazy, aggressive etc, it's just a bit of fun. Yes there is an element of playing on stererotypes but as long as it doesn't go over the edge I don't think it's bad.

The Chiefs are not making out that native americans are inferior beings.

There are far more serious offences than this.

Oh the irony

RDW_Scotland wrote:Here you go - don't say I'm not good to you...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

Oh, I don't doubt it's intended as a homage. It's just that it's pretty ham-fisted in its execution, seeming more informed by the films of John Wayne than the actual history of the Native American people. As such, it's closer to pastiche or parody.

More to the point, though, if it is intended as a show of respect, wouldn't you want to drop it if you realised that actually it's more likely to be viewed as insulting?

Amazing. Thank you! And to think some say the mods are too heavy handed and compare you to .... No. I'll just stop there.

beshocked wrote:Bambam I know you enjoy being a wind up merchant but please do try and listen to RDW Scotland and stick to the topic.

Please tell me that's just some exquisite humour.

beshocked wrote:Bambam I know you enjoy being a wind up merchant but please do try and listen to RDW Scotland and stick to the topic.

Back on topic Exeter Chiefs aren't going out of their way to deliberately antagonise, they are not hurting anyone, it's not as provocative name as the redskins, they are not demonising native americans. It's not even portraying Native Americans as lazy, aggressive etc, it's just a bit of fun. Yes there is an element of playing on stererotypes but as long as it doesn't go over the edge I don't think it's bad.

The Chiefs are not making out that native americans are inferior beings.

There are far more serious offences than this.

Yeah we cant have silly names being just thrown out there without much thought but things done for fun are ok?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Here you go - don't say I'm not good to you...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

Oh, I don't doubt it's intended as a homage. It's just that it's pretty ham-fisted in its execution, seeming more informed by the films of John Wayne than the actual history of the Native American people. As such, it's closer to pastiche or parody.

More to the point, though, if it is intended as a show of respect, wouldn't you want to drop it if you realised that actually it's more likely to be viewed as insulting?

jbeadlesbigrighthand, since my reply to you is deleted I will type more waffle

So you think it's closer to parody even though you don't doubt it's a homage? If you don't doubt it's a homage then surely the intention is clear from parody?

Who is the name insulting? If I was the Exeter Chief ( ) I wouldn't drop the name just to please some attention seeking 'Expert'. I would want to know exactly who feels insulted and why? And then I would probably try to talk through any perceived insults with those feeling insulted.

I genuinely don't believe there is any reason why anyone should feel insulted by the name, and do believe the name should be viewed as a compliment (just my opinion LP )

beshocked wrote:Exeter Chiefs aren't going out of their way to deliberately antagonise

That's neither here nor there.

marty2086 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam I know you enjoy being a wind up merchant but please do try and listen to RDW Scotland and stick to the topic.

Back on topic Exeter Chiefs aren't going out of their way to deliberately antagonise, they are not hurting anyone, it's not as provocative name as the redskins, they are not demonising native americans. It's not even portraying Native Americans as lazy, aggressive etc, it's just a bit of fun. Yes there is an element of playing on stererotypes but as long as it doesn't go over the edge I don't think it's bad.

The Chiefs are not making out that native americans are inferior beings.

There are far more serious offences than this.

Yeah we cant have silly names being just thrown out there without much thought but things done for fun are ok?  

Marty so what do you think is so offensive about Exeter Chiefs that it warrants a wholesale branding change?

There are certain topics which are bad taste. Dressing up as a Native Indian, I personally don't think is one. If you see a child going to a fancy dress party dressed up as a Native Indian are you going to stop them?

If you see Exeter Chiefs fans dressed up are you going to verbally abuse them?

jbeadlesbrighthand no it's not. I am sticking to the topic as I was before it was derailed by certain posters making offensive and inappropriate comments.

Luckless Pedestrian it clearly matters. Exeter Chiefs aren't inciting hatred or deliberately looking to wind people up. Compare this to someone like Clarkson for example whose sometimes been controversial, gone over the line and sometimes been right on the edge. Depending on who you are. In the end though Clarkson wasn't kicked off Top Gear for his offensive/inappropriate comments, it was for punching someone who didn't give him a steak on time.

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand, since my reply to you is deleted I will type more waffle

Eh, I think you'll find the main post I deleted from you was the emoticon (and a few others...).

So I can only concluding from that that you like to waffle!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, waffles...

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand, since my reply to you is deleted I will type more waffle

Eh, I think you'll find the main post I deleted from you was the emoticon (and a few others...).

So I can only concluding from that that you like to waffle!

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, waffles...

ah, I should have been clearer. I typed my response and tried to post it just when you locked the thread

And yes, I do like to waffle, and I do like waffles

P.s I didn't post an emoticon, and all remaining posts remain untouched

Munchkin wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Here you go - don't say I'm not good to you...

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

the-goon wrote:Offense is taken, not given.

I'm fairly sure that's not actually true. But even supposing that it is, if I do something that I know offends other people, surely it's just common decency to stop doing it?

the-goon wrote:Ppl should grow up and stop being cultural fascists

Surely by demanding that other people not be offended (incidentally, where do you draw the line on that?) you are also being a cultural fascist?

For what it's worth, I'm split over the Chiefs whole native American thing. Plenty of American sports teams adopt similar names and accompanying schtick. I don't think the Chiefs are any less respectful of Native American culture by comparison. However, "they do it too" isn't much of an argument. What makes the Chiefs point weaker is that, let's face it, Exeter isn't a hotbed of Native American culture. They have no link - it's simply a gimmick to amuse fans. If they really need a gimmick, why not one that's at least relevant to the area?

I think the link is more to do with the physically aggressive nature of the game, and a recognition of a warrior type, such as Titans, Saracens, Spartans, Gladiators or simply 'Warriors'. I view it as a show of respect to the bravery of the Native American of times past.

Oh, I don't doubt it's intended as a homage. It's just that it's pretty ham-fisted in its execution, seeming more informed by the films of John Wayne than the actual history of the Native American people. As such, it's closer to pastiche or parody.

More to the point, though, if it is intended as a show of respect, wouldn't you want to drop it if you realised that actually it's more likely to be viewed as insulting?

jbeadlesbigrighthand, since my reply to you is deleted I will type more waffle

So you think it's closer to parody even though you don't doubt it's a homage? If you don't doubt it's a homage then surely the intention is clear from parody?

Who is the name insulting? If I was the Exeter Chief ( ) I wouldn't drop the name just to please some attention seeking 'Expert'. I would want to know exactly who feels insulted and why? And then I would probably try to talk through any perceived insults with those feeling insulted.

I genuinely don't believe there is any reason why anyone should feel insulted by the name, and do believe the name should be viewed as a compliment (just my opinion LP )

Intention and execution are two different things. As I said, I don't doubt that Muchkin's assumption is correct about the name being selected in light of the 'warrior' nature of rugby. However, when you then build on that by adopting supposed Native American cultural reference points, then it's very difficult to do that with any degree of cultural sensitivity, and without it seeming reductive. When you factor in that the history of the Native American people is incredibly complex - in particular in light of their treatment by colonialists - then it becomes even more difficult.

Since my jokes about terrorism apparently crossed the line, I'll air my views on the matter at hand.....

I think this is complete nonsense.

I'll post my views too....

We really need the rugby season to start!