Exeter Chiefs Urged to Change its Offensive Name.

First topic message reminder :

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?

Isn't it more an open door policy for refugees than migration? Sod all about pc but more for other topics than rugby!

The use of certain words to describe black people is now pretty shunned. I would presume you find those terms offensive?.

I think you will find that you might be facing some sort of police action if you use certain racial words so that's covered in Law. I did mention that certain opinions and actions are covered with legislation and there are consequences if you transgress. From what you have wrote I take it that you were using racist terms to somebody, that’s not what I was talking about – my apologies if my ramblings mislead you or do you think that waving an inflatable tomahawk and chanting is the same as using a racist term?

My personal opinion is that we - as a society – are getting too hung up on upsetting people, (whilst staying within the Law) is this a part of the ‘everybody is a winner/there are no losers’  view on life,  a possible worry about litigation or are we just getting ‘nicer’? Answers on a postcard.

So, back to Exeter,  we have two ‘experts’ saying that a certain section of the US population will get upset if they are told that Exeter have a certain badge on their shirt and some of the supporters wear certain items of clothing?

There is a distinct possibility that nobody on the American side of the pond is going to hear about this.  However on the other hand there a several Simpsons episodes that mock the UK, they mock our culture and they mock our physical appearance and they mock our beer -  now this is a highly successful franchise and is broadcast all over the world. I wonder if there are any ‘experts’ on the other side of the Atlantic wringing their hands and worrying how the British feel? Somehow I doubt it, probably tell us to ‘deal with it’.  This might seem a trivial comparison but I think it’s exactly on the same level.  The Simpsons are not an isolated incident, from Mark Twain to Joe Queenan the US have loved to stick the boot in.

Now somebody might say it’s ok to rip the p1ss out of the UK on a weekly basis all over the world, but because the American Indians have had a hard time through history then they are not to be touched.  Sorry but whilst I agree that successive US Govts have treat them like crap, it’s not for us to take on the mantle of oppressors – I’m no expert on this period in North American history but from a quick spate of googling I formed the opinion the Native Americans rubbed along ok with the Brits and in most cases sided with them in the War of Independence and same again in 1812, so whilst Dr Rachel Herrmann is pointing out how unfeeling Exeter is, perhaps the good Dr should get her derrière back across to the States and become involved in righting the wrongs that  the US Govt have perpetrated on the American Indians for the last 200 years or so.

So in conclusion – racist acts are quite rightly punished and should be shunned with great rigour but having a badge with a an American Indian Chiefs head on it and waving inflatable tomahawks is within the law and thus should be practiced freely and if somebody in the US gets annoyed about it that’s all right, they are allowed their opinion but it has no higher code than ours.

I've got an idea, why not change their name to Exeter Zulus ? Problem solved !

I don't know how anyone reads the interview RDW posted and thinks- "Yeah, this is cool. This isn't a problem at all". But then people still justify saying really homophobic or sexist things under the veil of "banter" so I shouldn't be surprised. Regardless of whether you think they should change it, they could change it and if they did that would be a respectful and considerate gesture. A lot of people like to talk about how rugby is based on a code of respect- you could rub it in when you win, or storm off and sulk when you lose and that would all be legal and above board but its hammered into us that the respectful thing to do is to to shake hands and congratualte/commiserate with our opponent. It's not necessary- its just a better, more decent way to behave.

Surely the same code of conduct means that the respectful way to behave here is to listen, to consult with communities and then decide what to do? Exeter have a good chance to show that all the stuff we say about rugby and respect is not just words now. If they grasp it with both hands that would be an awesome example to set.

Irish Londoner wrote:I've got an idea, why not change their name to Exeter Zulus ? Problem solved !

How about Exeter Paddys?

TrailApe wrote:So in conclusion – racist acts are quite rightly punished and should be shunned with great rigour but having a badge with a an American Indian Chiefs head on it and waving inflatable tomahawks is within the law and thus should be practiced freely and if somebody in the US gets annoyed about it that’s all right, they are allowed their opinion but it has no higher code than ours.

People acting like asses on the internet and saying slightly offensive things about other countries isn't illegal either but we sure do get a lot of complaints about it! In fact, people get incredibly angry and demand we immediately remove even incredibly minor slights against their country or team. In fact, some of the people saying that we shouldn't listen to views of Native Americans on this subject are amongst the most sensitive posters when it comes to the things they care about! Interesting how that happens

Just because something is legal doesn't make it respectful or considerate. And also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should be banned from doing as they wish. Actually, neither the original complainant or the person in the interview RDW posted said that. All they said is that the decent thing to do is to take people from that communities views on board and have a conversation about it. How can that be wrong?

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Surely "First Nation Peoples" is just as much a pigeonhole as 'Native American'?. At least people know who we are talking about when we say 'Native American'. First Nation Peoples?.... not so much. Anyway, whatever floats yer boat. Maybe the 'Expert will read this thread and write another article complaining about the use of the term 'Native American'? Has to be worth another thread at least

If the logo would make your acquaintance happy you should tell them about it.

TrailApe wrote:
I think you will find that you might be facing some sort of police action if you use certain racial words so that's covered in Law. I did mention that certain opinions and actions are covered with legislation and there are consequences if you transgress. From what you have wrote I take it that you were using racist terms to somebody, that’s not what I was talking about – my apologies if my ramblings mislead you or do you think that waving an inflatable tomahawk and chanting is the same as using a racist term?

My personal opinion is that we - as a society – are getting too hung up on upsetting people, (whilst staying within the Law) is this a part of the ‘everybody is a winner/there are no losers’  view on life,  a possible worry about litigation or are we just getting ‘nicer’? Answers on a postcard.

None of those options. Its mainly because certain groups are getting to express themselves (and be listened to) publicly for the first time. But it would be nice to think we are getting nicer

Also, don't hide behind the law. If the law banned the exeter chiefs logo, would your opinion be immediately changed? Or do you get your morality distinct from british law?

Notch wrote:

TrailApe wrote:So in conclusion – racist acts are quite rightly punished and should be shunned with great rigour but having a badge with a an American Indian Chiefs head on it and waving inflatable tomahawks is within the law and thus should be practiced freely and if somebody in the US gets annoyed about it that’s all right, they are allowed their opinion but it has no higher code than ours.

People acting like asses on the internet and saying slightly offensive things about other countries isn't illegal either but we sure do get a lot of complaints about it! In fact, people get incredibly angry and demand we immediately remove even incredibly minor slights against their country or team. In fact, some of the people saying that we shouldn't listen to views of Native Americans on this subject are amongst the most sensitive posters when it comes to the things they care about! Interesting how that happens

Just because something is legal doesn't make it respectful or considerate. And also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should be banned from doing as they wish. Actually, neither the original complainant or the person in the interview RDW posted said that. All they said is that the decent thing to do is to take people from that communities views on board and have a conversation about it. How can that be wrong?

Notch if you can't see how comparing a team to a terrorist organisation can clearly be seen as offensive then there's no hope for you. It's not the same thing as Exeter Chiefs "alleged offence of Native Americans" don't pretend it is. Terrorists are scum and deserve to be treated with contempt. What good would it do Exeter Chiefs talking to so called Native American experts? It would probably just give them more ammo.

Some things are distasteful - I remember when a poster said they were pleased when a rugby player got attacked with a glass unprovoked in a club. Having a pop at how badly a side is doing is not the same thing.

beshocked wrote:

Notch wrote:

TrailApe wrote:So in conclusion – racist acts are quite rightly punished and should be shunned with great rigour but having a badge with a an American Indian Chiefs head on it and waving inflatable tomahawks is within the law and thus should be practiced freely and if somebody in the US gets annoyed about it that’s all right, they are allowed their opinion but it has no higher code than ours.

People acting like asses on the internet and saying slightly offensive things about other countries isn't illegal either but we sure do get a lot of complaints about it! In fact, people get incredibly angry and demand we immediately remove even incredibly minor slights against their country or team. In fact, some of the people saying that we shouldn't listen to views of Native Americans on this subject are amongst the most sensitive posters when it comes to the things they care about! Interesting how that happens

Just because something is legal doesn't make it respectful or considerate. And also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that they should be banned from doing as they wish. Actually, neither the original complainant or the person in the interview RDW posted said that. All they said is that the decent thing to do is to take people from that communities views on board and have a conversation about it. How can that be wrong?

Notch if you can't see how comparing a team to a terrorist organisation can clearly be seen as offensive then there's no hope for you. It's not the same thing as Exeter Chiefs "alleged offence of Native Americans" don't pretend it is. Terrorists are scum and deserve to be treated with contempt. What good would it do Exeter Chiefs talking to so called Native American experts? It would probably just give them more ammo.

Some things are distasteful - I remember when a poster said they were pleased when a rugby player got attacked with a glass unprovoked in a club. Having a pop at how badly a side is doing is not the same thing.

To be fair to Notch (and I’m very much hoping this debate doesn’t resurface again) he didn’t actually say that and in no way made direct reference to that debate, more a general comment.

Didn't make a direct reference but could easily be referring to that. It's about where you think the line is. What is offensive and what isn't can be subjective. Of course there are certain things that are illegal.

Some people think that the Royal family are an acceptable target. I personally don't like it when people criticise certain members of the royal family.

Politicans are obviously an acceptable target to lampoon but then there are lines that shouldn't be crossed too IMO.

The world's going to pot because we've listened too much to the easily offended liberal left. We're swiftly running out of words that we can actually use without causing offence to some twit that starts each day searching for something to be offended at.
If the Chiefs have to remove any branding I'll be demanding the London Irish fans stop dressing up in ginger wigs, wearing any tweed hats and drinking Guinness. London Wasps will need to stop trivializing an entire species as will the Newcastle Falcons.
Where is the line between taking offence and utter puerility.
Don't take offence at the words or actions, try looking at the spirit behind them first.

Pete330v2 the difficulty is the line is blurred. Of course all of us criticise and make jokes about certain topics but it's when it goes too far that when it becomes offensive. Knowing where the line isn't easy as it can depend on the individual and the context.

Joking about Woodward's awful commentary on the 7s isn't offending anyone on here, might offend a staunch Clive fan though but I don't think any of them are on here. If someone made a death threat against Clive though then that would IMO be clearly crossing the line because his poor commentary isn't harming anyone - just a mild irritation ultimately.

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Surely "First Nation Peoples" is just as much a pigeonhole as 'Native American'?. At least people know who we are talking about when we say 'Native American'. First Nation Peoples?.... not so much. Anyway, whatever floats yer boat. Maybe the 'Expert will read this thread and write another article complaining about the use of the term 'Native American'? Has to be worth another thread at least  

If the logo would make your acquaintance happy you should tell them about it.

From what i've read, the term "Native American" doesn't go down too well with some since FNP's were around long before Amerigo Vespucci etc appeared on the scene. There we are.

beshocked wrote:Pete330v2 the difficulty is the line is blurred. Of course all of us criticise and make jokes about certain topics but it's when it goes too far that when it becomes offensive. Knowing where the line isn't easy as it can depend on the individual and the context.

Joking about Woodward's awful commentary on the 7s isn't offending anyone on here, might offend a staunch Clive fan  though but I don't think any of them are on here. If someone made a death threat against Clive though then that would IMO be clearly crossing the line because his poor commentary isn't harming anyone - just a mild irritation ultimately.

Thank heavens for the red button when you can often avoid having to listen to some Team BBC member gushing and wetting their pants over a Brit, win or lose. Reckon Team BBC have more people in Rio than there are sports people representing Great Britain.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Surely "First Nation Peoples" is just as much a pigeonhole as 'Native American'?. At least people know who we are talking about when we say 'Native American'. First Nation Peoples?.... not so much. Anyway, whatever floats yer boat. Maybe the 'Expert will read this thread and write another article complaining about the use of the term 'Native American'? Has to be worth another thread at least  

If the logo would make your acquaintance happy you should tell them about it.

From what i've read, the term "Native American" doesn't go down too well with some since FNP's were around long before Amerigo Vespucci etc appeared on the scene. There we are.

Wiki suggests that it's the indigenous Canadians that prefer the term 'First Nation', while some tribes in the USA prefer 'American Indian' rather than 'Native American'. However, some of the tribes younger folk prefer 'Indigenous' or 'Aboriginal'. I am a bit surprised that some prefer to call themselves American Indian as I would have thought 'American Indian' would be more offensive.

It all seems a mixed bag to me, Dave, and I do admit my ignorance on the subject.

Just seen this from a Chiefs fan, can any chiefs fans on here confirm if its true?

Apparently Short the winger is actually the strongest player in the whole Chiefs squad. When you consider he's up against 120+kg monsters like Francis and Ewers, that is simply incredible (Short's only 85kg, he bench pressed 165kg).

Don Armand was 2nd, he managed 160kg and weighs 112kg. Apparently Whitten and Ewers were also very strong.

Again might be rubbish but interesting if its true.

The first Chiefs podcast of the season was released last week and comprised a discussion on pre-season with Mark Twiggs, Head of S&C. He reported that Short and Jess (another winger) pressed 160kg, but with Harry Williams (prop) at 175kg.

Short is quickest at 35.1km/hr with Sam Simmonds (flanker, 7's capt) at 33.1.

It wasn't a comprehensive list, more picking out a few results, and possibly excludes returning Internationals and Saxons, who may be on a delayed fitness schedule.

There was no mention of warbonnets, tomahawks or chants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh1c76pKB2Q

That's still a mightily impressive bench for a winger at his weight!

I think its feasible, I weigh about the same as Short and have reached 120kg bench after a lot of training, someone on a pro diet and conditioning program can probably manage another 40 odd kg

Do the Kaiser Chiefs need to change their name?

No, they need to disband.

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Surely "First Nation Peoples" is just as much a pigeonhole as 'Native American'?. At least people know who we are talking about when we say 'Native American'. First Nation Peoples?.... not so much. Anyway, whatever floats yer boat. Maybe the 'Expert will read this thread and write another article complaining about the use of the term 'Native American'? Has to be worth another thread at least  

If the logo would make your acquaintance happy you should tell them about it.

From what i've read, the term "Native American" doesn't go down too well with some since FNP's were around long before Amerigo Vespucci etc appeared on the scene. There we are.

Wiki suggests that it's the indigenous Canadians that prefer the term 'First Nation', while some tribes in the USA prefer 'American Indian' rather than 'Native American'. However, some of the tribes younger folk prefer 'Indigenous' or 'Aboriginal'. I am a bit surprised that some prefer to call themselves American Indian as I would have thought 'American Indian' would be more offensive.

It all seems a mixed bag to me, Dave, and I do admit my ignorance on the subject.

Scientists have shown that the American Indians/First Nation/Native Americans:
1) Were not the first people in North America
2) Emigrated from North East Asia
Therefore First Nation and Native American labels are inaccurate. Perhaps it would be better to just refer to them as Americans or Canadians as appropriate.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

Munchkin wrote: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?

Aye and first nation peoples shewerly rather than the pigeon-holed "native american"? Reckon my Alonquin aquaintance would be chuffed to know that an English sports team has a logo that resembles his spectacular feathery headress hanging up on the wall in his living room.

Surely "First Nation Peoples" is just as much a pigeonhole as 'Native American'?. At least people know who we are talking about when we say 'Native American'. First Nation Peoples?.... not so much. Anyway, whatever floats yer boat. Maybe the 'Expert will read this thread and write another article complaining about the use of the term 'Native American'? Has to be worth another thread at least  

If the logo would make your acquaintance happy you should tell them about it.

From what i've read, the term "Native American" doesn't go down too well with some since FNP's were around long before Amerigo Vespucci etc appeared on the scene. There we are.

Wiki suggests that it's the indigenous Canadians that prefer the term 'First Nation', while some tribes in the USA prefer 'American Indian' rather than 'Native American'. However, some of the tribes younger folk prefer 'Indigenous' or 'Aboriginal'. I am a bit surprised that some prefer to call themselves American Indian as I would have thought 'American Indian' would be more offensive.

It all seems a mixed bag to me, Dave, and I do admit my ignorance on the subject.

Scientists have shown that the American Indians/First Nation/Native Americans:
1) Were not the first people in North America
2) Emigrated from North East Asia
Therefore First Nation and Native American labels are inaccurate. Perhaps it would be better to just refer to them as Americans or Canadians as appropriate.

Quality.
"Yanks" it is then.

Just saying like, but I wonder what the Maori think of the New Zealand flag?