Exeter Chiefs Headdress

From The Guardian yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/oct/12/wasps-ask-premiership-to-consider-ban-on-exeter-chiefs-headdresses

Wasps want to ban Exeter Chiefs fans from wearing native American style headdress to games as they believe that it may "cause offence".

I can understand Exeter's reluctance to give up on the Chiefs name but has the "Red Indian" imagery had it's time?

Would they be better to keep the Chiefs name but change the imagery, for example they could use a Saxon/Celtic warrior design to reflect the "Chief of the tribe" without using (appropriating?) native American images.

They just need to come into the 21st century!

For all the moral indignation about it, surely it can't be doing their business brand any good either as sponsors won't be wanting to get involved with anything controversial like this!

The world is in chaos, and they're bothered about some headwear which is a bit of fun.

I give up.

Ah yes, a load of white folks dressing up in a cartoonised reduction of another people’s culture, to which they otherwise have no connections, for a bit of fun. What larks!

Absolutely......

Has anyone gone around and asked the actual Indians groups If they are offended....or maybe they might actually  not be offended....

Maybe it's just other people being offended for them....its so boring everyone being offended by everything these days....

Genuine question then, as your issue appears to be that you see this as a “woke” non-issue. Have you taken the time to read and understand any Native American perspectives on why they have an issue with uses like this of their culture and imagery? Examples like or ?

Because ultimately, whether I or any other white British person takes offence is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. The core of this issue is that people with Native American heritage do have an issue with this, that has been established. They may not be breaking down the doors of Sandy Park to raise their concerns, but frankly a lot of them have far bigger battles to fight much closer to home. Does that mean their concerns don’t apply to the Exeter case?

Personally I struggle to see how anyone who has taken the trouble to try and understand this issue from the point of view of those that it actually affects directly could have any reason to fight this, inevitable, change. There is zero cost to you, GeordieFalcon, should this change happen, for the upside of making what’s already a fractious and turbulent world a slightly more respectful and empathetic place. So again a genuine question because I want to engage and understand, where does your obvious exasperation around this topic come from?

We crossed paths a little as you updated your post as I was writing, but to answer you question yes they absolutely have asked and the response has been fairly resounding.

I shared a couple of general (not Exeter specific) sources above.

From some other research:

Some aspects of the Exeter Chiefs branding are especially offensive: according to research by IllumiNative, 70% of Native people are offended by the wearing of headdresses by sports fans, 65% are offended by the use of the "tomahawk chop" and 65% of Native youth are highly opposed to Native American mascots.

Source: https://www.whatcanwedo.world/post/exeter-chiefs-for-change-voices-of-change

There are other Exeter specific responses from people of Native American heritage that I have read that I can find and link for you if they would be of interest.

This isn’t a case of people being offended on others behalf where no actual hurt is being caused, that is well established at this point

OK...

I've been fortunate to have spent the formative years of my life, in a town with all races and nationalities in Liberia, West Africa.

It taught me so much about life, world cultures and respect, and also allowed me to form life long friendships with people from Africa, the middle East, and all over the world, many of whom I still see today.

Sadly living there I have also seen brutal racism, both ways...let's be clear ALL colours can be racist!! And I absolutely deplore it full stop.

This upbringing provided me more than enough experience to allow me to form my own opinions on the current world trends of what is genuinely offensive.

I'm also very well read, but thank you for suggesting I should read more.

Being offended is a subjective opinion. It's not a mathematically calculated figure or scientific fact. So how do you judge what is offensive? Who makes the call...that's offensive. Social Media is a clear driving force...for good and bad.

Cultural appropriation is the latest form of subjective "offensiveism "

Is cultural appropriation offensive? Or is imitation a form of flattery? Are chiefs fans deliberately being disrespectful or are they respecting the warrior, bravery and also intelligent and social groups that the Native Indians created, which Custer and his boys did their best to eradicate. Or does it not matter...its simply labelled offensive and cancelled!!

How far so we go? When other ethnicities displaying European behaviors should the Europeans be offended? Should that then be cancelled.

I'm a red head....I've had fun through the years. Duracel battery, Tampon....I've had all sorts labelled at me. I laugh, but do we now fine people for name calling? Because its offensive?

How far do we go? Should wasps be called wasps? Maybe people are allergic to wasp stings, and get agitated when they see the wasps symbol? Should it be cancelled then?

Do comedy shows get cancelled? I'm being childish there but I'm trying to show ...where does this end?

You say I've made it a woke issue. In part yes I have. Because I get irritated watching minorities getting offended for other people and pushing "subjective arguments"...rather than issues that genuinely need fixed like...actual Racism or human trafficking efc...

Thanks for taking the time to share that, so much more interesting to get some nuance and an understanding of the person behind the point of view on the internet!

So how do you judge what is offensive? Who makes the call...that's offensive.

Interesting question, and personally I’m not happy to make a call on how and when the use of Native American imagery and cultural artefacts becomes offensive. I’m far too far removed from that culture to properly understand the nuances of the argument, nor am I personally well read enough to close that gap. It would be easy for me to arrive at a decision based on my lived experiences that I was doing something in a way that was respectful and paying homage, when those whose culture it is I’m referencing may see things entirely differently.

This is why on this topic particularly I’ve been actively looking to find and listen to the thoughts of people from Native American backgrounds. And I’ve been hearing clearly that they find that use of imagery, language and traditions in this way to be hurtful. Also, that for a lot of people in Britain this is their only exposure to their culture. So they may, unlike you, never read further into the culture and gain a deeper understanding of it, and unhelpful myths and caricatures get further perpetuated down to the next generation, only extending that cycle of hurt.

I can understand the argument of where does it stop. And indeed sure there may be cases where people claim offence on behalf of a section of society who truly are unoffended by the subject at hand. I just don’t think this is one of those cases, from everything I’ve seen. And indeed from the trajectory of events in the US where other organisations have already listened and taken action on this very topic.

And after all, it’s not like this situation can’t be easily addressed without distracting from efforts to fix ‘actual’ racism. Wouldn’t that be a win-win situation?

Could you also argue that stopping any association with this North American indigenous imagery (or with other things like ‘Saracens’) is whitewashing it in some way? I appreciate there’s no historical link between Exeter and Native Americans (as far as I know), and I know that’s part of the problem, but eradicating it completely and replacing it with something, I assume, more ‘white and European’ which would therefore be more appropriate for our culture.....wouldn't that do even less for diversity? It might stop people having any interest in it all. At present it might mean that young Exeter fans have an interest in Native American history as they see it linked to their club. Without the link are we just making ourselves more insular? Stick to the white stuff so we don’t cause offence?

I’m playing devils advocate to a certain extent, but deep down I do think that ‘borrowing’ from other cultures, copying, imitating (as long as not in a derogatory way)......those things I think help cultures to integrate far more than stopping people completely from doing it. So hairstyles that cross cultures, clothes, music, food, etc. For me it’s a sign of understanding and progress if we can like, accept and take on things like this from other cultures. Just don’t do it in a derogatory way. I’d hate for a time when people are told ‘you can’t listen to that music because you are not black’, or ‘you can’t have that hairstyle because it is from white culture’, but I know those conversations are happening sadly.

I know people hate ‘whatabout-isms’ when discussing something like this but I often try to think about it the other way around and I ask whether there would be an issue with an American Football team called ‘Celtic Warriors’? I honestly suspect there would be no issue, which begs the question why? Why shouldn’t it work both ways? Or would people here be offended perhaps? I don’t know. But I suspect not. People also hate silly examples such as ‘whatever next, they’ll be banning ‘Blues’ as people who like Blue will be offended’. Of course that’s silly. But genuinely I’ve heard about people not being on board with names such as Tigers and other animal names used in sport. So could that be the next one to be removed? And why not? If it causes offence then surely we should act as who are we to judge who can/should be offended? Perhaps the question shouldn’t be ‘where do we stop’, but rather a statement saying ‘we cannot stop’ as offence can be found in pretty much everything.

Purely on a business level it makes sense for Exeter to change before you even consider the fact its being deemed as insensitive by actual native Americans.

How many of us pine for the marmalade mascot now? I don't think should Exeter to fall to simple decency it's going to even affect anyone who wants them to keep this.

Yes I agree 7 &1/2. From a purely business point of view this is all negative and cannot be doing them any good.

In terms of decency, yes again I agree to a certain extent. I like to think I’m a nice person and I don’t like to cause offence. So in the interest of decency I can see the argument for changing their imagery/mascot/branding as a group is offended. But you have to be consistent then. Northampton has to change. You can’t be having Saints, which is a very Christian religious link. I’m not joking or being facetious either! This does cause offence to people. Saracens the same. If Crusaders in NZ had to change then Saracens must too. The wearing of the Fez is cultural appropriation too. People would be outraged if they wore a Jewish skull cap. So why is a fez ok? It must stop. The animal names - I’ve got no issue and I guess they’re safe until someone raises an objection. Cornish Pirates - sticky ground with that one. They’re lucky that Pirates are not about in the same fashion as they were so they (Pirates) can’t get offended, but some might not be comfortable with the link to criminal elements who raped and pillaged across the world in the past. Where is the consistency?

Perhaps it’s something that World Rugby needs to intervene in and rule on.

There is no consistency because this is real life. For instance to bring it back to making fun of ginger people vs black people. On the surface insults, mocking, light hearted gestures could be exactly the same. However its not because of history, social make up etc etc. If there are groups who dislike Northampton Saints, let them protest it. People being offended by wasps (really) is not the same as someone who didn't like the Robinson's mascot. A doesn't equal B.

Baxter is doing his best to side step this and don't blame him at all. Could have been done and dusted by now and the marketing team could have new kits to sell and really turn it into a win win. As it is it rumbles on.

My issue is the level of severity.....and agenda in the media / social media...

Albinos are actively hunted in Africa because Witchdocters pay for their bones and body parts....is this in the news...NOPE

Girls as young as 5,6,7...in Africa and all over the world are kidknapped and brutally disfigured and used as slaves. In the news? Barely any coverage...

Child soldiers kidknapped from their families...drugged up to fight wars....much news on it...very little...

Human Trafficking, Sex Trafficking, you see the odd bit in the news...but very little

BUT
Bob down at Exeter wears a headdress to a rugby game and the world goes off.

Or
A white person puts their hair in dreadlocks and the world goes off!!!

Things need to be in perspective!

The Baxter side step! There's worse going on in the world so back seat this. It's a good line as it makes sense. The old phrase there's always someone worse off!

I get some people won't care, and fair enough. Myself as I've said I just think Exeter are stupid, and really really need to put that PR job out to advert again.

I completely agree with a sense of perspective about this, but I don't think this story is leading the news agenda either, it is a pretty rugby specific discussion atm.

I just can't understand why they don't wake up and smell the coffee, they are not going to win this one, it simply won't go away.

The Washington Redskins American football team had this debate for years and kept saying that they would not change their name. Guess what, they eventually bowed to the inevitable and changed the name. I bet all the hard core fans, who said that they would burn their season tickets if that happened, are still going to the games!

Sometimes you have got to just read the room!

Another good example of bowing to popular sentiment for any of you that missed it was that yesterday the Rolling Stones announced that they would not be playing Brown Sugar on their upcoming tour of the US.

Now musically, I absolutely love Brown Sugar it is an absolute belter of a track with one of the greatest guitar riffs ever, possibly my favorite Stones track (though its a high bar) but the lyrics are pretty questionable and have been called out for some time now and yet they continued to play it, it is their second most played live all time track apparently.

Its a song of its time though and does not sit so comfortably today as when it was written. MJ himself has said as far back as 1975 that he just would not write a song like that today. I think that they have made the right decision to stop playing it live.


If the biggest rock and roll band in the world, who could easily ride out any protest about this song and it would not have any impact on their concert tickets or record sales, can make an informed decision about something like this then surely a Rugby club in the UK really aught to be having clearer thought processes about this matter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The Baxter side step! There's worse going on in the world so back seat this. It's a good line as it makes sense. The old phrase there's always someone worse off!

I get some people won't care, and fair enough. Myself as I've said I just think Exeter are stupid, and really really need to put that PR job out to advert again.

No....its not that people dont care, people very much do care! Its that people focus on more critical things in the world like i listed above....not what headwear someone is wearing etc.....

I agree with your sentiment geordie, and I did say some. There are always a range of opinions and the fact there are more important/critical things to focus on, well yes. We probably should be talking about climate change all things considered!

Yes, Climate change is massive. Thats in the news...Racism...in the news...thats a good thing.

Am i bothered that some pop star has worn clothes that doesnt match the culture of her skin colour...??? Not remotely!

This is all absolute nonsense. Should I get offended by people wearing daffodil hats ? Or the Scottish or ginger people get offended for those flat tartan caps with ginger hair coming out if the sides ?

I was reading yesterday, that British airways pilots cannot say Ladies and Gentlemen when they make their announcements anymore, just incase they offend anyone, and then to top it off, I read that in Northern Ireland they are banning midwives from saying "Congratulations it's a boy/girl" just in case they offend anybody.

The world has gone to pot. There are more things to worry about than these trivial issues.

Well, that's the underlying point isn't it? People can focus on different things, some small and some large. And focus on more than 1. If I was with Exeter I'd be saying bite the bullet, design a new logo, make a comp out of it with local schools, sell a shed load more merch, build good will, stop the news cycle.

LordDowlais wrote:This is all absolute nonsense. Should I get offended by people wearing daffodil hats ? Or the Scottish or ginger people get offended for those flat tartan caps with ginger hair coming out if the sides ?

I was reading yesterday, that British airways pilots cannot say Ladies and Gentlemen when they make their announcements anymore, just incase they offend anyone, and then to top it off, I read that in Northern Ireland they are banning midwives from saying "Congratulations it's a boy/girl" just in case they offend anybody.

The world has gone to pot. There are more things to worry about than these trivial issues.

Like a s*n/Daily Heil bingo list.

The easiest thing in the world is causing offence these days.

In every walk of life people get offended by anything you say, wear, do, or have said, done or wore 20 years ago.

We live in a society where there is no forgiveness.

Offence can be ligitimate or it could be manufactured, sometimes we can see the sense in why something is offensive and other times not.

With society leaning the way it is in our time this isn't going to go away.

If you fight it, the offended garners more opportunity to gain attention and momentum for their cause, now as I said, some are ligitimate and others are not.

In South Africa people are more concerned with making a living than concerning themselves with being offended around every corner.

My take on these issues are that it is best to silence the offended by looking at the real issues, if a sporting team's logo is offensive, remove it, if it has anything to do with these new find identities and feelings that has shown its head, stay away from it, don't debate it, don't give an opinion about it.

Life is complicated enough.

So 4 things to consider:

1) why didnt they keep the "chiefs" part and rebrand to something celtic? theres certainly the connection down the cornish way so why not? Have a Clan Chief as the mascot! that would have been an easy fix!

2) the branding was made in a less considered time. If they were a brand new club, created today, i guarantee they wouldnt have gone down the native american stereotype dress up. So, in that spirit, why not admit that times were different then and they should rebrand slightly in line with point 1?

3) Nobody is screaming about this. No one. Theres probably just a growing generation of young folk who see the world differently and have decided that the team they support has some cultural themes thats a bit dated and maybe thats not cool? No need for a witch hunt but why dont we get this fixed now eh?

Everyone needs to chill for a second, let the young people have their progressive discussion, change the costumes and get on with it. No ones lives are being unnecessarily affected by this except for angry red faced men who demand their ability to wear a headress that some oppressed peoples in the world feel dehumanises them. So in that spirit, and considering everyones feelings very carefully, lets just rebrand slightly and move on?

4) In reality there are keyboard warriors who troll, generate clicks, papers and media outlets see clicks and propogate the outrage, wasps PR team see a chance to make the weekends opposition feel uncomfortable by the literal clothes they wear, Exeter lose, wasps win, mission accomplished. Wasps don't actually care, this is just marketing to generate hype.

As a Scot who has a very distinctive culture (kilts, tartan tat, whisky etc) I would always encourage other to participate in both the real and the pantomime culture we possess. I get asked by English pals if people will get offended by them wearing a kilt at a wedding to which i laugh and say "No, just wear the kilt and enjoy the freedom of it. If you want, go read a book about kilts but it'll get really depressing, really fast". What gets to me is seeing American Anti Vaxxers and Covid Conspirators wearing kilts and painting their face blue because of "FREEEEEEEEEDOM". Now, i know the whole Braveheart thing is peak pantomime scotland and this shouldnt bother me... but strangely it does? Someone has taken the strangest, most panto, mythologised parts of my culture, stereotyped it and is now using it for political iconography that i thoroughly disagree with. Hmm... now where does that sound familiar? I want to propogate my culture for positive reasons and invite others to take part to learn about us (Yes there is more to scotland than braveheart, have you seen the films trainspotting, gregorys girl or Local Hero?) but i hate seeing others taking something that i am a part of and twisting it for their own selfish reasons.

thats a long winded comment and wasn't aimed at anyone but just a different perspective?

Yes there are bigger things to be concerned about in this life, but they started small too.
So let's fix the small things, show that change can actually happen, then there will be more time and more people to fix the bigger issues.

OK, lets be rational about this, people are offended by Exeter using the Indian Chief as their motif. Right, so people are saying they should change.

Has anybody asked the Exeter rugby community how they feel about this ? After all, they have used this motif for years.

What if I said, I feel the red hand on the Ulster motif was offensive ? What if I said I found it offensive because it represents violence as a medieval king used his blood soaked hand to place it on a banner after being victorious in battle ? Or what if I said I found it offensive as it represents the worship of a deity ? I am a devout christian after all.

What if I then demanded that Ulster should change their motif ? Where does this all end ?

I am all for understanding, and I am all for empathy, but lets just look at the bigger picture here ? Why can't we just say live and let live ?

I just think the internet has now become a massive virtual soap box for people to shout from, and it gives access to more like minded people to be offended on behalf of others.

Look what is happening with insulate Britain, look at the chaos they are causing, look at the accidents they are causing and look at the people they are putting in harms way and that is the trouble with todays society, too many self entitled people who think they are on the do good bandwagon.

Have the whole American Indian culture and communities all come out as one to take offence to Exeter using Chiefs as their nickname ? Or is it just a few people who have gathered momentum looking to be outraged ?

I cannot find anything on the internet to back up the whole native American Indian race being up in arms with Exeter Chiefs. The odd one or two from other people, and a few from Wasps RFC ????

We can all find offence in anything these days, if we chose to, and that is the crux of it, it's what we chose. I do not chose to find offence in Exeter being called Chiefs. I chose to not be offended when I go to rugby games and people call me a sheep sh....., I chose to not be offended on behalf of others if the other is not offended.

What I do find offensive is people telling what to find offensive, I also find protesters protesting on behalf of others whilst putting themselves and other people in mortal danger, like what insulate Britain are doing offensive.

Why o why can't we just live our lives ? If we are all talking about the atrocities that go on in the world today, and want to do something about it then yes go for it, but name calling ? Come on.

Can anyone explain why it's offensive? What do the Indians find offensive about it?

LordDowlais wrote:OK, lets be rational about this, people are offended by Exeter using the Indian Chief as their motif. Right, so people are saying they should change.

Has anybody asked the Exeter rugby community how they feel about this ? After all, they have used this motif for years.

Somebody point this guy in the direction of the Washington American Football team so that he can self-educate.

Quickly.

Please.

profitius wrote:Can anyone explain why it's offensive? What do the Indians find offensive about it?

Seriously?

Cultural appropriation???

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/18/sport/indigenous-culture-in-global-sport-cmd-spt-intl/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/washington-football-fans-are-as-guilty-of-cultural-appropriation-as-rachel-dolezal/2015/06/19/48e20216-1688-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/washington-redskins-change-years-backlash/story?id=71744369

LordDowlais wrote:OK, lets be rational about this, people are offended by Exeter using the Indian Chief as their motif. Right, so people are saying they should change.

Has anybody asked the Exeter rugby community how they feel about this ? After all, they have used this motif for years.

What if I said, I feel the red hand on the Ulster motif was offensive ? What if I said I found it offensive because it represents violence as a medieval king used his blood soaked hand to place it on a banner after being victorious in battle ? Or what if I said I found it offensive as it represents the worship of a deity ? I am a devout christian after all.

What if I then demanded that Ulster should change their motif ? Where does this all end ?

I am all for understanding, and I am all for empathy, but lets just look at the bigger picture here ? Why can't we just say live and let live ?

I just think the internet has now become a massive virtual soap box for people to shout from, and it gives access to more like minded people to be offended on behalf of others.

Look what is happening with insulate Britain, look at the chaos they are causing, look at the accidents they are causing and look at the people they are putting in harms way and that is the trouble with todays society, too many self entitled people who think they are on the do good bandwagon.

Have the whole American Indian culture and communities all come out as one to take offence to Exeter using Chiefs as their nickname ? Or is it just a few people who have gathered momentum looking to be outraged ?

I cannot find anything on the internet to back up the whole native American Indian race being up in arms with Exeter Chiefs. The odd one or two from other people, and a few from Wasps RFC ????

We can all find offence in anything these days, if we chose to, and that is the crux of it, it's what we chose. I do not chose to find offence in Exeter being called Chiefs. I chose to not be offended when I go to rugby games and people call me a sheep sh....., I chose to not be offended on behalf of others if the other is not offended.

What I do find offensive is people telling what to find offensive, I also find protesters protesting on behalf of others whilst putting themselves and other people in mortal danger, like what insulate Britain are doing offensive.

Why o why can't we just live our lives ? If we are all talking about the atrocities that go on in the world today, and want to do something about it then yes go for it, but name calling ? Come on.

I love how you view the world solely through your own eyes.

So MFL further up the comments posted some links that do show the majority of surveyed native american peoples find the stereotyped use of their cultures imagery to be quite degrading so thats a fairly good place to start.

you also assert that nobody has asked chiefs fans: heres a link to a news story that covers that https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53334193

The reaction from people like yourself seems to be "WHY IS EVERYONE SHOUTING AT ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, LIVE AND LET LIVE?!", when the reality is some people are quietly going about their business going "yehhhh that probably should be changed, wee bit out of date".

We live in an age where everyone is told of outrage but in real life ive yet to encounter outrage at most stuff im told people are outraged. For example, at my rugby club this very thing has come up in conversation, we have a couple of guys from the exeter area join us who are exeter chiefs fans and they're response to questions about how they feel has been "nah its not good is it?". Pints were had, consensus agreed, nobody outraged.

Just to clear things up, real living actual native Americans have been saying for years that the sort of imagery and in some cases names used for sports teams should stop. It's not some random fella deciding he will take offence.
So let's use an analogy (not saying it's a good analogy but it's one I heard years ago and I like it)

So let's say every week I come round your house and take a Poopie in your kitchen sink.
Now your neighbors know I do this but as I'm not Poopie in their kitchen sink they don't really do anything, as after all it's only YOUR kitchen sink. There's is still just used for dishes. And they have bigger things to worry about. So they tell you to just get used to it as it's only your sink getting filled with Poopie, everyone else's sink is fine, stop getting offended.

Your going to feel a little aggrieved not just with me but also your neighbors complete lack of empathy.

I hope this helps some people to understand.

LordDowlais wrote:OK, lets be rational about this, people are offended by Exeter using the Indian Chief as their motif. Right, so people are saying they should change.

Has anybody asked the Exeter rugby community how they feel about this ? After all, they have used this motif for years.

What if I said, I feel the red hand on the Ulster motif was offensive ? What if I said I found it offensive because it represents violence as a medieval king used his blood soaked hand to place it on a banner after being victorious in battle ? Or what if I said I found it offensive as it represents the worship of a deity ? I am a devout christian after all.

What if I then demanded that Ulster should change their motif ? Where does this all end ?.

The Red Hand of Ulster is the historic symbol of the province, it has been used for centuries to as the provincial flag of the nine historic counties and kingdoms of Ulster, it's also the country crest for Tyrone as Tyrone was the family seat of the O'Neill clan who were (at least nominally) the high kings of Ulster.
It has become contentious in more recent times due to the conflation of the statelet of Northern Ireland with the older province, it's used a lot in Loyalist imagery in relation to their paramilitary and terrorist groups - however the province is nine counties not six, so it also is the provincial flag of three Irish counties as well and has been kept as such - Ulster rugby, like all "all-Ireland" bodies in golf, hockey, etc. use the traditional yellow and red Ulster flag not the Ulster banner (the NI flag).

So it's been a symbol of Ulster for at least 1,000 years and it's been our provincial symbol for all that time.

The Chiefs on the other hand only adopted the native American imagery in 1999 when the name was changed from Exeter Rugby Club and whilst I'm quite happy to agree with the club about the provenance of the term "chiefs" for the club first team, the "red indian" image seems an odd hill to die on - after all if they really believe that it's not offensive why have they pulled the "big chief" mascot?

LordDowlais wrote:

Theres a difference, Washington refer to skin colour, it could be seen as racist, thats what the the issue is with Washington, not because somebody is called Chief. Are all the tribal communities in the world going to have a go at Dale McIntosh ? Everyone chants Chief when he is strutting around.

It seems that you are suggesting that stereotyping a culture and minority people and commenting on peoples skin are two totally unrelated things, one being racist and the other not.

We had clan chiefs in scotland until culloden and then that whole system got turned inside out by the highland clearances and is it's own little bag of cultural genocide but if we Glasgow Warriors rebranded to "Glasgow Chiefs" and the iconography changed to a scottish clan chief there'd be a bit of bemusement but also a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Where this differs from Exeter chiefs is they've taken a stereotype of native americans that they really do not get, are not related to and have zero cultural exchanges with and they are now exploiting that to sell themselves. Considering native american peoples have been victims of literal attempted genocide and western europeans/european americans now enjoy using them to make money off of merchandise, it can all seem a wee bit insensitive eh?

This subject is right up there with the green/red issue for flushing out the hard of thought

"Everybody does it" so it must be ok......

PhilBB wrote:This subject is right up there with the green/red issue for flushing out the hard of thought

"Everybody does it" so it must be ok......

The thing is when you phrase like that you've lost the argument. If the objective is to share ideas and build consensus then calling people you disagree with as "hard of thought" is... incredibly hard of thought

Tramptastic wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Theres a difference, Washington refer to skin colour, it could be seen as racist, thats what the the issue is with Washington, not because somebody is called Chief. Are all the tribal communities in the world going to have a go at Dale McIntosh ? Everyone chants Chief when he is strutting around.

It seems that you are suggesting that stereotyping a culture and minority people and commenting on peoples skin are two totally unrelated things, one being racist and the other not.

We had clan chiefs in scotland until culloden and then that whole system got turned inside out by the highland clearances and is it's own little bag of cultural genocide but if we Glasgow Warriors rebranded to "Glasgow Chiefs" and the iconography changed to a scottish clan chief there'd be a bit of bemusement but also a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Where this differs from Exeter chiefs is they've taken a stereotype of native americans that they really do not get, are not related to and have zero cultural exchanges with and they are now exploiting that to sell themselves. Considering native american peoples have been victims of literal attempted genocide and western europeans/european americans now enjoy using them to make money off of merchandise, it can all seem a wee bit insensitive eh?

What if Exeter donate to some of the native American charity's as they use Chiefs ? Would that go towards building bridges ? Would it help the situation rather than re-branding ?

https://www.purewow.com/family/native-american-charities

Why doesn't anyone make these suggestions rather than getting offended on behalf of the native Americans ?

BigGee wrote:LD please refer to the above note!

What have I done ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Theres a difference, Washington refer to skin colour, it could be seen as racist, thats what the the issue is with Washington, not because somebody is called Chief. Are all the tribal communities in the world going to have a go at Dale McIntosh ? Everyone chants Chief when he is strutting around.

It seems that you are suggesting that stereotyping a culture and minority people and commenting on peoples skin are two totally unrelated things, one being racist and the other not.

We had clan chiefs in scotland until culloden and then that whole system got turned inside out by the highland clearances and is it's own little bag of cultural genocide but if we Glasgow Warriors rebranded to "Glasgow Chiefs" and the iconography changed to a scottish clan chief there'd be a bit of bemusement but also a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Where this differs from Exeter chiefs is they've taken a stereotype of native americans that they really do not get, are not related to and have zero cultural exchanges with and they are now exploiting that to sell themselves. Considering native american peoples have been victims of literal attempted genocide and western europeans/european americans now enjoy using them to make money off of merchandise, it can all seem a wee bit insensitive eh?

What if Exeter donate to some of the native American charity's as they use Chiefs ? Would that go towards building bridges ? Would it help the situation rather than re-branding ?

https://www.purewow.com/family/native-american-charities

Why doesn't anyone make these suggestions rather than getting offended on behalf of the native Americans ?

See thats a start. Like a real basic one. But a start nonetheless!

Now i'm not offended on behalf of native americans. What i am attempting to do is empathise with native americans who dislike seeing their culture used and abused for profit making. And i genuinely think no-one here is deeply offended but im fairly sure a lot of people can empathise.

Sometimes when i see backlash to people going "oh, thats outdated, maybe reign it in" it seems like they are objecting to a minor amount of mental effort. "I don't have time to understand differences of opinion, cultural appropriation and monetisation of an oppressed peoples culture! How could i possibly have the time to process all this and even attempt to empathise?? i know, i'll spend time on an online board discussing in great detail why i'm too busy to empathise and why everyone else should just move on!!"

It doesn't take much effort to read or listen to a dissenting opinon and attempt to put yourself in someone elses shoes.

More importantly, as a scotsman, why am i not offended by groundskeeper Wullie? and why is he the most accurate depiction of scottish people i've ever seen?

Well yes, why are you not offended Tramptasic?!

Tramptastic wrote:More importantly, as a scotsman, why am i not offended by groundskeeper Wullie? and why is he the most accurate depiction of scottish people i've ever seen?

I have enjoyed the Simpsons since the day it first aired on SKY 1. Right back in the early 90's. Grounds Keeper Willie is one of the best characters on there. I always laugh at this quote:-

It won't last. Brothers and sisters are natural enemies! Like Englishmen and Scots! Or Welshmen and Scots! Or Japanese and Scots! Or Scots and other Scots! Damn Scots! They ruined Scotland! wrote:

Back onto the this topic, if Exeter have to change their name and their logo, a lot of other clubs will have to as well.

You think the RFU will enforce a name change?  Why?

Have you done some research and read the short article about Exeter from a native American yet?

Irish Londoner wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:OK, lets be rational about this, people are offended by Exeter using the Indian Chief as their motif. Right, so people are saying they should change.

Has anybody asked the Exeter rugby community how they feel about this ? After all, they have used this motif for years.

What if I said, I feel the red hand on the Ulster motif was offensive ? What if I said I found it offensive because it represents violence as a medieval king used his blood soaked hand to place it on a banner after being victorious in battle ? Or what if I said I found it offensive as it represents the worship of a deity ? I am a devout christian after all.

What if I then demanded that Ulster should change their motif ? Where does this all end ?.

The Red Hand of Ulster is the historic symbol of the province, it has been used for centuries to as the provincial flag of the nine historic counties and kingdoms of Ulster, it's also the country crest for Tyrone as Tyrone was the family seat of the O'Neill clan who were (at least nominally) the high kings of Ulster.
It has become contentious in more recent times due to the conflation of the statelet of Northern Ireland with the older province, it's used a lot in Loyalist imagery in relation to their paramilitary and terrorist groups - however the province is nine counties not six, so it also is the provincial flag of three Irish counties as well and has been kept as such - Ulster rugby, like all "all-Ireland" bodies in golf, hockey, etc. use the traditional yellow and red Ulster flag not the Ulster banner (the NI flag).

So it's been a symbol of Ulster for at least 1,000 years and it's been our provincial symbol for all that time.

The Chiefs on the other hand only adopted the native American imagery in 1999 when the name was changed from Exeter Rugby Club and whilst I'm quite happy to agree with the club about the provenance of the term "chiefs" for the club first team, the "red indian" image seems an odd hill to die on - after all if they really believe that it's not offensive why have they pulled the "big chief" mascot?

The red hand of Ulster has a very chequered history, a lot can be derived from it, half the world could be offended by the history of the red hand if they "chose" to.

Sadly it just seems like everybody is offended by everything these days.

Probably time to disconnect from most from the social media....

Tramptastic wrote:

PhilBB wrote:This subject is right up there with the green/red issue for flushing out the hard of thought

"Everybody does it" so it must be ok......

The thing is when you phrase like that you've lost the argument. If the objective is to share ideas and build consensus then calling people you disagree with as "hard of thought" is... incredibly hard of thought

If you've read some of the posts in this thread you'll realise the 'argument' is already lost. Some don't understand the topic and never will do.

LordDowlais wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Theres a difference, Washington refer to skin colour, it could be seen as racist, thats what the the issue is with Washington, not because somebody is called Chief. Are all the tribal communities in the world going to have a go at Dale McIntosh ? Everyone chants Chief when he is strutting around.

It seems that you are suggesting that stereotyping a culture and minority people and commenting on peoples skin are two totally unrelated things, one being racist and the other not.

We had clan chiefs in scotland until culloden and then that whole system got turned inside out by the highland clearances and is it's own little bag of cultural genocide but if we Glasgow Warriors rebranded to "Glasgow Chiefs" and the iconography changed to a scottish clan chief there'd be a bit of bemusement but also a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Where this differs from Exeter chiefs is they've taken a stereotype of native americans that they really do not get, are not related to and have zero cultural exchanges with and they are now exploiting that to sell themselves. Considering native american peoples have been victims of literal attempted genocide and western europeans/european americans now enjoy using them to make money off of merchandise, it can all seem a wee bit insensitive eh?

What if Exeter donate to some of the native American charity's as they use Chiefs ? Would that go towards building bridges ? Would it help the situation rather than re-branding ?

https://www.purewow.com/family/native-american-charities

Why doesn't anyone make these suggestions rather than getting offended on behalf of the native Americans ?

Why don't you read about the Washington American Football team in order to educate yourself so that you prevent yourself from writing such trash in the future?