Exeter Chiefs

[h's dad]

If you scrutinise my DNA closely enough I'm sure I belong to multiple ethnic groups, possibly even American Indian although probably less than 3%.

You may be more closely related than you think. I am sure I recall reading about some genetic studies that found common Y chromosomes in Wales and North American Indians.

I'm so tempted to say I try and keep quiet about the Welsh connections but I'm afraid of the stick I'll get.

[BFG]

H's dad

I don't understand your position, are you denying the right of the many native american associations who vehemently dislike the branding to object?

Or are you saying that you do not care about people feeling marginalised by their culture being mocked for profit?

Just for everybody's information, many American Indians, including probably a preponderance of those who object to others wearing a feathered headdress, dislike the use of the term 'Native American'. It's to do with it originally being coined by the US Government.

I don't deny anybody's right to object to anything.

I don't think it's nice to mock anybody for profit or any other reason, for their culture or any other reason. I admit I may let myself down in this area occasionally.

I am confused when some members of a race tell me they object to me wearing a copy of an item relating to their culture when just as many members of that race are very happy to sell me the said item with the expectation that I would wear it.

Whether it is right for those without a link to the culture to make and sell such an item, I don't know.

I've tried to think how would I feel if the tables were turned but I struggle to think of a comparable example. Any help gratefully received.

I guess there is a moral question of does the "American Indian" culture suffer cultural appropriation on a different level to other larger cultures?
The answer is probably yes and the reason is possibly because they are in such a minority that their voice is not loud enough to be heard.
It doesn't bother me either way, as long as there is not malice I'm prepared to give and take, but then I don't live in a minority as all the homes on my street apart from one are owned by white families, were the tables to be turned and I was the minority of one then I think taking it might get a bit much!

[Robespierre]

It appears that the Washington Redskins will be obliged to change their name.

If Exeter do likewise, what could the choices be that are similar to Chiefs?
Exeter Gaffers? Exeter Führers?

A prize will be given to the winning entry!

[Scott1]

What's the world coming too?!

[Mark62]

It appears that the Washington Redskins will be obliged to change their name.

If Exeter do likewise, what could the choices be that are similar to Chiefs?
Exeter Gaffers? Exeter Führers?

A prize will be given to the winning entry!

Saw that, the first of a few I would guess

[sk 88]

H's dad

I don't understand your position, are you denying the right of the many native american associations who vehemently dislike the branding to object?

Or are you saying that you do not care about people feeling marginalised by their culture being mocked for profit?

Just for everybody's information, many American Indians, including probably a preponderance of those who object to others wearing a feathered headdress, dislike the use of the term 'Native American'. It's to do with it originally being coined by the US Government.

I don't deny anybody's right to object to anything.

I don't think it's nice to mock anybody for profit or any other reason, for their culture or any other reason. I admit I may let myself down in this area occasionally.

I am confused when some members of a race tell me they object to me wearing a copy of an item relating to their culture when just as many members of that race are very happy to sell me the said item with the expectation that I would wear it.

Whether it is right for those without a link to the culture to make and sell such an item, I don't know.

I've tried to think how would I feel if the tables were turned but I struggle to think of a comparable example. Any help gratefully received.

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense,

The University of Michigan has done a study which finds 70% of native Americans find the use of mascots in headdresses offensive and 65% the tomahawk chop offensive,

Link:
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... am%20name.

Whether it is "right" is a tricky area and for us to judge personally. When a 2 to 1 majority of those depicted find it actively offensive I no longer think it is. I'll happily admit I previously did not even give it a thought.

Washington have chosen to retire their nickname and chose a new one, that will only bring more heat on Exeter. They really have to weigh up if this is worth digging in on, because it is unlikely to go away.

[h's dad]

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense,

The University of Michigan has done a study which finds 70% of native Americans find the use of mascots in headdresses offensive and 65% the tomahawk chop offensive,

Link:
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... am%20name.

Whether it is "right" is a tricky area and for us to judge personally. When a 2 to 1 majority of those depicted find it actively offensive I no longer think it is. I'll happily admit I previously did not even give it a thought.

Washington have chosen to retire their nickname and chose a new one, that will only bring more heat on Exeter. They really have to weigh up if this is worth digging in on, because it is unlikely to go away.

As Raging Bull previously identified, this survey specifically says 'Native Americans who frequently engage in tribal and cultural practices'. It is not 70% of the total but of a much smaller select group. Also, it is most definitely not an unbiased survey.

Other surveys suggest overall numbers are much lower, including as low as 10% overall who object to use of the actual 'Redskins' name which is actually disparaging (IMO) and I would have thought would have had a much higher level of objection.

A statement saying 90% of American Indians support, or at least do not object to, their culture being identified with popular contact sports would not appear to be any more inaccurate than some of the others bandied about.

[ads]

But why does it need quantifying. If some of the indigenous people of America feel their culture is being represented unfairly by some sports teams then we should encourage those teams to change.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but freedom to mock or belittle where we know this is the case, is not the same thing and should not be accepted.

[kk20gb30]

Confirmed that Washington Redskins will re-brand:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/pressure ... sial-name/

[h's dad]

But why does it need quantifying. If some of the indigenous people of America feel their culture is being represented unfairly by some sports teams then we should encourage those teams to change.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but freedom to mock or belittle where we know this is the case, is not the same thing and should not be accepted.

Why does it need quantifying? For your some, replace with one. Is that sufficient? That is why.

[sk 88]

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense,

The University of Michigan has done a study which finds 70% of native Americans find the use of mascots in headdresses offensive and 65% the tomahawk chop offensive,

Link:
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... am%20name.

Whether it is "right" is a tricky area and for us to judge personally. When a 2 to 1 majority of those depicted find it actively offensive I no longer think it is. I'll happily admit I previously did not even give it a thought.

Washington have chosen to retire their nickname and chose a new one, that will only bring more heat on Exeter. They really have to weigh up if this is worth digging in on, because it is unlikely to go away.

As Raging Bull previously identified, this survey specifically says 'Native Americans who frequently engage in tribal and cultural practices'. It is not 70% of the total but of a much smaller select group. Also, it is most definitely not an unbiased survey.

Other surveys suggest overall numbers are much lower, including as low as 10% overall who object to use of the actual 'Redskins' name which is actually disparaging (IMO) and I would have thought would have had a much higher level of objection.

A statement saying 90% of American Indians support, or at least do not object to, their culture being identified with popular contact sports would not appear to be any more inaccurate than some of the others bandied about.

The 90% figure has been widely discredited, meanwhile the University of Michigan's is a thoroughly reputable survey from a reputable institution.

Anyway, it is not a particularly important issue to me so will leave it there. For others though it is highly important, so the issue is not going to go away.

[h's dad]

Thanks for the reply, that makes sense,

The University of Michigan has done a study which finds 70% of native Americans find the use of mascots in headdresses offensive and 65% the tomahawk chop offensive,

Link:
https://record.umich.edu/articles/study ... am%20name.

Whether it is "right" is a tricky area and for us to judge personally. When a 2 to 1 majority of those depicted find it actively offensive I no longer think it is. I'll happily admit I previously did not even give it a thought.

Washington have chosen to retire their nickname and chose a new one, that will only bring more heat on Exeter. They really have to weigh up if this is worth digging in on, because it is unlikely to go away.

As Raging Bull previously identified, this survey specifically says 'Native Americans who frequently engage in tribal and cultural practices'. It is not 70% of the total but of a much smaller select group. Also, it is most definitely not an unbiased survey.

Other surveys suggest overall numbers are much lower, including as low as 10% overall who object to use of the actual 'Redskins' name which is actually disparaging (IMO) and I would have thought would have had a much higher level of objection.

A statement saying 90% of American Indians support, or at least do not object to, their culture being identified with popular contact sports would not appear to be any more inaccurate than some of the others bandied about.

The 90% figure has been widely discredited, meanwhile the University of Michigan's is a thoroughly reputable survey from a reputable institution.

Anyway, it is not a particularly important issue to me so will leave it there. For others though it is highly important, so the issue is not going to go away.

The 90% figure with accompanying statement is one that I made up today (admittedly based on other data but I haven't seen 90% anywhere else on this subject) so I'm already impressed that it's been widely discredited.

Thoroughly reputable survey? Look at the history of the authors, the sample sizes compared with other, much larger works.

If you're going to make it up, please do a better job.

The issue itself isn't particularly important to me either. But for the independents, surely Saracens and that camel can be seen to be more offensive?

[wellstiger]

The naming and Branding of Sports Clubs ( and other organisations ) is taken at Boardroom/Sponsors level.
It has nothing to do with fans other than their own moral compass.
You can support a team without adorning branded items. Can't you?
Because you support (as many do ) the team/club of your birth or residency - doesn't per say make you racist.

The only opinion I have on branding is whether my conscience allows me to purchase or not.
I am a Leicester Tiger not a Leicester Rugby Football Club supporter.
Do Exeter supporters see themselves as Exeter Rugby Football. Exeter or Exeter Chiefs ( at time of writing).
Lets credit what the club has achieved and leave the Question of branding to the Boardroom and sponsors.
My conscience is clear - others may have to look inwardly.

[Mark62]

The naming and Branding of Sports Clubs ( and other organisations ) is taken at Boardroom/Sponsors level.
It has nothing to do with fans other than their own moral compass.
You can support a team without adorning branded items. Can't you?
Because you support (as many do ) the team/club of your birth or residency - doesn't per say make you racist.

The only opinion I have on branding is whether my conscience allows me to purchase or not.
I am a Leicester Tiger not a Leicester Rugby Football Club supporter.
Do Exeter supporters see themselves as Exeter Rugby Football. Exeter or Exeter Chiefs ( at time of writing).
Lets credit what the club has achieved and leave the Question of branding to the Boardroom and sponsors.
My conscience is clear - others may have to look inwardly.

Excellent point. You are a supporter of Exeter Chiefs(correct at the time of posting) therefore you will buy their merchandise and support the team in a direction that the club gives, as fo Tigers fans with various Tiger related apparel and Welford.
This doesn’t make Exeter fans racist, I would guess the vast majority have never given it a 2nd thought, as I would suggest many haven’t.
I think it was JP14 that pointed out this issue has been simmering for a while, with Native American people, and has reached boiling point, and now Washington have made their decision I can’t see anyway that teams with similar associations could carry on.
In this country I can’t think of anyone outside Exeter who it would affect, in America it could be huge, as it’s not just the professional teams in their 4 major sports, but the massive University/College market too.

[JP14]

My concern is that Exeter haven't properly addressed this ie. "We have done a thorough in-house review of our branding to make sure it is appropriate", or "We have been in consultation with representatives of the Native American peoples to ensure our branding does not make offence", or even made a statement saying that "The branding was done to give Exeter Rugby Football Club a professional outlook that reflects the Devonian tradition of naming a club's first XV the Chiefs, not to make financial gain by using incorrect stereotypes of the indigenous Americans" etc but oh no our Lord and Saviour Tony Rowe doesn't think they're in the wrong so nothing will be done...

Doing or saying nothing is making things worse in my view and increasing the pressure on the Chiefs to rebrand.