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?

TheMildlyFranticLlama wrote:I'll post my views too....

We really need the rugby season to start!

So a new discussion point...

Did anyone hear Phil Vickery has retired?

funnyExiledScot wrote: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.

Supporting racism now!!

This reminds me of the time that thinking Maro Itoje wasn't ready for the England team meant you were a raving racist

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

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 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.

It's me (munchkin) that you are responding to

But who are the people insulted? Should any use of the Native American 'Chiefs' be exclusive to the Native Americans?

I have chatted on here about the suffering of the Native American under colonial rule, and their present day suffering as a neglected community in some parts, but simply don't believe any should take offence at the name 'Exeter Chiefs'. There are very real reasons why the Native American should feel offended by those from the West. There are very real reasons why the Native American should loudly protest historical and present day injustices done to them, but a rugby club adding 'Chiefs' to its name isn't one of them. In fact, I think the 'Expert' should focus much more in bringing to attention those present day injustices, rather than this nonsense.

beshocked wrote:

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?

Whats the context? Is it a BNP Xmas party?

Im afraid to comment any further until you are prescribed a sense of humour

RDW_Scotland wrote:

TheMildlyFranticLlama wrote:I'll post my views too....

We really need the rugby season to start!

So a new discussion point...

Did anyone hear Phil Vickery has retired?

Well that's ruined my weekend.

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

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 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.

It's me (munchkin) that you are responding to

But who are the people insulted? Should any use of the Native American 'Chiefs' be exclusive to the Native Americans?

I have chatted on here about the suffering of the Native American under colonial rule, and their present day suffering as a neglected community in some parts, but simply don't believe any should take offence at the name 'Exeter Chiefs'. There are very real reasons why the Native American should feel offended by those from the West. There are very real reasons why the Native American should loudly protest historical and present day injustices done to them, but a rugby club adding 'Chiefs' to its name isn't one of them. In fact, I think the 'Expert' should focus much more in bringing to attention those present day injustices, rather than this nonsense.

Oops! Clearly all these shenanigans have melted my brain.

In and of itself, I don't think the term "chiefs" is a problem. And in fact, if you read the original article, that isn't what the academic suggests. Rather, it is the wider Native American imagery (without which the name in itself would be rather pointless).

You are right that the Native American community has bigger worries. That said, if I were a Native American and saw my culture being trivialised (which ultimately is what the Chiefs branding does) all in the name of a marketing gimmick for a sports team in a country whose foreign policy caused the terrible issues facing my people, I'd be inclined to be peed off. Perhaps not horribly so, but still.

I'm not trying to make out that the Chiefs gimmick is the worst thing in the world. However, I'd argue it is a bit needless, particularly given the utter lack of any deeper relevance beyond the 'warrior' imagery.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:If I were a Native American and saw my culture being trivialised (which ultimately is what the Chiefs branding does) all in the name of a marketing gimmick for a sports team in a country whose foreign policy caused the terrible issues facing my people, I'd be inclined to be peed off.

Whoa there. The British were no angels, but most of the damage done to the Native Americans in the US was done after independence.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:If I were a Native American and saw my culture being trivialised (which ultimately is what the Chiefs branding does) all in the name of a marketing gimmick for a sports team in a country whose foreign policy caused the terrible issues facing my people, I'd be inclined to be peed off.

Whoa there. The British were no angels, but most of the damage done to the Native Americans in the US was done after independence.

Hmmmm... Possibly so. I'm not an expert on the history.

That said, I believe disease killed off a huge proportion of native Americans. And I do remember reading that at one point there was a policy formulated by the British to spread smallpox among the Native Americans.

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....

I don't want to pretend that I speak for all the Irish on here. Any community will have people in it who react differently to different things.

I do feel a lot of the way St. Patricks Day is celebrated in America is disrespectful to an extent, yes. It often perpetuates the stereotype connecting Irish people to abuse of alcohol. I don't like the term cultural appropriation at all, because it's not accurate. It's not about appropriating culture its about reducing someones culture or identity to something of a joke. If someone from America wants to learn about Irish history or the Irish language in my view that is excellent. If someone wants to reduce Irish culture to drinking and wearing green and getting peed then that is frustrating; not because of those actions, but because it links into casual stereotyping of the Irish people still have to put up with sometimes.

I know a lot of my friends from the South have much stronger feelings about this than I do, which is fair, but yeah there's certainly a degree of contempt for the way some people choose to act. It's not the case that it being 'offensive' is something that really hurts my feelings and occupies my thoughts, I almost never, ever think about it, but I think if you're playing 'Oirish' for the day and drinking green beer you're being a right royal boobie quite frankly. But I say that as someone who feels the whole Paddys Day thing has become a ridiculous self-parody anyway.

Exiledinborders wrote: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.

It's not for me to speak for a community that I'm not part of, thats the point. You suggest I think they might find the name offensive- based on what I know of the debate in the States I think it might? I don't really know? Ultimately I'm not a person who should judge that because it's not for me to speak for them. If the OP feels that it isn't offensive, he shouldn't feel like there is any problem in consulting with the actual people who are being represented. If he doesn't feel comfortable doing that does that not illustrate something?

Of course I have emphasised that if anyone follows this course they should do it in a way which is as tactful and respectful as possible.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
Oops! Clearly all these shenanigans have melted my brain.

In and of itself, I don't think the term "chiefs" is a problem. And in fact, if you read the original article, that isn't what the academic suggests. Rather, it is the wider Native American imagery (without which the name in itself would be rather pointless).

You are right that the Native American community has bigger worries. That said, if I were a Native American and saw my culture being trivialised (which ultimately is what the Chiefs branding does) all in the name of a marketing gimmick for a sports team in a country whose foreign policy caused the terrible issues facing my people, I'd be inclined to be peed off. Perhaps not horribly so, but still.

I'm not trying to make out that the Chiefs gimmick is the worst thing in the world. However, I'd argue it is a bit needless, particularly given the utter lack of any deeper relevance beyond the 'warrior' imagery.

I think the warrior image, and how Exeter make use of the Native American to portray that image, is actually a positive when considering the ethos of rugby union. Is the intent to trivialise the Native American culture, or is it a recognition of certain attributes held by an honourable warrior people? I believe the latter (I could well be wrong), and you believe former and never the twain shall meet

Munchkin wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
Oops! Clearly all these shenanigans have melted my brain.

In and of itself, I don't think the term "chiefs" is a problem. And in fact, if you read the original article, that isn't what the academic suggests. Rather, it is the wider Native American imagery (without which the name in itself would be rather pointless).

You are right that the Native American community has bigger worries. That said, if I were a Native American and saw my culture being trivialised (which ultimately is what the Chiefs branding does) all in the name of a marketing gimmick for a sports team in a country whose foreign policy caused the terrible issues facing my people, I'd be inclined to be peed off. Perhaps not horribly so, but still.

I'm not trying to make out that the Chiefs gimmick is the worst thing in the world. However, I'd argue it is a bit needless, particularly given the utter lack of any deeper relevance beyond the 'warrior' imagery.

I think the warrior image, and how Exeter make use of the Native American to portray that image, is actually a positive when considering the ethos of rugby union. Is the intent to trivialise the Native American culture, or is it a recognition of certain attributes held by an honourable warrior people? I believe the latter (I could well be wrong), and you believe former and never the twain shall meet  

Mixed 'blessings' as with all these things. Worth pointing out that the original tribes had problems producing much if anything made of steel. So they traded skins for all those knives and tomahawks (and blankets). You know where all those metal tomahawks were made? - Sheffield......

I mean do Exeter have any ties with the Native Americans tribes ATM?

If not why not? Could be good marketing for them in the USA if they can get the thumbs up from them, and maybe even set up community camps etc over there for rugby.

Don't you think it is a tad bizarre for an English Rugby club to be named after the title of American Indian tribal leaders (actually the English language name for the tribal leaders).  And to use their headdress (the feathers) as their symbol?  And to use the chant with the arm chop which they lifted directly from one of the biggest American Universities sports teams, the Florida State Seminoles. Seminoles were/are a tribe of American Indian.  

Frankly, I can't see the name as offensive.  It is a name of kings or princes.  Not used derisively or in an insulting manner. Very different than the furor about the name of the NFL team, the Washington Redskins.  The term Redskin is directly offensive and has always been a derisive term.  I am surprised that name has stuck as long as it has.

It's pretty widespread in the southwest for a club,'s 1st XV to be known as the Chiefs, and so it has been with Exeter. I don't know how widespread, but if you wander up Killigrew Street during the season, you'll see a big hoarding advertising Falmouth Chief's next home game, and the Sidmouth Herald reports the results of Sidmouth Chiefs, over 100 miles East.

Nor do I know if this rugby tradition predates Hollywood's "red injun" stereotypes, but I'd hazard a guess that the two are unconnected. Exeter's branding associated with the name since (I think) 1999 is clearly linked, although, without wishing to be overly facetious, it is the logo of the Indian motorcycle ,(itself highly iconic amongst the 2 wheel fraternity) that bears closest resemblance to Exeter's badge.

The more I read things like this the more I relate to what Clint Eastwood had to say.

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....

Keeping it to sports what about the Boston Celtics?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:It's pretty widespread in the southwest for a club,'s 1st XV to be known as the Chiefs, and so it has been with Exeter. I don't know how widespread, but if you wander up Killigrew Street during the season, you'll see a big hoarding advertising Falmouth Chief's next home game, and the Sidmouth Herald reports the results of Sidmouth Chiefs, over 100 miles East.

Nor do I know if this rugby tradition predates Hollywood's "red injun" stereotypes, but I'd hazard a guess that the two are unconnected. Exeter's branding associated with the name since (I think) 1999 is clearly linked, although, without wishing to be overly facetious, it is the logo of the Indian motorcycle ,(itself highly iconic amongst the 2 wheel fraternity) that bears closest resemblance to Exeter's badge.

Indian bikes are classics. Sadly, I haven't owned a bike since I was married. Maybe Exeter should have an Indian bike as their logo?

Interesting info about the name chiefs with the Rugby clubs down south west. Didn't know that.

Those Apache Whirlybirds are being grounded

This has probably been done to death by now. Not least by me. A couple of final points I do want to make though.

Firstly, the opening post doesn't accurately reflect the point the academic was making. It's not a case of saying "that's a bad name, you can't use it", but rather "the whole marketing schtick is trivialising a culture - and one which has faced two hundred years of exactly that."

Secondly, saying "there are bigger problems in the world" isn't acceptable. There are always bigger problems in the world. There isn't a certain amount of "wrong" available to the world - "sorry, you can't complain because the injustice quota has been used up this week." Nor could it be argued that this issue is getting disproportionate coverage. Ultimately, I think it's an argument that's used to stifle debate. Pete referenced Clint Eastwood's quote about a "Cat generation". However, it seems equally "Cat" to me to be so thin-skinned as to refuse to debate other viewpoints.

Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia . That is surely equally unacceptable.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:This has probably been done to death by now. Not least by me. A couple of final points I do want to make though.

Firstly, the opening post doesn't accurately reflect the point the academic was making. It's not a case of saying "that's a bad name, you can't use it", but rather "the whole marketing schtick is trivialising a culture - and one which has faced two hundred years of exactly that."

Secondly, saying "there are bigger problems in the world" isn't acceptable. There are always bigger problems in the world. There isn't a certain amount of "wrong" available to the world - "sorry, you can't complain because the injustice quota has been used up this week." Nor could it be argued that this issue is getting disproportionate coverage. Ultimately, I think it's an argument that's used to stifle debate. Pete referenced Clint Eastwood's quote about a "Cat generation". However, it seems equally "Cat" to me to be so thin-skinned as to refuse to debate other viewpoints.

Yep those deck chairs on the titanic were terribly arranged...

This all stems from identity politics 101. Identity politics is bad news, it's childish, petty and antagonizing. Therefore should be opposed where ever it raises its ugly head.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

+1 on that Spidey

When is the Pope and all the other lesser clerics going to come out and demand that Northampton change their name as it demeans the godliness of those that have been canonised?

Are the New Zealand team insulting all Africans and their descendants?

Are we getting to the stage that any name taken from history, a race of people or in this case a form of leader becomes sacrosanct and can't be used in any other context?

Right, well ban the Saxons then, I am not sure wolfhounds like being aligned with a rugby team, how about the Maori (NZ 2nd string), it is a proud name but no longer only used by those that qualify by birth. Where do you stop?

It is the intention that the name is used in, not the name itself that matters. Why do the media give these people the publicity they so clearly want, most of the time the statements are designed to be controversial and do not hold water with sensible thinking people.

Pete330v2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

+1 on that Spidey

Come on Pete, you have to be even handed about this.

I belive the Big Foot where a Native American tribe, did they all suffer from it?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

Actually, you are completely correct. My username is undoubtedly a cheap joke. I've been thinking of changing my username for a while, mainly because in hindsight it isn't very nice, and not something I want to be associated with, this has given me the impetus to do so. Now I just need to think up a new username.

Of course, while that makes me a hypocrite, it doesn't make me wrong. Just as my username is a cheap joke, so the Chiefs' branding is a cheap gimmick.

Pete330v2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

+1 on that Spidey

With respect Pete, I could take that comment from ScarletSpiderman. However, you've just been harping on about how people are too easily offended. You seem to be guilty of the same hypocrisy as me.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

Actually, you are completely correct. My username is undoubtedly a cheap joke. I've been thinking of changing my username for a while, mainly because in hindsight it isn't very nice, and not something I want to be associated with, this has given me the impetus to do so. Now I just need to think up a new username.

Of course, while that makes me a hypocrite, it doesn't make me wrong. Just as my username is a cheap joke, so the Chiefs' branding is a cheap gimmick.

To be honest mate, I have no issues with your username or with the Chiefs (or Boston Celtics) branding, just couldn't resist pointing it out.

Personally if you go out and target someone or people, and make a point that you are targeting them for ridicule/abuse, then it is not so bad. And to a point it is part of human nature. I'm sure we have all at some point had a laugh at someone for being unbelievably posh/common, or for reading the daily mail/sun etc.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

Actually, you are completely correct. My username is undoubtedly a cheap joke. I've been thinking of changing my username for a while, mainly because in hindsight it isn't very nice, and not something I want to be associated with, this has given me the impetus to do so. Now I just need to think up a new username.

Of course, while that makes me a hypocrite, it doesn't make me wrong. Just as my username is a cheap joke, so the Chiefs' branding is a cheap gimmick.

To be honest mate, I have no issues with your username or with the Chiefs (or Boston Celtics) branding, just couldn't resist pointing it out.

Personally if you go out and target someone or people, and make a point that you are targeting them for ridicule/abuse, then it is not so bad.  And to a point it is part of human nature.  I'm sure we have all at some point had a laugh at someone for being unbelievably posh/common, or for reading the daily mail/sun etc.

No worries. I'll change it anyway, once I think up a new name. It is a bit Muppet. And given I'm prone to moralising, it's undoubtedly hypocritical.

To be fair, with this whole debate, I've done my usual thing of arguing a point more strongly than I mean to, simply because I'm argumentative. I don't have a big issue with the Chiefs thing. I just think that the execution of the brand is a bit reductive and odd regardless since the link between Exeter and Native Americans is at best metaphorical.

Anyway, I'll jump off this thread, because I'm even boring myself now.

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

Actually, you are completely correct. My username is undoubtedly a cheap joke. I've been thinking of changing my username for a while, mainly because in hindsight it isn't very nice, and not something I want to be associated with, this has given me the impetus to do so. Now I just need to think up a new username.

Of course, while that makes me a hypocrite, it doesn't make me wrong. Just as my username is a cheap joke, so the Chiefs' branding is a cheap gimmick.

To be honest mate, I have no issues with your username or with the Chiefs (or Boston Celtics) branding, just couldn't resist pointing it out.

Personally if you go out and target someone or people, and make a point that you are targeting them for ridicule/abuse, then it is not so bad.  And to a point it is part of human nature.  I'm sure we have all at some point had a laugh at someone for being unbelievably posh/common, or for reading the daily mail/sun etc.

No worries. I'll change it anyway, once I think up a new name. It is a bit Muppet. And given I'm prone to moralising, it's undoubtedly hypocritical.

To be fair, with this whole debate, I've done my usual thing of arguing a point more strongly than I mean to, simply because I'm argumentative. I don't have a big issue with the Chiefs thing. I just think that the execution of the brand is a bit reductive and odd regardless since the link between Exeter and Native Americans is at best metaphorical.

Anyway, I'll jump off this thread, because I'm even boring myself now.

There are two issues being discussed here - 1. The offensiveness of the Chiefs branding/name 2. Whether people SHOULD be offended. The first one most people on here agree its not offensive, but that would be expected - we are all non-native american. The 2nd point is where people are being absurd. Just because you are not offended by something does not mean it's not offensive. When you are part of a dominant culture (and as mostly white males on 606v2, boy are we culturally dominant ) there is not alot to get offended by. I mean our culture dominates.

As an example, I am irish and while I find the boston Celtics irish leprechaun mildly annoying, I am also of a generation where irish people are pretty close to being universally loved. So its a silly mascot that I spend little time worrying about. If we weren't in our current cultural position, ala early 20th century, then the celtics mascot would be just one more poke in the eye of a constant anti-irish barrage. So I get it for native americans, seeing negative and/or simplistic referneces to my culture would be annoying or offensive. We just don't notice the references to their culture -why would we? But it makes it all the more important that when issues are raised by them (i understand in this case it wasn't raised by them) we should first listen. We may learn something.

doctor_grey wrote:
Frankly, I can't see the name as offensive.  It is a name of kings or princes.  Not used derisively or in an insulting manner.  Very different than the furor about the name of the NFL team, the Washington Redskins.  The term Redskin is directly offensive and has always been a derisive term.  I am surprised that name has stuck as long as it has.

this nicely sum up my view. thank you Doc. The chief badge seem to be the issues rather than the name but to be honest are native Americans really aware of the mere existence of the Exeter rugby team? Maybe if they did they would ask royalties and/or open a casino down there (of am going too far now). It is only an issue because native Americans are/were a persecuted minority so this kind of (somehow very British kind of) debates are bound to happen (quite similar to the Marler/ Lee incident in a way). Am surprised there are 2 pages already on this thread and I apologise for adding my own drivel to it . Ultimately I suggest to change the name to Exeter Rosbifs , am sure everybody would be fine with that
As for stereotypes (not specially Irish ones), this happen all around the world and better take them with either a smile or a shrug (see another stereotype). That's what I do when I see French people dressed with "Beret", a necklace of "garlic" while cycling on an old bike with a goat on a leash in some American movies. Not to mention derogatory terms such as "cheese eating surrendering monkeys" etc. etc. And we do not even have the upside of being loved all around the world - at least St Patrick's day abroad, albeit being sometimes an excuse to get out and party, is good fun (or craic as some of you people will say)

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Jbeadlebigrighthand, what about having a bit of fun about people who suffer with hemihyperplasia .  That is surely equally unacceptable.

+1 on that Spidey

With respect Pete, I could take that comment from ScarletSpiderman. However, you've just been harping on about how people are too easily offended. You seem to be guilty of the same hypocrisy as me.

I'm no more offended by your name than I am by the Chief's branding. I don't set out every day to find and take offence, it's words and pictures, sticks and stones and all that.
I think you should keep your name to be honest, it's an inoffensive joke. I also think that Exeter should retain their branding until they find themselves offending actual native Americans instead of offence hunters.

I personally find their name highly offensive. I've been at 2 games against Exeter where I've been sat/stood behind some moron with a headdress restricting my view and chanting the tomahawk chop over and over and over again (not to be confused with the melodic tones of "Glaaaawsteerrrrr"). I'd like them to become the ultra PC Exeter Vertically Challenged; this will not offend anyone nor restrict my view

HongKongCherry wrote:I personally find their name highly offensive. I've been at 2 games against Exeter where I've been sat/stood behind some moron with a headdress restricting my view and chanting the tomahawk chop over and over and over again (not to be confused with the melodic tones of "Glaaaawsteerrrrr").  I'd like them to become the ultra PC Exeter Vertically Challenged; this will not offend anyone nor restrict my view

I agree.  When they chant the tomahawk chop, it sounds a bit like a chorus of people who are relieving themselves after generating too much gas eating spicy Indian food (warning:  stereotype alert).  Since the town of Cheddar is somewhere down towards Exeter, why not rename them the Exeter Cheese?

As a pigeon fancier I really think Newcastle should consider changing their name to something other than ‘Falcons’.

I find it threatening and every time I see their logo or hear their title in the media the pit of my stomach gives a heave and I think of the pigeons out there that have been lost to these evil predators. Just writing the actual word made me feel physically sick

I would also like to add that as a livelong Newcastle United fan I find it very offensive that Gloucester play in red and white – the colours are that of Sunderland AFC and I feel humiliated and angered by anything that reminds me of those Mackem B#;’#/’’!!.

I would also call for a cull of all black Felis catus, once again their very existence reminds me of SAFC and I personally think that anything that I find offensive should be killed or just gotten rid of.

As a young teenager my parents used to threaten my pet dog with being bathed. The word ‘bath’ would send him running to hide under the sideboard where he would tremble in terror. Fair enough he had probably rolled on a dead hedgehog or rancid cow sh1t, but even know I can empathise with his terror when he heard the word ‘bath’. I think Bath rugby should change their name in the light of this revelations. Perhaps call themselves ‘Shower’ if they want to factor in the hygiene/plumbing factor. In fact I have heard Bath (oohh) fans call them that very name – What a shower I think was the phrase.

There are others but I feel emotionally drained and anxious – I think forums should be banned as a lot of people just seem to disagree and call each other harsh words – that makes me feel threatened.

Black cats were the guns not felines. While the chiefs name doesn't bother me its worth considering how much weight is given names etc which could cause offence. I don't think there'll be strong calls against this as there aren't too many native americans walking around Britain, its clearly not meant in a derogatory way. Does that make it ok?

Here’s a question.

Why should we be worried about offending anyone?

Obviously there are the Laws of the UK and we have to observe those, but if we have an opinion or take a stance that we seem reasonable but then this offends someone who holds different views – so what?

Anything we say or do has consequences and individuals and organisations have to take these into account – so Exeter might be hit by a boycott of North American Indians deciding not to buy season tickets, but because of its location in the South West of England I think they can probably weather that particular storm. It might be worth also considering which North American Indians will feel offended – as far as I’m aware it was only the Plains Indians that wore the feathered headdress so will this media frenzy even register on those of the Seminole, Apache or Navaho ? These are answers we need to know.

Who should we be worried about offending – ok yes it’s obvious that six foot six shaven headed monobrow with the red eyes and tattooed knuckles who is glaring at you because you have walked into the bar wearing an inappropriate replica strip is an obvious candidate, but should we have a list of people around whose sensibilities we should really should be careful?

Dr Rachel Herrmann mentioned “Britain's forgotten imperial American past” – although I must admit I always thought the real damage was done well after 1776 so I’m not sure why we are being dragged into this particular argument, however apart from that, it brings in the idea that we should be accountable for the deeds of our ancestors, not sure if I agree with that.

Should we keep a list of folk who might have been knocked about by our lot in the distant past and tiptoe round their sensibilities? Should the Scandinavians Be Very Careful About What They Say To Us because of what their ancestors did to ours? And think of the stress and offense that the Romans did to our people way back when – do the Italians owe us bigstyle? I think we all agree that modern Germans should not carry the guilt of what the Nazi’s did, so why should we carry the can for something much further back?

As for Cultural appropriation, should those suitably chastised Scandinavians lobby the Minnesota Vikings for misuse of the term? It’s just as valid as the Exeter question.

Or should we only be worried about offending those who have a bit of weight with the media, sod the masses but be careful of this lot they have a good PR department. Your course of Early American History in a Southern English University not well attended (although this is such a relevant course in an English town it’s hard to believe) – let’s see if we can get some free publicity. Too cynical?



Oh - Sunderland AFC's nick name is definitely the Black Cats, trust me - I'm from these here parts.

As a matter of interest, have any actual Native Americans been in touch with Exeter about their name ?

Or is it only an issue for professionally offended, middle-class, educated beyond common sense, social justice warrior, white academics ?

I won't be surprised if this turns up as an opinion piece in The Guardian sometime around the start of the season on a quiet news day,

Trail, its certainly a point of view about the right to offend but for a nick name for a club if it were to become an issue would it be worth fighting, or even tight to. I'm aware of Sunderlands nick name (a nod to the nick name of the local guns).

TrailApe wrote:

I would also like to add that as a livelong Newcastle United fan I find it very offensive that Gloucester play in red and white – the colours are that of Sunderland AFC and I feel humiliated and angered by anything that reminds me of those Mackem B#;’#/’’!!.

How very dare you; I am deeply offended by this remark. We play in cherry and white, which is completely different to red and white

http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/a-message-for-exeter-chiefs-from-the-cultural-ambassador-for-crow-creek-dakota-sioux-tribe/story-29597102-detail/story.html

HongKongCherry wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

I would also like to add that as a livelong Newcastle United fan I find it very offensive that Gloucester play in red and white – the colours are that of Sunderland AFC and I feel humiliated and angered by anything that reminds me of those Mackem B#;’#/’’!!.

How very dare you; I am deeply offended by this remark. We play in cherry and white, which is completely different to red and white

Maybe if you're Gok Wan....

Or is that offensive to fashionistas?

(a nod to the nick name of the local guns).

Tell me more - I tend not to delve too deeply into the history of SAFC but I'm willing to hear from a third party.

How very dare you; I am deeply offended by this remark. We play in cherry and white, which is completely different to red and white

My profuse apologies I didn't mean to offend.

Ok Southampton - I feel offended by Southampton.

The Football club's strip and the name of their stadium, which I feel (as a rabid Catholic) trivialises the name of Mother of God and their strip, which is almost the exact same as the Mackam Bustards - and lets throw in the bloody university, sound like the flaming lectures have too much time on their hands.

Welly wrote:http://m.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/a-message-for-exeter-chiefs-from-the-cultural-ambassador-for-crow-creek-dakota-sioux-tribe/story-29597102-detail/story.html

Incredible - they found someone of direct Native American descent living near Exeter, and she's even been to a game!

Reading those comments adds a bit more credibility to the accusations, and it is putting Exeter in a lose-lose situation.

Ignore it and things can quickly build, leading to public OUTRAGE!!! about it and people claiming to be DISGUSTED, and before you know it 20,000 people will have signed an online petition.

But if they choose to do something about it I can't see any solution other than getting rid of it - if they speak to the people in Canada that she suggests they'll probably say 'yeah, it is all pretty offensive'. So what else can they then do other than get rid of the head dresses and chants in the crowd? A club identity takes a long time to build so that would be a bit of a disaster for them.

Just old guns on the Wear from memory. At least we got their old mascot from it which i kid you not was called the Roker Cat.

Ha. Wasnt the Roker cat but apparently 606 finds that name offensive!

TrailApe wrote:Here’s a question.

Why should we be worried about offending anyone?

Obviously there are the Laws of the UK and we have to observe those, but if we have an opinion or take a stance that we seem reasonable but then this offends someone who holds different views – so what?

Well there are clearly lines we draw. The use of certain words to describe black people is now pretty shunned. I would presume you find those terms offensive? So there is a line drawn somewhere. You prefer to draw the line differently to someone else. That is understandable. It doesn't make either of ye right. It does mean that you may start to pay a price for using socially unacceptable terms, in the same way someone who uses the N word shouldn't be arrested, most people just would stop hanging around such a person. If the exeter chief's logo doesn't offend you thats your perogative. I just find it facsinating that you don't care about how it may effect other people. I have used words in the past without thinking and a person of that ethnicity (indian) called me out on it. They were a mate, and it wasn't a big deal between us. But i prefer not to hurt a mate needlessly, you know? I lose little by not using a word, but they might lose alot by hearing it. So while I feel there should never be any law governing speech, social values constantly change on what is acceptable.

TrailApe wrote:Here’s a question.

Why should we be worried about offending anyone?

Obviously there are the Laws of the UK and we have to observe those, but if we have an opinion or take a stance that we seem reasonable but then this offends someone who holds different views – so what?

Anything we say or do has consequences and individuals and organisations have to take these into account – so Exeter might be hit by a boycott of North American Indians deciding not to buy season tickets, but because of its location in the South West of England I think they can probably weather that particular storm.  It might be worth also considering which North American Indians will feel offended – as far as I’m aware it was only the Plains Indians that wore the feathered headdress so will this media frenzy even register on those of the  Seminole, Apache or Navaho ? These are answers we need to know.

Who should we be worried about offending – ok yes it’s obvious that six foot six shaven headed monobrow with the red eyes and tattooed knuckles who is glaring at you because you have walked into the bar wearing an inappropriate replica strip is an obvious candidate, but should we have a list of people around  whose sensibilities we should really  should be careful?

Dr Rachel Herrmann mentioned “Britain's forgotten imperial American past” – although I must admit I always thought the real damage was done well after 1776 so I’m not sure why we are being dragged into this particular argument, however apart from that,  it brings in the idea that we should be accountable for the deeds of our ancestors,  not sure if I agree with that.

Should we keep a list of folk who might have been knocked about by our lot in the distant past and tiptoe round their sensibilities? Should the Scandinavians Be Very Careful About What They Say To Us because of what their ancestors did to ours? And think of the stress and offense that the Romans did to our people way back when – do the Italians owe us bigstyle? I think we all agree that modern Germans should not carry the guilt of what the Nazi’s did, so why should we carry the can for something much further back?

As for Cultural appropriation, should those suitably chastised Scandinavians lobby the Minnesota Vikings for misuse of the term? It’s just as valid as the Exeter question.

Or should we only be worried about offending those who have a bit of weight with the media, sod the masses but be careful of this lot they have a good PR department.  Your course of Early American History in a Southern English University not well attended (although this is such a relevant course in an English town it’s hard to believe) – let’s see if we can get some free publicity. Too cynical?



Oh - Sunderland AFC's nick name is definitely the Black Cats, trust me -  I'm from these here parts.

Yeah but vikings had white privilege and the people they murdered had white privilege so that balances each other out. Left wing "logic" there.

TrailApe wrote:Here’s a question.

Why should we be worried about offending anyone?

Obviously there are the Laws of the UK and we have to observe those, but if we have an opinion or take a stance that we seem reasonable but then this offends someone who holds different views – so what?

Anything we say or do has consequences and individuals and organisations have to take these into account – so Exeter might be hit by a boycott of North American Indians deciding not to buy season tickets, but because of its location in the South West of England I think they can probably weather that particular storm.  It might be worth also considering which North American Indians will feel offended – as far as I’m aware it was only the Plains Indians that wore the feathered headdress so will this media frenzy even register on those of the  Seminole, Apache or Navaho ? These are answers we need to know.

Who should we be worried about offending – ok yes it’s obvious that six foot six shaven headed monobrow with the red eyes and tattooed knuckles who is glaring at you because you have walked into the bar wearing an inappropriate replica strip is an obvious candidate, but should we have a list of people around  whose sensibilities we should really  should be careful?

Dr Rachel Herrmann mentioned “Britain's forgotten imperial American past” – although I must admit I always thought the real damage was done well after 1776 so I’m not sure why we are being dragged into this particular argument, however apart from that,  it brings in the idea that we should be accountable for the deeds of our ancestors,  not sure if I agree with that.

Should we keep a list of folk who might have been knocked about by our lot in the distant past and tiptoe round their sensibilities? Should the Scandinavians Be Very Careful About What They Say To Us because of what their ancestors did to ours? And think of the stress and offense that the Romans did to our people way back when – do the Italians owe us bigstyle? I think we all agree that modern Germans should not carry the guilt of what the Nazi’s did, so why should we carry the can for something much further back?

As for Cultural appropriation, should those suitably chastised Scandinavians lobby the Minnesota Vikings for misuse of the term? It’s just as valid as the Exeter question.

Or should we only be worried about offending those who have a bit of weight with the media, sod the masses but be careful of this lot they have a good PR department.  Your course of Early American History in a Southern English University not well attended (although this is such a relevant course in an English town it’s hard to believe) – let’s see if we can get some free publicity. Too cynical?



Oh - Sunderland AFC's nick name is definitely the Black Cats, trust me -  I'm from these here parts.

Trailape you say that modern Germans shouldn't carry the guilt of what the Nazi's did but the impression I get is that modern Germans do.

Hence why Angela Merkel decided put up the - All welcome to Germany sign - no checks necessary.

So frightened of offending anyone that uncontrolled immigration has been the result.

Probably one factor which swayed British folk to vote out in the EU referendum.

By pandering to political correctness, Merkel has shot herself in the foot and damaged her reputation. Exeter Chiefs have to be careful. Personally if I were them I would ignore this "furore".

Of course one is more extreme and serious than the other but still.