Offensive Team Names

[McTallshort]

First decent Tiggers Barf dust up in years.

Your having a laugh this is nothing.

 

[j'nuh]

Oh god a sports team wants to be named after the Native Indian population of the US! What a great ****ing drama....no it really isnt

The name is not the problem. It's the stereotyping.

Let's say you watch a movie. In it, a group of French people are portrayed as obnoxious. Does that make you think that the French, as a whole, are obnoxious? No, because other movies, other TV shows, other books, personal experience, the news etc. will portray French people in a variety of different lights.

Now think about Native American people. Are they treated with the same variety, or do you just have the same tropes repeated endlessly? The issue is arguably worse in Britain. By and large, we cannot draw on personal experiences of having met Native American people. There's a risk that we perpetuate the tropes through ignorance.

Which is why I like what Dr. Pratt had to say. Providing for a cultural exchange to exchange ideas and mitigating the risk that Native American people are homogenised seems a good idea to me.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

The name is not the problem. It's the stereotyping.

Let's say you watch a movie. In it, a group of French people are portrayed as obnoxious. Does that make you think that the French, as a whole, are obnoxious? No, because other movies, other TV shows, other books, personal experience, the news etc. will portray French people in a variety of different lights.

Now think about Native American people. Are they treated with the same variety, or do you just have the same tropes repeated endlessly? The issue is arguably worse in Britain. By and large, we cannot draw on personal experiences of having met Native American people. There's a risk that we perpetuate the tropes through ignorance.

Which is why I like what Dr. Pratt had to say. Providing for a cultural exchange to exchange ideas and mitigating the risk that Native American people are homogenised seems a good idea to me.

TBF the french are obnoxious.

 

[Tony Manx]

TBF the french are obnoxious.

Prefer the French (other than Parisiennes) to most Tiger fans.....

 

[smartcooky]

The name is not the problem. It's the stereotyping.

Let's say you watch a movie. In it, a group of French people are portrayed as obnoxious. Does that make you think that the French, as a whole, are obnoxious? No, because other movies, other TV shows, other books, personal experience, the news etc. will portray French people in a variety of different lights.

Now think about Native American people. Are they treated with the same variety, or do you just have the same tropes repeated endlessly?

Oh Please spare me!!! That kind of Hollywood stereotyping of Native Americans died out with the demise of the "spaghetti western" in the early 1980s. The vast majority of movies made since those times have been positive and sympathetic to their plight and to the way they have been treated in the past.

If you really do want to see some movies that address the stereotypes (rather then using them), there are plenty to see...... Windtalkers, Dances with Wolves, Smoke Signals and especially Black Robe. But if you only ever see one movie about this issue, then make it Winter in the Blood. It deals with the issues facing reservational Native Americans in a harsh, uncompromising and ruthless manner, pulling no punches.

IMO, how people have been treated in the past is not a reason to go changing the name of a sports franchise. It might be a "hip" or trendy PC thing to do, but unless those actual people truly want it done (and as I said before, I would expect to see a major movement with a majority of the allegedly offended people in an outcry over the name) before I would support any such move. One professor pontificating from the lofty heights of her Ivory Tower does not make a good reason in my book; what it does is help to create a grievance industry. Take it from someone who lives in a country where the grievance industry is rife, and a small number of privileged members of a certain cultural grouping have their snouts firmly in the tough while the vast majority of the rest are disenfranchised.

 

[McTallshort]

Oh Please spare me!!! That kind of Hollywood stereotyping of Native Americans died out with the demise of the "spaghetti western" in the early 1980s. The vast majority of movies made since those times have been positive and sympathetic to their plight and to the way they have been treated in the past.

If you really do want to see some movies that address the stereotypes (rather then using them), there are plenty to see...... Windtalkers, Dances with Wolves, Smoke Signals and especially Black Robe. But if you only ever see one movie about this issue, then make it Winter in the Blood. It deals with the issues facing reservational Native Americans in a harsh, uncompromising and ruthless manner, pulling no punches.

IMO, how people have been treated in the past is not a reason to go changing the name of a sports franchise. It might be a "hip" or trendy PC thing to do, but unless those actual people truly want it done (and as I said before, I would expect to see a major movement with a majority of the allegedly offended people in an outcry over the name) before I would support any such move. One professor pontificating from the lofty heights of her Ivory Tower does not make a good reason in my book; what it does is help to create a grievance industry. Take it from someone who lives in a country where the grievance industry is rife, and a small number of privileged members of a certain cultural grouping have their snouts firmly in the tough while the vast majority of the rest are disenfranchised.

Amen to that!

 

[ncurd]

Oh Please spare me!!! That kind of Hollywood stereotyping of Native Americans died out with the demise of the "spaghetti western" in the early 1980s. The vast majority of movies made since those times have been positive and sympathetic to their plight and to the way they have been treated in the past.

If you really do want to see some movies that address the stereotypes (rather then using them), there are plenty to see...... Windtalkers, Dances with Wolves, Smoke Signals and especially Black Robe. But if you only ever see one movie about this issue, then make it Winter in the Blood. It deals with the issues facing reservational Native Americans in a harsh, uncompromising and ruthless manner, pulling no punches.

So because Hollywood have stopped being ignorant it's okay for sports team to perpetuate the stereotype instead? I know that's not what you were saying exactly in response. But Hollywood getting better is not a reason for Cheifs being allowed to do it.

IMO, how people have been treated in the past is not a reason to go changing the name of a sports franchise. It might be a "hip" or trendy PC thing to do, but unless those actual people truly want it done (and as I said before, I would expect to see a major movement with a majority of the allegedly offended people in an outcry over the name) before I would support any such move. One professor pontificating from the lofty heights of her Ivory Tower does not make a good reason in my book; what it does is help to create a grievance industry. Take it from someone who lives in a country where the grievance industry is rife, and a small number of privileged members of a certain cultural grouping have their snouts firmly in the tough while the vast majority of the rest are disenfranchised.

I'm not going to comment on NZ and I have about zero knowledge of it.

The first article was exactly that (but I don't have to agree entirely with someone to see they might have one or two valid points).

Here my questions what's wrong with anything suggested in article Tigs Man suggested is? Why is that not a better way to use the Cheifs name?

I agree they probably shouldn't be forced into making a decision based on two professors opinions (the second of whom is an actual native American). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't engage on some kind of fake outrage that it's unreasonable they should think about it.

 

[j'nuh]

Oh Please spare me!!! That kind of Hollywood stereotyping of Native Americans died out with the demise of the "spaghetti western" in the early 1980s. The vast majority of movies made since those times have been positive and sympathetic to their plight and to the way they have been treated in the past.

If you really do want to see some movies that address the stereotypes (rather then using them), there are plenty to see...... Windtalkers, Dances with Wolves, Smoke Signals and especially Black Robe. But if you only ever see one movie about this issue, then make it Winter in the Blood. It deals with the issues facing reservational Native Americans in a harsh, uncompromising and ruthless manner, pulling no punches.

IMO, how people have been treated in the past is not a reason to go changing the name of a sports franchise. It might be a "hip" or trendy PC thing to do, but unless those actual people truly want it done (and as I said before, I would expect to see a major movement with a majority of the allegedly offended people in an outcry over the name) before I would support any such move. One professor pontificating from the lofty heights of her Ivory Tower does not make a good reason in my book; what it does is help to create a grievance industry. Take it from someone who lives in a country where the grievance industry is rife, and a small number of privileged members of a certain cultural grouping have their snouts firmly in the tough while the vast majority of the rest are disenfranchised.

Firstly, you're making the mistake that Tallshort made by not reading. I didn't say change the team's name or customs. I said that I think Chiefs should do more to exchange ideas with Native Americans, share the culture with their audience. Australia recently opened their matches with England with a speech about Aboriginal culture of the region they were playing in which I thought was a great move. Exeter should do similar.

Secondly, it's not true that stereotyping of Native Americans has gone.
e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32447263
e.g. http://journalistsresource.org/stud...ty/native-americans-media-stereotype-redskins

Thirdly, as the above article mentions, there is an issue of under-representation too. It's not enough to make films about Native American history, films should be including contemporary Native Americans.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Question:

Would you all have the same mindset on this matter if we have a South African team with chiefs in their name? As in the EP Chiefs or the Southern Chiefs?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Question:

Would you all have the same mindset on this matter if we have a South African team with chiefs in their name? As in the EP Chiefs or the Southern Chiefs?

Guess it depends how it is done, the name isn't the problem here.

Like the Chiefs in NZ they are fine.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Guess it depends how it is done, the name isn't the problem here.

Like the Chiefs in NZ they are fine.

Okay, then follow up question:

Would it be offensive if our indiginous tribes had Chiefs, and to this date still have Chiefs?

 

[ncurd]

What Tigs said.

Nobody here is saying the Exeter Chiefs needs to change their name although I think we keep on getting accursed of it. Just they should think about the Native American imagery they use because of it.

Now personally I'd like to see them use it but also engage with the Native American community in America and try foster links build support for the spot out there.

The chanting and hollering I'd remove on just the grounds that it's bloody annoying for spectators in the stadium that aren't ****** up and joining in. It sounds great on the TV though....

Anyway I just want them to engage with that culture rather than just using it to sell tat.

 

[Which Tyler]

But the name still isn't the problem; so it would still depend on how it's done.

 

[ncurd]

Would it be offensive if our indiginous tribes had Chiefs, and to this date still have Chiefs?

No as the word Chief has many connotations for example your armed forces has the NCO ranks Master chief warrant officer, Senior chief warrant officer and Chief warrant officer.

The point it becomes offensive is when they use the name chief to market their team portraying those tribes which they may have not discussed those tribe that reinforces stereotypes that do not properly represent that community. In this case as backward savages.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I have mixed feelings to be honest. I generally dislike pc but i also tend to hang around people who are well intended.
Last year a company here had to pull back an ad and change the product name of a barbecue called "black *******" (it was all black) because some people found it offensive.

Two australians paint their faces black/brown to pay tribute to their favorite player. The player is perfectly fine with it, but some people in the US get offended and Quantas (sponsor of the entire thing) apologizes...
Let me say that again because it is important: Two people with nothing but good intentions pay respect to a player (in their own way, granted), the player understands it and accepts it gladly, and because someone else from a completely different race 20,000 miles away might have felt slightly offended, the corporate sponsor goes out and apologizes.

Sometimes i sincerely believe we've lost the plot.

 

[McTallshort]

No as the word Chief has many connotations for example your armed forces has the NCO ranks Master chief warrant officer, Senior chief warrant officer and Chief warrant officer.

The point it becomes offensive is when they use the name chief to market their team portraying those tribes which they may have not discussed those tribe that reinforces stereotypes that do not properly represent that community. In this case as backward savages.

And we should all care about whats offensive because.....?

- - - Updated - - -

I have mixed feelings to be honest. I generally dislike pc but i also tend to hang around people who are well intended.
Last year a company here had to pull back an ad and change the product name of a barbecue called "black *******" (it was all black) because some people found it offensive.

Two australians paint their faces black/brown to pay tribute to their favorite player. The player is perfectly fine with it, but some people in the US get offended and Quantas (sponsor of the entire thing) apologizes...
Let me say that again because it is important: Two people with nothing but good intentions pay respect to a player (in their own way, granted), the player understands it and accepts it gladly, and because someone else from a completely different race 20,000 miles away might have felt slightly offended, the corporate sponsor goes out and apologizes.

Sometimes i sincerely believe we've lost the plot.

We have mate, its an industry now: the industry of the continually offended. Mainly university professors, reporters, lawyers and other parasites who contribute nothing good to society. Just make us all paranoid we are upsetting someone we don't know or care about.

 

[TRF_heineken]

No as the word Chief has many connotations for example your armed forces has the NCO ranks Master chief warrant officer, Senior chief warrant officer and Chief warrant officer.

The point it becomes offensive is when they use the name chief to market their team portraying those tribes which they may have not discussed those tribe that reinforces stereotypes that do not properly represent that community. In this case as backward savages.

Okay the reason why I'm asking is that the name Southern Chiefs was one of the names on the Shortlist for SA's 6th Super Rugby Franchise. They first settled on the name of Southern Spears, but later changed it to Southern Kings.

The reason why the Southern Chiefs weren't selected was because one of the local Chiefs in the Eastern Cape said that it would be an insult to the indiginous tribes in their area as their Chiefs underwent a rigorous process to be called a chief and that the players (some still members of those tribes), doesn't deserve to be called a chief.

 

[ncurd]

Context is everything

First you have to understand that blackface/yellowface was a very real thing in American which was greatly offensive. So is it surprising they see it and go WTF?
But yeah if the player is cool with people dressing up as him in tribute that's no different to people paint themselves green and pretending to be she-hulk.
Unserstanding cultural difference in doing things is what needs to be done here not

Reminds a little of when Tropic Thunder was released and everyone getting outraged that Robert Downey Jr. was doing blackface when the entire joke was it was offensive and he shouldn't be doing it. That's people getting stupid about things and should be called out.

The problem is people want to see it as black and white or in this case PC bull**** so we should carry on. So what you get in one side outraged saying silly things the other side getting thier backs up and getting outraged over the outrage. Some level of middle opinion is completely washed out.

Exeter on the other hand are just doing it to sell some silly hats and as far as anyone knows haven't done anything to engage with Native americans about it.

- - - Updated - - -

And we should all care about whats offensive because.....?

I have zero way to respond to this. The subjects of offence is so broad and varied each case is different. I find the idea we shouldn't acknowledge someone can be offened by something a bit odd but equally I agree we can ignore thier offence if they are being unreasonable about it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Context is everything

First you have to understand that blackface/yellowface was a very real thing in American which was greatly offensive. So is it surprising they see it and go WTF?
But yeah if the player is cool with people dressing up as him in tribute that's no different to people paint themselves green and pretending to be she-hulk.
Unserstanding cultural difference in doing things is what needs to be done here not

Reminds a little of when Tropic Thunder was released and everyone getting outraged that Robert Downey Jr. was doing blackface when the entire joke was it was offensive and he shouldn't be doing it. That's people getting stupid about things and should be called out.

The problem is people want to see it as black and white or in this case PC bull**** so we should carry on. So what you get in one side outraged saying silly things the other side getting thier backs up and getting outraged over the outrage. Some level of middle opinion is completely washed out.

Exeter on the other hand are just doing it to sell some silly hats and as far as anyone knows haven't done anything to engage with Native americans about it.

In all fairness, I don't see why Exeter should waste their time to engage with Native Americans. Exeter isn't in the USA, and doesn't owe the Native American people anything. It's exactly the same if Exeter has a rugby team called the Exeter Japies. While a few Saffas might find it extremely offensive, we are in an era where the majority couldn't care less of the historic connotation connected to the name, and to start a revolt regarding a name just isn't worth the squeeze.

 

[ncurd]

Okay the reason why I'm asking is that the name Southern Chiefs was one of the names on the Shortlist for SA's 6th Super Rugby Franchise. They first settled on the name of Southern Spears, but later changed it to Southern Kings.

The reason why the Southern Chiefs weren't selected was because one of the local Chiefs in the Eastern Cape said that it would be an insult to the indiginous tribes in their area as their Chiefs underwent a rigorous process to be called a chief and that the players (some still members of those tribes), doesn't deserve to be called a chief.

Hard one really he makes a point I think the sensible choice was made as it was named after the locals and locals took offence by it. Context of the use of the name is key here.

Mind you I get ****ing annoyed a Sky Installation Engineer calls himself an Engineer when he's a Technician so I get it.

- - - Updated - - -

In all fairness, I don't see why Exeter should waste their time to engage with Native Americans. Exeter isn't in the USA, and doesn't owe the Native American people anything. It's exactly the same if Exeter has a rugby team called the Exeter Japies. While a few Saffas might find it extremely offensive, we are in an era where the majority couldn't care less of the historic connotation connected to the name, and to start a revolt regarding a name just isn't worth the squeeze.

I feel like I'm wasting too much time over this topic for this reason.

I don't particularly care if Exeter carry on but the question was raised and I saw they had a point and ocmmented. I'm saying I'd prefer Exeter to engage with Native American tribes but I'm not going to boycott Exeter games over it or something similar.