The name?

[TRF_heineken]

The team was named the Crusdaers in 1996, in a predominantly Christian country. Was there even a Muslim community in the region back then?

I'm asking this, because if I look at my own town, up to 2001, there wasn't a mosque or even a muslim community in town or in a 100km radius. We had different christian denominations and churches, and we also had a very big Jewish community.

Now we have a mosque, and the Jewish community is getting smaller on a yearly basis.

With that said, Since, 1994 SA have been very open to different religions and the freedom to it's people to be of different faiths. Whereas I get the idea, that New Zealand has always been a country with Christianity faith following, and other religions only recently started to grow there.

Which I think should be considered a mitigating factor.

 

[ncurd]

I think an appropriate comparison would be if the Saracens in England introduced the call to prayer as their theme song or got cheerleaders called 'The Jihadis'. I don't think sections of the population would be comfortable with either of those. But just called Saracens? No problem at all.

I think in a similar guise this is where I object to with Exeter Chiefs. I less object to the Chiefs name and more to all the side stuff which is almost the very definition of cultural appropriation for marketing reasons.

On this I think we just have to think more in modern society about the connotations of naming things. Some things that were deemed okay in the past may not be anymore and we have to adapt to that.

 

[TRF_heineken]

On this I think we just have to think more in modern society about the connotations of naming things. Some things that were deemed okay in the past may not be anymore and we have to adapt to that.

Fair enough. But there is also an oversensitivity on certain matters, and in some cases the demand for change is more a nuisance issue than anything else.

"It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt" - I think this quote is very appropriate...

 

[Kiwiwomble]

The team was named the Crusdaers in 1996, in a predominantly Christian country. Was there even a Muslim community in the region back then?

I'm asking this, because if I look at my own town, up to 2001, there wasn't a mosque or even a muslim community in town or in a 100km radius. We had different christian denominations and churches, and we also had a very big Jewish community.

Now we have a mosque, and the Jewish community is getting smaller on a yearly basis.

With that said, Since, 1994 SA have been very open to different religions and the freedom to it's people to be of different faiths. Whereas I get the idea, that New Zealand has always been a country with Christianity faith following, and other religions only recently started to grow there.

Which I think should be considered a mitigating factor.

One of the mosques in question was built in about 1984 so we can safely say it was a pretty well established community long before the team was named

The nz I grew up in was always very multi cultural

 

[TRF_heineken]

One of the mosques in question was built in about 1984 so we can safely say it was a pretty well established community long before the team was named

The nz I grew up in was always very multi cultural

Ah, Just shows you how misleading some information on the net can be. The articles I've read about religion in NZ, and the publications I found, were mostly just about christianity, and how the different churches were established.

I couldn't find a lot, and whenever you search for Muslim New Zealand, on the search engines, Sonny Bill seems to be a prominent topic.

My apologies.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think in a similar guise this is where I object to with Exeter Chiefs. I less object to the Chiefs name and more to all the side stuff which is almost the very definition of cultural appropriation for marketing reasons.

I like the second part of your post but i disagree with the above. I find the cultural appropriation argument a very dangerous one. Once you open that door i dont see how you can close it down again.


I also see a huge difference between chiefs (exter of NZ franchise) and the Crusaders. In the chiefs's cases you could easily argue that the intention is clearly about the positive aspects and that's it. In the crusaders's case, the postive or redeemable aspects were all at exclusive the service of despicable acts, every single one of them.

 

[ncurd]

I like the second part of your post but i disagree with the above. I find the cultural appropriation argument a very dangerous one. Once you open that door i dont see how you can close it down again.


I also see a huge difference between chiefs (exter of NZ franchise) and the Crusaders. In the chiefs's cases you could easily argue that the intention is clearly about the positive aspects and that's it. In the crusaders's case, the postive or redeemable aspects were all at exclusive the service of despicable acts, every single one of them.

I don't want to rehash an arguments of old we had an extensive thread on this a while back and I have nothing real new to say. I specifically point Exeter and not other teams with Chief purely for their headdresses, drums and 'war song'. To which I say ask a Native American if they think these are okay and do not disparage their culture and they'll almost certainly say 'no its not okay'.

Thats the crux of it, if culture your are mimicking endorses it its fine even with a few dissenting voices, if they are wholly against it you really should not be doing it.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I think cultural appropriation has been overused and has therefore lost a chunk of it's meaning on the whole.

Wearing a weave - Not cultural appropriation.
Using it for marketing of another culture to gain money = Cultural appropriation.

Exeter have profited from the culture of another culture without giving anything back to it.

As for the positives to the chiefs name and brand care to list an example?
Are the chiefs educating people on the history of the native Americans? or are they playing up stereotypes?


As said by others though the name isn't really the issue more the side stuff and marketing on top of it. Also maybe start a rugby program in NA. (Although I guess that prob wouldn't go down very well currently).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

To which I say ask a Native American if they think these are okay and do not disparage their culture and they'll almost certainly say 'no its not okay'.

Why?
Why do people rights have to end when someone feels offended? Since when are people's feelings alone a legitimate reason to restrain other people's rights?
This idea going around that because someone somewhere feels offended the rest of the planet has to adjust in order not to hurt this person feelings is, at least in some cases, lunacy.
You can make some very good cases with specific examples, but as a general rule? Madness.

I mean, just apply that very same logic to other examples. As a sanity test. What if any english feels offended by say, a japanese wearing a three piece suit, a tie and some cufflinks? I mean, given that it is part of his culture (apparently all it takes is my word), everyone should stop doing it.
But why stop there. Lets ask italians how they feel about pizza parlors in NYC and Chicago.
Should UK and USA ask others to stop listening to rock and roll?

Again, you need to be extremely careful about how and when you open that door.

I understand what you mean and i have no doubt you mean well. I am just familiar with the consequences of that path and i fundamentally disagree.
Countless amounts of innovations started off as what could be described as cultural appropriation. Jazz started off as a white movement from the blues. The examples are endless. From culinary, to linguistic, from tecnological to artistic, from scientific to sports.
The problem is, again, where do you draw the line.

1)Using it for marketing of another culture to gain money = Cultural appropriation.

2)Exeter have profited from the culture of another culture without giving anything back to it.

I dont necessarily agree with 1) but at least it sets a clear rule. It's more objetive than "being offended".
About 2) i am not so sure that. Hard to prove.

 

[ncurd]

Your entire post is nonsense and doesn't warrant a response. But considering in your first sentence before going off on one you ignore this from my post I feel the need to point it out.

if culture your are mimicking endorses it its fine even with a few dissenting voices,

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Forgetting that a lot of the pizzerias in Chicago and New York started by Italian immigrants.

Cultural appropriation is technically in a lot of things.

I dont necessarily agree with 1) but at least it sets a clear rule. It's more objetive than "being offended".
About 2) i am not so sure that. Hard to prove.

How is it hard to prove Exeter do nothing in NA, so how can they give back?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Ah, Just shows you how misleading some information on the net can be. The articles I've read about religion in NZ, and the publications I found, were mostly just about christianity, and how the different churches were established.

I couldn't find a lot, and whenever you search for Muslim New Zealand, on the search engines, Sonny Bill seems to be a prominent topic.

My apologies.

No need to apologise, in general you're not wrong, the most common religion in NZ is Christianity (various forms)

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Forgetting that a lot of the pizzerias in Chicago and New York started by Italian immigrants.

I wasnt talking about those as i dont think that would constitute appropiation.

Cultural appropriation is technically in a lot of things.

Exactly.

How is it hard to prove Exeter do nothing in NA, so how can they give back?

I guess i wasnt clear. What i meant with hard to prove was that it is a counterfactual argument. In order to say the chiefs benefited from it you would need to have a benchmark to compare against and that would imply, necessarily, a counterfactual argument. Counterfactual arguments are speculative ones by definition. That is what i means by hard to prove.

Your entire post is nonsense and doesn't warrant a response.

Not sure what is funnier, the fact that you respond by saying something doesnt warrant a response, the fact that you actually follow up by responding on the next lines, or the fact that in that parallel universe where you inhabit you are the sole authority in charge of deciding what does and what doesnt merit a response. Conveniently enough.

 

[TRF_heineken]

nit-picking at it's finest...

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

How is it nit picking, exactly?
Although I guess the issue with Crusaders isn't so much cultural appropriation and more to do with symbolism.

 

[ncurd]

How is it nit picking, exactly?
Although I guess the issue with Crusaders isn't so much cultural appropriation and more to do with symbolism.

Yup pretty much a different problem.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

have to say there are a sad number of crusaders fans making themselves look like A-holes on social media, claims like

• this discussion of a name change is worse than the actual shootings!
• comparing the crusader iconography to the ANZAC day parades, equally sacred and if one goes so should the other
• calls to boycott the games going forward...those are true fans right there

makes me sad that's the culture that has grown around rugby in NZ

 

[FNS]

Every day we are change names, stop talking about x subjet or have to make some place safer because someone may get offended. Sorry but no.

 

[miccloarch]

If they change the name, they're sort of admitting guilt by association. The Crusades were in response to Muslim expansion, but of course mainstream political discourse doesn't really require reading history texts lol. Who's next? Saracens? This has less to do with NZ than it does Christianity and Islam, and rugby people should just stay out of it, but I suppose they're still in shock and denial. I'm neither Muslim nor Christian by the way, though I have a lot in common with both sides, and I can tell you, holy war is part of the fabric of Abrahamic religion.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If they change the name, they're sort of admitting guilt by association. The Crusades were in response to Muslim expansion, but of course mainstream political discourse doesn't really require reading history texts lol. Who's next? Saracens? This has less to do with NZ than it does Christianity and Islam, and rugby people should just stay out of it, but I suppose they're still in shock and denial. I'm neither Muslim nor Christian by the way, though I have a lot in common with both sides, and I can tell you, holy war is part of the fabric of Abrahamic religion.

...you're not wrong...but nothing you've said makes it ok, this is where the argument to stay falls down...most people just with a version of its always be this way and thats not a defense....attitudes and acceptable behaviors changes. Is it not better to make a change now and try and make it a slightly positive move than just denying anything is wrong until the next generation come through and changes it embarrassed we didn't ?

I'm waiting for the argument that doesn't try and draw comparisons to other names, regardless of almost none of them actually being a valid comparison, has everyone forgotten "two wrongs dont make a right"?