RugbyRebels

twitchy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:PRL are hoping to ‘crack’ America. That is the whole reason behind the new nicknames.

As I said previously, what americans are looking for from england is history and authenticity. It's pound shop plastic bullshit trying to associate sharks with manchester or native americans with exeter.

richy678 wrote:Interesting.

Native American Tribal Chiefs.

Debatable, as it seems to suggest that native American Chiefs are a positive thing.

American sports teams use monikers such as Braves and Redskins.....mind you....Americans!?

Peej wrote:

richy678 wrote:Interesting.

Native American Tribal Chiefs.

Debatable, as it seems to suggest that native American Chiefs are a positive thing.

American sports teams use monikers such as Braves and Redskins.....mind you....Americans!?

And its enormously problematic there too, especially when paired with jokey, quasi-racist imagery for logos and mascots.

richy678 wrote:

Peej wrote:

richy678 wrote:Interesting.

Native American Tribal Chiefs.

Debatable, as it seems to suggest that native American Chiefs are a positive thing.

American sports teams use monikers such as Braves and Redskins.....mind you....Americans!?

And its enormously problematic there too, especially when paired with jokey, quasi-racist imagery for logos and mascots.

I class myself as a reasonable and openminded man. I have read the arguments above on using culturally appropriated names and imagery for European heritage sports and have decided to change my mind.

It is crass and inappropriate to use Native American associated names for sports teams.

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:

Peej wrote:
And its enormously problematic there too, especially when paired with jokey, quasi-racist imagery for logos and mascots.

I class myself as a reasonable and openminded man. I have read the arguments above on using culturally appropriated names and imagery for European heritage sports and have decided to change my mind.

It is crass and inappropriate to use Native American associated names for sports teams.

I'm sorry sir, are you not aware that you're on the internet? There's no "changing of minds" here - just an inevitable descent into insults and Nazi/Snowflake accusations.

On a serious note, fair play. It's the mark of true intelligence to listen to new information and consider honestly if you may have been wrong about something.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

richy678 wrote:
I class myself as a reasonable and openminded man. I have read the arguments above on using culturally appropriated names and imagery for European heritage sports and have decided to change my mind.

It is crass and inappropriate to use Native American associated names for sports teams.

I'm sorry sir, are you not aware that you're on the internet? There's no "changing of minds" here - just an inevitable descent into insults and Nazi/Snowflake accusations.

On a serious note, fair play. It's the mark of true intelligence to listen to new information and consider honestly if you may have been wrong about something.

Puja

Would you say the same if he’d gone from agreeing with you to disagreeing with you?

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm sorry sir, are you not aware that you're on the internet? There's no "changing of minds" here - just an inevitable descent into insults and Nazi/Snowflake accusations.

On a serious note, fair play. It's the mark of true intelligence to listen to new information and consider honestly if you may have been wrong about something.

Puja

Would you say the same if he’d gone from agreeing with you to disagreeing with you?

Potentially, although I flatter myself to think that if a compelling argument was made, then I'd change position myself and I'd still be congratulating him for agreeing with me. It's happened in the past - learning and reassessing your positions is an adult thing to do, and there's no point debating with people if you're not willing to accept that they might be right and you wrong.

Obviously, I won't rule out calling him a prat if he'd had his head turned by some obviously specious argument.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Would you say the same if he’d gone from agreeing with you to disagreeing with you?

Potentially, although I flatter myself to think that if a compelling argument was made, then I'd change position myself and I'd still be congratulating him for agreeing with me. It's happened in the past - learning and reassessing your positions is an adult thing to do, and there's no point debating with people if you're not willing to accept that they might be right and you wrong.

Obviously, I won't rule out calling him a prat if he'd had his head turned by some obviously specious argument.

Puja

I’ll take that as a no.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Potentially, although I flatter myself to think that if a compelling argument was made, then I'd change position myself and I'd still be congratulating him for agreeing with me. It's happened in the past - learning and reassessing your positions is an adult thing to do, and there's no point debating with people if you're not willing to accept that they might be right and you wrong.

Obviously, I won't rule out calling him a prat if he'd had his head turned by some obviously specious argument.

Puja

I’ll take that as a no.

It's really more of a qualified yes.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’ll take that as a no.

It's really more of a qualified yes.

Puja

Ok. I’ve changed my mind.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
It's really more of a qualified yes.

Puja

Ok. I’ve changed my mind.

Sign of a weak mind that. I'd've respected you if you'd stuck to your guns.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Ok. I’ve changed my mind.

Sign of a weak mind that. I'd've respected you if you'd stuck to your guns.

Puja

What were we talking about, Gary?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
Surely you can see there is a slight difference between an item of casual clothing with no particular cultural importance, and ceremonial garb of several races that we invaded and committed genocide against. That example is just silly.

Puja

So as Exeter never invaded Native Americans they'd be fine?

And actually I do think the arbitrary drawing of lines when something is unacceptable cultural appropriation and not is problematic. Who's to say when items of clothing for instance are of no importance? The image of the jeans wearing cowboy would be very important to some people.

I rather like the songs/chanting the Exeter crowd employ, it's a bit of fun and makes for a great atmosphere

Exeter is part of England and England invaded several Native American countries.

The answer to your bolded question is generally "the people involved". Given that not a single French person or American person has ever come out to say that they have a problem with other people wearing jeans, I'm willing to believe that it's probably never been an issue and has only ever been raised as a risible reductio ad absurdem argument. Native Americans have been quite vocal about having a problem with their cultures being conflated and reduced to a gimmick, especially one that accentuates insulting cliches of warpaint, warchants, waving tomahawks, and having the only characteristic being savages fighting.

You raise a valid point that there is going to be a line where it's very blurry whether something is and isn't cultural appropriation, but your example is so far away from that line that it's insulting to both of us to even engage with it. Frankly, I'm aware that you're not an idiot, so you are capable of better.

Puja

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:So what happens to all the Crusaders teams around the world? Also Saxons, Vikings, Vandals, Saracens etc, all of whom liked to go on killing sprees.

Puja wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:So what happens to all the Crusaders teams around the world? Also Saxons, Vikings, Vandals, Saracens etc, all of whom liked to go on killing sprees.

I don't think the name itself is a massive problem - it's the focus and glorifying of the actual mounted horsemen whose sole raison d'etre was killing Muslims because of their religion that's the issue. You can crusade for lots of different things, but specifically linking it to killing Muslims is not ideal.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm sorry sir, are you not aware that you're on the internet? There's no "changing of minds" here - just an inevitable descent into insults and Nazi/Snowflake accusations.

On a serious note, fair play. It's the mark of true intelligence to listen to new information and consider honestly if you may have been wrong about something.

Puja

Would you say the same if he’d gone from agreeing with you to disagreeing with you?

Potentially, although I flatter myself to think that if a compelling argument was made, then I'd change position myself and I'd still be congratulating him for agreeing with me. It's happened in the past - learning and reassessing your positions is an adult thing to do, and there's no point debating with people if you're not willing to accept that they might be right and you wrong.

Obviously, I won't rule out calling him a prat if he'd had his head turned by some obviously specious argument.

Puja

morepork wrote:At the very least they could ditch that fucking bouncy castle. Canterbury has big mountains and braided rivers. Maybe a nice watercolour landscape for a logo.

zer0 wrote:

morepork wrote:At the very least they could ditch that fucking bouncy castle. Canterbury has big mountains and braided rivers. Maybe a nice watercolour landscape for a logo.