Swing low, should it go?

[Digby]

Itoje has commented that people should be exposed to the history of Swing Low in such manner that suggests whilst he's not for banning the singing of the of the song he'd prefer it was replaced

[Stom]

His problem seems to be it was apparently sang at a black man first.

The only problem with that is that it was sang at Martin Chariots of fire. At that point, the fact it was a slave song seems like mere coincidence.

And it was sung before that, as I understand.

[Oakboy]

And on cue: https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/e ... ion-459925

Puja

The logical step for Exeter would be a name change, surely? Would there be that much heartbreak in dropping 'Chiefs'? Done properly, with a fans' competition for a new name etc., there could be a shedload of worthwhile publicity.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

And on cue: https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/e ... ion-459925

Puja

The logical step for Exeter would be a name change, surely? Would there be that much heartbreak in dropping 'Chiefs'? Done properly, with a fans' competition for a new name etc., there could be a shedload of worthwhile publicity.

Traditionally in Devon a lot of 1stXVs are called Chiefs, its the whole Native American imagery that is the issue. You only have to read the Exeter Chiefs fanpage on FB to realise most of their fans are no better than some of the loons supporting BLM who cant engage in a meaningful conversation just the "im right, your wrong" mentality. I know a fair few of people on that page and a lot of them you would say are racists so they have no issues with it. Lot of football fans who have jumped on the Chiefs bandwagon.

[Doorzetbornandbred]

Chiefs are not the only side with the Imagery, Exeter Athletic as well who are in Devon One league.

[TheNomad]

Itoje has commented that people should be exposed to the history of Swing Low in such manner that suggests whilst he's not for banning the singing of the of the song he'd prefer it was replaced

Yeah, his response is on point in my opinion. Don't ban it (that would be weird) but I think collectively people should stop signing it.

Right now there's a (justifiable) swell of anger against all sorts of things of this nature. Puja referenced the Chiefs debate as well.

Ultimately, people can push back and say "but we never meant it in that context, we're not doing any harm, we've been singing it/doing it for years...", but...

I think now's the time to show empathy.

Who cares if we don't sing 'swing low' at a stadium any more? I used to rather like it, but if the worst that happens is we have to think of a new song as a way of demonstrating we care, then no big deal.

And if Exeter need to the change the symbol on their shirts and their mascots, again, just do it. I mean where does the Native American thing come from anyway? As harmless as it may have been intended to be, it's all bit bizarre when you think about it. As one of the campaigners said, just make it a Celtic Chief or something and at least give some sort of local relevance.

I'm sure the response of "but where will it end..." will get peddled out, and possibly rightly so, but when things get raised they be considered on a case by case basis.

[Oakboy]

And on cue: https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/e ... ion-459925

Puja

The logical step for Exeter would be a name change, surely? Would there be that much heartbreak in dropping 'Chiefs'? Done properly, with a fans' competition for a new name etc., there could be a shedload of worthwhile publicity.

Traditionally in Devon a lot of 1stXVs are called Chiefs, its the whole Native American imagery that is the issue. You only have to read the Exeter Chiefs fanpage on FB to realise most of their fans are no better than some of the loons supporting BLM who cant engage in a meaningful conversation just the "im right, your wrong" mentality. I know a fair few of people on that page and a lot of them you would say are racists so they have no issues with it. Lot of football fans who have jumped on the Chiefs bandwagon.

I accept the traditional context but maybe it is a good excuse to modernise and move on, taking advantage of the publicity? The club can ride the moral high ground bandwagon, upgrade their image and attract sufficient publicity/sponsorship etc.to make the change at little or no cost, I'd guess. Regardless of the debating points, it just seems a good commercial opportunity for a new image. I could see most fans shaking their heads and accepting it as 'daft but that's the way it is'. I only know one season ticket holder personally. He finds the chief-imagery embarrassing. You'd know better than me whether he is unique in that view.

[Puja]

The logical step for Exeter would be a name change, surely? Would there be that much heartbreak in dropping 'Chiefs'? Done properly, with a fans' competition for a new name etc., there could be a shedload of worthwhile publicity.

Traditionally in Devon a lot of 1stXVs are called Chiefs, its the whole Native American imagery that is the issue. You only have to read the Exeter Chiefs fanpage on FB to realise most of their fans are no better than some of the loons supporting BLM who cant engage in a meaningful conversation just the "im right, your wrong" mentality. I know a fair few of people on that page and a lot of them you would say are racists so they have no issues with it. Lot of football fans who have jumped on the Chiefs bandwagon.

I accept the traditional context but maybe it is a good excuse to modernise and move on, taking advantage of the publicity? The club can ride the moral high ground bandwagon, upgrade their image and attract sufficient publicity/sponsorship etc.to make the change at little or no cost, I'd guess. Regardless of the debating points, it just seems a good commercial opportunity for a new image. I could see most fans shaking their heads and accepting it as 'daft but that's the way it is'. I only know one season ticket holder personally. He finds the chief-imagery embarrassing. You'd know better than me whether he is unique in that view.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The logical step for Exeter would be a name change, surely? Would there be that much heartbreak in dropping 'Chiefs'? Done properly, with a fans' competition for a new name etc., there could be a shedload of worthwhile publicity.

Traditionally in Devon a lot of 1stXVs are called Chiefs, its the whole Native American imagery that is the issue. You only have to read the Exeter Chiefs fanpage on FB to realise most of their fans are no better than some of the loons supporting BLM who cant engage in a meaningful conversation just the "im right, your wrong" mentality. I know a fair few of people on that page and a lot of them you would say are racists so they have no issues with it. Lot of football fans who have jumped on the Chiefs bandwagon.

I accept the traditional context but maybe it is a good excuse to modernise and move on, taking advantage of the publicity? The club can ride the moral high ground bandwagon, upgrade their image and attract sufficient publicity/sponsorship etc.to make the change at little or no cost, I'd guess. Regardless of the debating points, it just seems a good commercial opportunity for a new image. I could see most fans shaking their heads and accepting it as 'daft but that's the way it is'. I only know one season ticket holder personally. He finds the chief-imagery embarrassing. You'd know better than me whether he is unique in that view.

SF Redskins’ stadium sponsor, FedEx, are now demanding that Redskins is changed. If Exeter really want to maximise the publicity they could work in union with SF.

More importantly, which line from which song will we now sing ad nauseam?

[jngf]

You may enjoy BoJos interview - the interviewer didnt know all the lyrics to SLSC...

Having that blond tool appear on this board is more offensive than SLSC to me!

[Mr Mwenda]

Itoje has commented that people should be exposed to the history of Swing Low in such manner that suggests whilst he's not for banning the singing of the of the song he'd prefer it was replaced

Yeah, his response is on point in my opinion. Don't ban it (that would be weird) but I think collectively people should stop signing it.

Right now there's a (justifiable) swell of anger against all sorts of things of this nature. Puja referenced the Chiefs debate as well.

Ultimately, people can push back and say "but we never meant it in that context, we're not doing any harm, we've been singing it/doing it for years...", but...

I think now's the time to show empathy.

Who cares if we don't sing 'swing low' at a stadium any more? I used to rather like it, but if the worst that happens is we have to think of a new song as a way of demonstrating we care, then no big deal.

And if Exeter need to the change the symbol on their shirts and their mascots, again, just do it. I mean where does the Native American thing come from anyway? As harmless as it may have been intended to be, it's all bit bizarre when you think about it. As one of the campaigners said, just make it a Celtic Chief or something and at least give some sort of local relevance.

I'm sure the response of "but where will it end..." will get peddled out, and possibly rightly so, but when things get raised they be considered on a case by case basis.

Interesting titbit in the guardian yesterday, actually dates singing SLSC at HQ to at least tge 60s, which gels with my mother's memory. This does please me because it means she's not that mad but also because the Offiah story is a little uncomfortable.

I would actually like to hear more from the team about it. After all, it's a bit pointless if they don't like it.

Exeter Chiefs' badge and paraphernalia will age very badly.

Kiwi readers, how is the monetisation of maori culture through rugby considered? There's a chapter on my reading list critical of the way maori dance has been appropriated, but i haven't read it.

[Mr Mwenda]

This was the reference to the 60s: Complicated history of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot needs to be taught and honoured

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... _clipboard

[OnlyMonikerRemaining]

Is someone ambivalent about the Chiefs' imagery an Exeter fence sitter?

[Oakboy]

So, will Exeter follow Washington's example re. Redskins/Chiefs?

[Puja]

So, will Exeter follow Washington's example re. Redskins/Chiefs?

Well, it turns out that the Washington name was absolutely fine, no problems, actually honouring the local Native Americans who kept mistaking it for a crude racial slur, right up until the point at which sponsors started withholding large sums of money, at which point it magically transmuted to something that needed to be changed.

So, unlikely unless their bottom line is threatened.

Puja

[Puja]

As it turns out Exeter have thought about it long and hard: https://www.exeterchiefs.co.uk/news/club-statement-6572

The Exeter Rugby Club board today underwent a detailed review of the club’s branding following issues raised by the group Exeter Chiefs 4 Change.

The process has included looking into lengthy submissions from those who wish to see immediate change and from those who are content that the current branding is not disrespectful to indigenous groups.

Surely the submissions that would be worth a damn would be from actual Native Americans? "Those who are content that the current branding is not disrespectful to indigenous groups"? How have they reached this stage of contentedness? Presumably by deciding that they're not bothered by it so no-one else should be.

A detailed dossier of all evidence was compiled ahead of today’s meeting and was seen by all members of the board and reviewed.

Part of the club’s review has seen the club engage with its sponsors and key partners to seek their views – and they have also listened to the response of our supporters, the wider rugby community and certain sections from the Native American community, all of whom have provided us with detailed observations in letters, emails, social content and videos.

Well, at least they have referenced "certain sections from the Native American community" which is nice. Wonder if *any* of them were positive and how much the negative feedback was weighed against sponsors, key partners, and those who are "content"?

Content provided to the board indicated that the name Chiefs dated back into the early 1900s and had a long history with people in the Devon area.

To do with local chiefs or Native American chiefs? Cause the former doesn't seem particularly germane and if it's the latter... there are a lot of racist things people used to do back in the 1900s. They used to refer to black players as "Chalky" or "Smokey" - I'm guessing that's probably not okay now?

The board took the view that the use of the Chiefs logo was in fact highly respectful.

Oh, cool. Job done. As long as the white English board are happy that it's respectful, any problems that Native Americans have are clearly just figments of their imaginations.

It was noted over the years we have had players and coaches from around the world with a wide range of nationalities and cultures. At no time have any players, coaches or their families said anything but positive comments about the branding or culture that exists at the club.

Brilliant. All of the Australians, Irishmen, Welshmen, Argentines, Kiwis. Glad they could all weigh in on this issue affecting Native Americans.

The one aspect which the board felt could be regarded as disrespectful was the club’s mascot ‘Big Chief’ and as a mark of respect have decided to retire him.

So, the headdresses you sell in the shop? The facepaints? The tomahawk chop? None of that struck you as possibly being able to be regarded as disrespectful?

The club will be making no further comment on the matter.

And a hearty f*ck you to you too, sirs.



Ditching the golliwog-level-racism of the mascot is good and does deal with one of the most egregious things. However, this is a clear missed opportunity to pivot the branding to Chiefs referring to Brittanic/Celtic chiefs and get positive publicity out of a rebrand that they will probably eventually have to do anyway.

They could have saved themselves a lot of words and just released a statement saying, "We spoke to our sponsors and they're a little uncomfortable with our mascot being a stereotyped big-nosed, feather-headdressed, whooping Indian waving weaponry around, so we're getting rid of that, but nothing else in our branding and merchandise is bad enough to endanger sponsorship money, so we're going to keep coining it in. And we don't give a sh*t about things which aren't endangering our bottom line, so don't bother complaining again."

Puja

[Digby]

Today I've eaten beetroot, borlotti beans, sweetcorn, peas, potatoes, celeriac, carrot... to whom do I apologise for such repeat infractions of taking from communities and cultures other than mine own? Are there any fines to pay?

[morepork]

Don't be obtuse man. Partaking of the vegetable is a far cry from donning a plastic headdress, banging on some pound shop drums, and making woo woo noises you think indigenous North American make.

[padprop]

It’s obvious to me at least that the image depicted by Exeter isn’t meant to be a literal representation of the native american people, but more the western cultural image presented to us that celebrates many parts of their culture (Why would any sports team brand their team around something that they are mocking?), much the same as the vastly inaccurate portrayals of Japanese Samurai or the Vikings, each of these cultures resonate with western audiences, whether it be the honour of the Samurai, ferocity of the vikings or spirituality and unity of the native americans. Animal brandings (Tigers, Sharks, Bears) are used due to positive imagery they conjure up. This is no different to the Chiefs or Warriors. (Don’t know what happened at wasps to be honest).

There is little difference between the branding of the Minnesota Vikings and Exeter Chiefs, both are built on false images of cultures across the ocean. The obvious huge caveat of course is the genocide and dehumanisation of the native american people. The only question remains is whether the branding of certain sports teams adds to that or not. I personally believe most people in this country are able to separate the two.

[Mr Mwenda]

Again though, how native Americans feel about such representations is then ignored. If some vikings* started to object to Minnesota's football team then perhaps it would promote some reflection.

Also, was the chiefs logo really selected to celebrate native American culture or to sell stuff? I think there's a difference.

Personally, I'm with Puja, they've missed a trick. I suspect in the long run is they'll drop the chiefs name. Which is ironic if that actually is traditional. All they needed to do was drop the logo and change the badge (or promise to change the badge). It was a pretty random choice anyway.

*equating a long gone population with a contemporary one fighting for its survival is i think the sort of thing the people of the latter group object to. Not that i should speak for them. I'd also that one needs to take care regarding which historical group one claims and endorses (Crusaders anyone?).

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

Also, was the chiefs logo really selected to celebrate native American culture or to sell stuff? I think there's a difference.

That's exactly the problem. Native Americans have a history of being murdered, displaced and oppressed by American capitalism, only to have their culture sold on to the very people and system that did it, starting with Buffalo Bill's Wild West show and now manifested in sports teams.
As has already been said, they will probably have to change it eventually anyway, but if they had come out and acknowledged their mistake in misunderstanding their own choice of name and branding now (realign it to be Celtic Chiefs, which was where it came from in the first place) they would probably not need to change the name. As it is they'll end up as the Exeter Eagles or some nonsense and with some awful PR for years.

[twitchy]

The name doesn't even come from that. It comes from the "chief's team" as in the boss/gaffer. The marketing was just slapped on by someone a few years ago.

The whole thing is so stupid. They could change it with minimal fuss or bother.

[Puja]

There is little difference between the branding of the Minnesota Vikings and Exeter Chiefs, both are built on false images of cultures across the ocean. The obvious huge caveat of course is the genocide and dehumanisation of the native american people. The only question remains is whether the branding of certain sports teams adds to that or not. I personally believe most people in this country are able to separate the two.

I'd note that the major difference is that there aren't real world people currently being discriminated against for being Vikings. Native Americans are stereotyped for being violent savages in facepaint and weaponry - it's used to discriminate against them for jobs, benefits, and education, not to mention the schoolchildren bullied with Indian whoops and the tomahawk chop. It doesn't make a difference to anyone living that Vikings didn't really wear horned helmets - this damages the lives of real people to turn their ethnicity into a caricature of a strong, noble, violent, ignorant savage that we use as a mascot.

On a side note, it's great that white history can pick out one grouping of historical Scandinavians and we all know the name, yet there were over 500 Native American tribes spanning 60m people across an area the same size as Europe in the 1400s, but the sporting teams are agglomerated together into Chiefs, Indians, or Redskins.

The name doesn't even come from that. It comes from the "chief's team" as in the boss/gaffer.

I hadn't realised that. I'd assumed it was either Celtic chiefs or someone influential come back from America in the 1900s with tales of the natives.

Puja

[padprop]

I agree, that the group thats culture being “appropriated” should be at the forefront of these debates, but I have to disagree that these sports clubs names contribute to with the discrimination of the native american people. A quick google search will tell you that 70-90% of Native Americans (Depending on the poll) were not offended by the the name redskins when polled. I would imagine that would be even lower for a team across the sea simply with the name Chiefs.

Its pretty evident that the controversy in this country has nothing to do with how Native Americans feel, by virtue of very few living in this country and none complaining as far as anyone can tell. It’s no coincidence that this issue keeps popping up in periods of racial hyperawareness, and is instead being used as a focal point so that people can demonstrate how anti-racist they are, as its such an easy target, despite causing no harm to any set of people.

If it was a cut and dry case of getting rid of the marketing and it stops there then I wouldn’t have an issue, but these things tend to spiral and before you know it people are picketing Sale to stop depicting an endangered animal as a bloodthirsty predator. If clubs like Exeter don’t take a stand against petitions that only gets a couple hundred signatures, then mob rule is well and truly in play.

[Puja]

I agree, that the group thats culture being “appropriated” should be at the forefront of these debates, but I have to disagree that these sports clubs names contribute to with the discrimination of the native american people. A quick google search will tell you that 70-90% of Native Americans (Depending on the poll) were not offended by the the name redskins when polled. I would imagine that would be even lower for a team across the sea simply with the name Chiefs.

Citation? That figure would be stunning given the 100% condemnation of the Redskins name from the (admittedly limited sample) of Native Americans that I know (along with the public statements by the NCAI: http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe). I reserve the right to be wrong, but I suspect those results are from polls created and analysed by the Washington Redskins themselves. And even if it is correct (and at best, it's probably 70-90% of Native Americans said, "Whatever, it's not like they're actually going to change it and it's not like it's the worst racism I get."), that's still 10-30% of 3 million people who are actively offended by the name of a sports team which really shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Frankly, changing the name is something that *would* cause no harm to any set of people - look how quickly people adapted to Bristol's rebranding, especially considering the furore that it originally created. So it's a change that would help 300k-1m people without an appreciable downside.

Its pretty evident that the controversy in this country has nothing to do with how Native Americans feel, by virtue of very few living in this country and none complaining as far as anyone can tell. It’s no coincidence that this issue keeps popping up in periods of racial hyperawareness, and is instead being used as a focal point so that people can demonstrate how anti-racist they are, as its such an easy target, despite causing no harm to any set of people.

If it was a cut and dry case of getting rid of the marketing and it stops there then I wouldn’t have an issue, but these things tend to spiral and before you know it people are picketing Sale to stop depicting an endangered animal as a bloodthirsty predator. If clubs like Exeter don’t take a stand against petitions that only gets a couple hundred signatures, then mob rule is well and truly in play.

Here are the Native Americans complaining about "Indian" sports names generally: http://www.ncai.org/proudtobe, and about Exeter Chiefs specifically:

Two lines of arguments there that I don't get along with: "People are just trying to prove they're not racist," and "Where will it end?!" Even if the former is true, that's not a bad thing! I'd rather be over-helpful and over-considerate than I would blithely dismiss things as "actually very respectful" (or, "I think it's fine, so screw you" as the subtext of Exeter's statement said).

As for the latter, the answer to "Where will it end?" is always "Somewhere." The slope isn't actually that slippery; you can stop any place you want.This petition got nearly 4k signatures, including the local MP - it's clearly an issue. Try setting up the campaign to picket Sale and see whether you get anyone actually joining you. The two are not equivalent and "taking a stand" doesn't actually have any effect on people complaining about future events.

Puja