For those that don't know, my original version of this video had been taken down. Pls share like and comment as much as possible! As thats hows this will reach more people, Cheers xo
But isnt it different? I mean the Washington Redskins is quite different from Chiefs, one is making its statement from an old school way of talking about native americans (wich is in fact derogatory) while the other is pointing out one of their cultural particularities. Why are we not doing the same thing to the minnesota vikings? And wouldnt you guys believe that while yeah as i said radskins is derogatory, Chiefs on the other hand is kinda flatering? Someone saw an image or met or personally saw a chief in its war regalia and thought "hell this guy looks good/intimidating/fierce/memorable"? Anyways, i believe its a good debate but i admit i am more on the "when is it enough" side of things
"It stops when it stops" meaning it'll never stop.. i find it offensive against marginalised animals in this world like bears and falcons to be profiting off of their image.. appeasing this social madness is not the answer
Your statement should read: "I take Exeter's decision to remove the original video on board, however having talked it over with my friends and other people I know who are not racist, I have come to the conclusion that the video is in fact HIGHLY respectful to Exeter, its management and its owners. No non-racists I know dislike this video or the message behind it. However, there is one exception, I am happy to remove the copyrighted images. I will make no further comment on the matter. Byyyyeeeee."
I don't want it to sound like it's the woke brigade trying to cancel everything, because that isn't it. It's about respectfully explaining why it's insulting to another culture and why we shouldn't be burying our heads in the sand. There's no harm in self-reflecting and changing things. I've got nothing against appreciating another culture, but this is appropriating imagery that turns native Americans into a cartoonish joke.
Someone needs to read a bit of native American history so are the native American people also rascist for owning black slaves yes that's right!and t enslaving members of other tribes ,this is now Beyond ridiculous
Its woke-ness gone mad. Why not cancel the world? ....because somewhere some one in this world has been hurt, discriminated against or just up set. Infact, why not change history - or better still - Learn from history and 'mistakes' and move forward???!
@@joebee1558 Erm yes, slave owners were bad regardless of their race. I don't know if you noticed but people have been pretty vocal about 'cancelling' that too...
Thought I would pre-empt the various people asking why Indigenous peoples have a problem with Exeter rugby's chosen "mascot", with a comment I made on the previous video. ========= The British are the most well known coloniser of what is now the US' and Canada's indigenous peoples. Typically, between any groups of peoples who respect each other, using the other peoples as caricatured mascots is virtually unknown. Either it's the peoples themselves as a vessel of their own pride (say, the Waikato Chiefs), or or the subjected people are pigeonholed into the animus of a stereotype. "Spartans" and "Legion", although also residing in the cultural imagination, are named after foundational facets of Western history. "Exeter Chiefs" amalgamates an enormous swathe of peoples practically unrelated to one another other than the shared experience of colonisation- war, slavery, dispossession, exile, rape, systemic racism and ethnic/cultural genocide. Dignity is inherently reduced by any one of our fellow Indigenous people's sacred ornaments (e.g. headdresses and tomahawks) being paraded around as tokens of war on a foreign continent, the peoples who were their conqueror's "sources of inspiration" always otherised except on sports days, our independent existence, raison d'être and legitimacy always assumed inert and extinct. Although clearly not all indigenous people agree with what the best direction to take when confronting these matters, with some preferring to focus on their own lives/culture, most people who connect their families' experiences with the full weight of the history tend to at the very least negatively view anyone using indigenous peoples mascots, because seemingly benign stereotypes beget other far more sinister stereotypes and other expressions of cultural alienation which served as the justifications for the genocides (e.g. the "noble savage"). Using Western countries' cultures as stereotypes is barely more acceptable in my mind as there's a wealth of exposure and media to suggest respectability and depth to those cultures all around us in global media. That is not the case with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cultural awareness is not what most adults have grown up with, and still today I have seen First Nations peoples on Western popcorn packets, red face in theatres, as emblems on sports teams, people-specific items (i.e. headdresses and tomahawks) generalised into an artificial category of people, complex languages and customs condensed into silly songs/war whoops, and rape/abuse/powerlessness being normalised and desensitised in both fictional and journalistic media. Telling in my mind is the tired defence of these caricatures, but the near total lack of curiosity to learn about the actual cultures and perspectives of the people these caricatures are supposedly celebrating, and the middling investment into respectful and accurate depictions in global media of almost any First Nations peoples which Western society benefits from, whether it's as merchandise, or as a social "other" to contrast its own culture with. If we deem that the superficial and ignorant view of minority cultures is an acceptable way to view those cultures, then those very much still alive and culturally proud people will continue to suffer from the many ways which that pinhole perspective excludes them from society, and harms any attempt for someone to genuinely view their individual cultures with legitimacy and respect. Foreigners liquidating office workers, elders, doctors, builders, healers, shopkeepers, scientists and nomads into "Braves" or "Chiefs" doesn't appreciate the individuality of each person, nor of each individual culture. Instead, we are all the "other", just another historical group whose being is reduced to being part of the scenery, or as peoples whose declined fortunes are our own fault for not participating in what our conquerors view as the most prime channel of humanity- the conqueror's own society.
@@notthefirsttosaythis7083 Funny you say that, as I've had a couple of people on the other side say that they found it quite informative. If you find it to be "waffle", what do you think doesn't make sense? How is my lens "narrow"? Genuinely curious. If your main point is that history is countered by suffering, then I agree, obviously it is, but my entire point was that this isn't just history. The people I am talking about are living and breathing today, and that this culture of commercialisation and stereotyping actively harms their relationships with Western society, and the world at large. Their struggle is just as present as any other people suffering mistreatment and attempted destruction, such as the Uyghurs, Yezidi and Australian First Nations. If you can't see how why history should be used to inform present-day societal systems (cultural or otherwise), nor believe that marginalised groups should be assisted in fighting against injustices perpetrated against them, then why do you think these imbalances exist in the first place, and what do we do about them?
The Native American branding aside, I don't really see an issue with the use of the name Chiefs. Going beyond the historical reasoning behind the name of which I have no issues with, Native American culture doesn't have a monopoly on tribal societal structure. There were tribes in the UK for thousands of years before the Romans came, and indeed those tribes usually had a chief. In fact, the South-West in places like Devon alongside Cornwall have a lot of history of holdout if those Celtic societies long after the Kingdom of England was created. Why not rebrand with a fucking scary looking woad painted Celtic chieftain, with a matching mascot that would run around and beat up a mascot representing the opposite team dressed up in Roman armour? The fans can pain themselves up too and spike their hair up, so you don't even lose the costume party dynamic
Even with the Native American branding, there is no problem. If people are extremely over-sensitive, then that is their problem and not the clubs. Being offended on someone else’s behalf so that you can feel that you are a great person is just stupid ‼️
I think when considering this argument, you have to consider where the complaint are coming from. If it's from the middle class white, want to be offended by something woke brigade, then ignore it; if on the other hand there are genuinely indigenous tribal Indianswho have been upset by this (far less likley) then take it seriously. In this case I'm not sure where the complaints were coming from, but I know my youngest loved Big Chief and misses his absence on game days.
Doing my bit for _The Algorithm_ since Exeter clearly don't want this to be seen by thousands of people. Also, I concur with the others who've pointed out that you don't even need to change the name. Just lose the pointless Native American imagery. There were plenty of tribal chiefs in the southwest that have been documented from Roman times to the middle ages. Pick one of them ffs, it isn't hard.
Respect Sometimes we won’t know the sensitivities around certain things that to us may not seem important. The tribal feathers of Native American people are routinely worn for stag parties yet in some tribes, those feathers are worn only by the oldest, holy men and only on important holy days. Some myths and stories, rituals and rites of other cultures have particular significance, are imbued with history and identity, and are not easily shared or understood. There is a book about cultural appropriation with an appropriate title that certainly speaks to me - it's called Borrowed Power.
Not a good sign when a professional club can't take criticism and listen to a reasoned point that has been previously highlighted by groups of supporters across the rugby community. Excellent video 👍
Great to see this video back up so soon. As with all your work you presented a respectful, reasoned and thoughtful look at this issue which deserved a similarly constructed and considered response, not a copyright strike. “NO FURTHER STATEMENTS!!” Keep up the great work NGJ 👍
Continuing to call the team 'Chiefs' isn't really an issue imo. It's a fairly universal term. The branding and culture though, there has to be some recognition of this issue. There's plenty of good English chiefs to base the branding from. How about Boudica? There's a chief it would be easy to get behind, especially if they were playing an Italian team.
'Chieftains' is the more neutral term. 'Chiefs' has a Native American connotation in NA, & today sports teams have a global fan base. I have a good friend from Exeter on this side of the Herring Pond who agrees it should be changed.
@@unseen_stranger That and their logo is literally a Native American chief. Like you said, would be much better if they went the New Zealand Chiefs route and made it more Britton-centric.
I agree, though Boudicca was from East Anglia not the South West so they might not want to go with her... then again they don't mind going with logos not related to Devon!
Wow this was woke rubbish! talk about getting offended on behalf of others, unless I am unaware of some historical incident where the people of Exeter committed some terrible act of violence on the native Americans than this is ridiculous. Naming a team after a warrior culture is very common and is a mark of respect. If you had anything but respect for them you wouldn’t then go and name your team after them so clearly It’s a mark of respect for that warrior culture who’s values and courage you admire an hope to emulate. That arrogant presumption that you’ll be on the right side of history is laughable.
I don’t see an issue. As long as no one is hurt or offended there’s no foul. And where does this end if you say people can’t take the identity for entertainment purposes, where does this stop? Should I stop eating Chinese food because I’m not Chinese? Should I stop listening to reggae because I’m not Jamaican? Should I refuse to attend a bar if it’s Latin night? Should I not grow dreadlocks if I’m not Greek? Should I remove my tribal tattoos because I’m not Polynesian? We live in a melting pot of different cultures and identity and they are ALL to be celebrated. I don’t have any problem using any identity as long as it’s not at the expense of dignity add done with good energy. We should try to include everyone of all members of society’s identities in our day-to-day life. I would like the review to be done by a team of the minority affected in cases of these events and action taken at their bequest. Not a board of the company effected...seems a bit unfair....or the woke brigade either for that matter. No one should come in and white knight to speak on behalf of other people of whom their identity is not related.
Really well put together video. Glad to see it back up. It would be so easy to just go on the attack with Exeter Chiefs (they have worked hard to make themselves less likable this year), but I appreciate your controlled and measured approach which gets the point accross brilliantly.
So glad to see this re-edited video back online and remain perplexed as to why the powers that be at Exeter Chiefs asked NGJ Rugby to take the video down but didn’t allow him anytime to do it before reporting him to RUclips which has an impact on his free speech and right to trade. I make no assumptions about why they may have done that but agree with a lot of posters both here and on Twitter that it doesn’t look good! As a Diversity and Inclusion consultant I would have advised Exeter Chiefs as to the reputation risk and potential/actual PR disaster of this action. I guess they thought they knew better and it’s what they think that matters an assumption that at the very least is arrogant and is of course “problematic”. The silence from Exeter Chiefs Premiership Rugby and BT Sport has been deafening, talk about this on the clubs forums and on Facebook has been banned. Perhaps they are hoping it will all go away? My expectation an acknowledgment and engagement in a debate with someone other than themselves would be in order as marking your own homework doesn’t mean you passed the test!
I remember Exeter playing Glasgow a few years ago and loads of their fans wearing Native American head dresses. This is disrespectful to the native peoples of North America as the head dress is an earned object within their culture and it is therefore culture appropriation. The response that Exeter have made is a very poor one in this day and age.
Fantastic edit and Re-upload well argued and I totally agree. I won’t support them even thought they’re my local club until they get rid of the racist imagery and the Dreadful Tomahawk song
I can see how the Exeter issue is different to Washington. The 'Redskin' logo was an actual racist slur. The 'Chiefs' name isn't. In fact it's origins are local to Exeter. IMO they don't need to change the name, but should change the brand image of native Americans as it is sensitive and only a recent part of the clubs history. Likewise Saracens shouldn't change it's name because it was a tribute to the Saracens warriors, not a slur on them. That's fine and couldn't be conflated with say the racist origins of Washington's brand.
I come from Exeter and find it hard to support the team because I find the name Chiefs so moronic. Exeter is steeped in its own history, so why the need to commodify Native American culture in the first place? Its so distasteful, how embarrassing.
Well said Ieuan.I'm a great fan of rugby and have watched a lot but i cringe when the tomahawk chop accompanied with drums can be heard during a game and the wearing of Chieftain head dress - it's reminding me of a less enlightened time when anything was deemed ok by the dominant,more powerful culture.
I wonder what the countless millions of American Indians and other minorities who can't afford a bus ticket to one of these rugby matches (never mind an entrance ticket) think of the 'inclusivity' doctrine you are defending here. Hypocrisy maybe? This video does have some sensible ideas in it (being considerate of others cultures et.), but the wider (inappropriately named) 'woke' doctrine some of the ideas come from is mostly psuedo-liberal dogma, and kind of an insult to people who have suffered real forms of racism social injustice. Racism used to mean actions which actually *harm* the interests or opportunities of the people of a particular race, and to a self-identifying classical liberal like myself (and many others!), that is what it still means. I invite you (or anyone else who supports the views expressed in this video) to explain how the interests or opportunities of indigenous American Indians are harmed by Exeter Chiefs' using this logo or the name 'Chiefs', or come up with a meaningful definition of 'racism', or 'insensitivity' in this context.
"In 2005, the APA called for the immediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols, images and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams and organizations. APA's position is based on a growing body of social science literature that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals, including the particularly harmful effects of American Indian sports mascots on the social identity development and self-esteem of American Indian young people." As it's not enough of a reason that they have asked for their culture not to be used in this way, maybe believing the Science will be enough. www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots#:~:text=The%20APA%20is%20calling%20upon,colleges%2C%20universities%2C%20athletic%20teams%20and
@@MaryWilliamsMOMXWdzyn Thanks for your response. I have read the summary of the report you linked me to. Id like to ask you a few questions about it if you don't mind. Although some of its conclusions are to me incontrovertible and correct, many strike me as clearly false or dogmatic, and not very scientific at all. Eg. 'the use of native American Indian symbols..teaches children that it's OK to participate in culturally abusive behaviour'. Are you familiar with this report and other such research personally and able to provide some explanation or defense of claims like this?
@@dalenewton9697 As I am not a specialist in the field I'm not qualified to answer questions on the specifics of the study. If that is your speciality then possibly contact your peers to conduct a peer review. Alternatively read the full report as opposed to the summary (which was created for laymen such as myself) or contact the American Psychological association who did the scientific research. I provided the information as you appeared to be under the impression that it was a fictitious grievance.
@@MaryWilliamsMOMXWdzyn So you have sent me a report in support of the views expressed in this video, and you claim this provides a scientific basis for it, yet you don't actually understand the conclusions in the abstract, including even the one that most relates to the claims made in the video. Is that correct?
@@dalenewton9697 No, that is incorrect. I understand the study and the content as a memeber of a marginalised community with comparable lived experience. Your demands for academic and scientific evidence that then must be debated in order to be true, rather than respecting, believing and listening to the affected communities means I'm not going to continue this conversation. The science is there and if you want to debate it then you should find a psychologist to debate it with as there is a lot of emotional labour and trauma for me to 'debate' with someone that is essentially calling marginalised people's similar to myself liars (even if you want to think you're just playing 'devils advocate'). I don't care if you feel like you have one up or if you feel empowered by this. I *do* care about the futher psychological harm I would be subjecting myself to by continuing this discourse. You're a random stranger on the internet and it's just not worth my mental health or the emotional labour needed to continue a conversation you feel entitled to. If you want to believe the evidence or not that's your perogative, I truly don't think of you as important enough to try and convince you otherwise.
Chiefs there refers to Maori chiefs which seems far more appropriate. If Exeter just changed the logo and mascot to a local historical chief of the South West it would make sense. It’s just random and in appropriate to use Native American chiefs for a club based in Exeter in England
Yeah the Waikato chiefs represent a part of Aotearoa with long traditions of Māori. It was the geographic center of a large resistance movement to English colonisation and many of the players are Māori or have links to Māori. The respect runs deep there
@@Jo3M So, that's exactly how I feel about them (Waikato). buuut, so much of that is cos Liam Messam was captain, local boy, and driving the 'mana.' (also I lived in Hamilton at the time haha) If you take out Liam or Dave Rennie, then doesn't it feel like the old awkward 80's haka?
The real issue is that so many people in our society seem to think that this type of thing is a problem. Being offended on behalf of other people, who themselves are not offended; is a nausea inducing form of patronising, self-righteousness that we'd do well to move on from.
Past polling of native Americans in the United States shows a pattern of relative indifference to the name Washington redskins to gradually becoming more offended. This shows that their offence isn't a instinctive one, rather a learned one; probably perpetuated by a holier than thou white activist with nothing better to do looking for issues where there aren't any, trying to justify their movement. Note that redskins actually has some racist connotations, unlike chiefs. Furthermore I'd imagine that at least 99% of native Americans aren't even aware of the Exeter chiefs, so they couldn't possibly give two hoots about the name.
@@dominicstemp5690 if you want native Americans who have an issue with this look up Iroquois Roots Rugby. Bearing in mind most native Americans don’t know the team exists which says lots about how it’s being used in a respectful way
1500 Nations have called for an end to race based Mascots. Over 65% actively want race based mascots gone. A large percentage were put in Residential schools and indoctrinated. Consider looking up the information first instead of making incorrect assumptions.
Am I allowed not to care Also the funding for an NFL team compared to a rugby club is drastically different a reason the aren’t changing could be that they don’t see he investment in a rebrand worth it. I love my rugby and hate to see people making issues out of these things there are bigger issue in the world than the name of a rugby club.
@@johnbrappus yes black face is a step to far never been to see the chiefs live as I’m from Scotland but wasn’t aware of people painting there face but that’s an issue with the crowd not the club. If they were always the Zulu chiefs I wouldn’t really care I’m a rugby fan i like seeing good rugby don’t really care what the team is called barring something outrageous “black faced bastards”. If people have an issue with this I see the all blacks becoming an issue. I don’t care I want to watch rugby and not have to think about racial issue that quite frankly I couldn’t care less about. Yes issues of racist abuse are abhorrent and racist people are rightly looked down on but quite frankly the name of a rugby club rank low on my list of big issues and it’s not worth a second thought as the club have stated.
How many native American Indian residents in the exeter area?...not many imagine..and if you did catch up with any in the USA they probably haven't heard of the exeter chiefs and secondly couldn't care less never mind being offended...The name of the team may have came about through respect for the Native Indians...similar to the USA army naming their helicopters after Native Indian tribes..chinnook, apache etc..
I think you'll find Native Americans are very protective and sensitive about their traditions and ceremonial garb being used for fun by ignorant non Native Americans. Ye know... people like you
@@galacor let me see...when was the last time I wore native American garb to make fun of Native American traditions...just checking my diary here...hold on. Yip never...
This comment loses any impact when Indigenous people (some of whom do live in Devon and have attended a game) have written to the club to say they are not honoured by the branding.
Reading many other comments, I will be in the minority because I will sound like I'm on one side , because of ... the world as it is at the moment etc etc etc - is it possible a person or club can make their own decisions before pressure to CANCEL as this culture seems to put on us overrides common sense ( Political Correctness!) and choice. Don't like ,then.. don't follow, don't watch, don't comment - it's only a game... of rugby - not trying to change the world. Battle on the field, friends off the field.
For those that don't know, my original version of this video had been taken down. Pls share like and comment as much as possible! As thats hows this will reach more people, Cheers xo
Bro grow a pair.
But isnt it different? I mean the Washington Redskins is quite different from Chiefs, one is making its statement from an old school way of talking about native americans (wich is in fact derogatory) while the other is pointing out one of their cultural particularities. Why are we not doing the same thing to the minnesota vikings? And wouldnt you guys believe that while yeah as i said radskins is derogatory, Chiefs on the other hand is kinda flatering? Someone saw an image or met or personally saw a chief in its war regalia and thought "hell this guy looks good/intimidating/fierce/memorable"?
Anyways, i believe its a good debate but i admit i am more on the "when is it enough" side of things
Personally I think that they should drop the "i" from their name and alter the logo so that he's wearing a chef's hat. Problem solved.
Finally. Someone talking some sense in this debate.
Yes. Just Yes King😂🤝
Does Northampton Saints trigger non Catholics?
"It stops when it stops" meaning it'll never stop.. i find it offensive against marginalised animals in this world like bears and falcons to be profiting off of their image.. appeasing this social madness is not the answer
Dead cat and silly sausage in the room
Only legends know that this video was re-uploaded without seeing the description box
Your statement should read: "I take Exeter's decision to remove the original video on board, however having talked it over with my friends and other people I know who are not racist, I have come to the conclusion that the video is in fact HIGHLY respectful to Exeter, its management and its owners. No non-racists I know dislike this video or the message behind it. However, there is one exception, I am happy to remove the copyrighted images. I will make no further comment on the matter. Byyyyeeeee."
I don't want it to sound like it's the woke brigade trying to cancel everything, because that isn't it. It's about respectfully explaining why it's insulting to another culture and why we shouldn't be burying our heads in the sand. There's no harm in self-reflecting and changing things. I've got nothing against appreciating another culture, but this is appropriating imagery that turns native Americans into a cartoonish joke.
jeeeeez it's amazing how deeply the indoctrination and wokeness has penetrated our world! you are a shining example !!
...cartoon joke .. = woke !
Someone needs to read a bit of native American history so are the native American people also rascist for owning black slaves yes that's right!and t enslaving members of other tribes ,this is now Beyond ridiculous
Its woke-ness gone mad. Why not cancel the world? ....because somewhere some one in this world has been hurt, discriminated against or just up set. Infact, why not change history - or better still - Learn from history and 'mistakes' and move forward???!
@@joebee1558 Erm yes, slave owners were bad regardless of their race. I don't know if you noticed but people have been pretty vocal about 'cancelling' that too...
Thought I would pre-empt the various people asking why Indigenous peoples have a problem with Exeter rugby's chosen "mascot", with a comment I made on the previous video.
=========
The British are the most well known coloniser of what is now the US' and Canada's indigenous peoples. Typically, between any groups of peoples who respect each other, using the other peoples as caricatured mascots is virtually unknown. Either it's the peoples themselves as a vessel of their own pride (say, the Waikato Chiefs), or or the subjected people are pigeonholed into the animus of a stereotype. "Spartans" and "Legion", although also residing in the cultural imagination, are named after foundational facets of Western history. "Exeter Chiefs" amalgamates an enormous swathe of peoples practically unrelated to one another other than the shared experience of colonisation- war, slavery, dispossession, exile, rape, systemic racism and ethnic/cultural genocide.
Dignity is inherently reduced by any one of our fellow Indigenous people's sacred ornaments (e.g. headdresses and tomahawks) being paraded around as tokens of war on a foreign continent, the peoples who were their conqueror's "sources of inspiration" always otherised except on sports days, our independent existence, raison d'être and legitimacy always assumed inert and extinct.
Although clearly not all indigenous people agree with what the best direction to take when confronting these matters, with some preferring to focus on their own lives/culture, most people who connect their families' experiences with the full weight of the history tend to at the very least negatively view anyone using indigenous peoples mascots, because seemingly benign stereotypes beget other far more sinister stereotypes and other expressions of cultural alienation which served as the justifications for the genocides (e.g. the "noble savage"). Using Western countries' cultures as stereotypes is barely more acceptable in my mind as there's a wealth of exposure and media to suggest respectability and depth to those cultures all around us in global media. That is not the case with the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Cultural awareness is not what most adults have grown up with, and still today I have seen First Nations peoples on Western popcorn packets, red face in theatres, as emblems on sports teams, people-specific items (i.e. headdresses and tomahawks) generalised into an artificial category of people, complex languages and customs condensed into silly songs/war whoops, and rape/abuse/powerlessness being normalised and desensitised in both fictional and journalistic media.
Telling in my mind is the tired defence of these caricatures, but the near total lack of curiosity to learn about the actual cultures and perspectives of the people these caricatures are supposedly celebrating, and the middling investment into respectful and accurate depictions in global media of almost any First Nations peoples which Western society benefits from, whether it's as merchandise, or as a social "other" to contrast its own culture with.
If we deem that the superficial and ignorant view of minority cultures is an acceptable way to view those cultures, then those very much still alive and culturally proud people will continue to suffer from the many ways which that pinhole perspective excludes them from society, and harms any attempt for someone to genuinely view their individual cultures with legitimacy and respect. Foreigners liquidating office workers, elders, doctors, builders, healers, shopkeepers, scientists and nomads into "Braves" or "Chiefs" doesn't appreciate the individuality of each person, nor of each individual culture. Instead, we are all the "other", just another historical group whose being is reduced to being part of the scenery, or as peoples whose declined fortunes are our own fault for not participating in what our conquerors view as the most prime channel of humanity- the conqueror's own society.
Someone taking life way too seriously…
@@dominicstemp5690 I promise you, you can still have a ton of fun whilst also taking historic oppression seriously.
What a load of waffle.. human history has been a history of suffering you're looking through it with a very narrow lens my friend
@@notthefirsttosaythis7083 Funny you say that, as I've had a couple of people on the other side say that they found it quite informative. If you find it to be "waffle", what do you think doesn't make sense? How is my lens "narrow"? Genuinely curious.
If your main point is that history is countered by suffering, then I agree, obviously it is, but my entire point was that this isn't just history. The people I am talking about are living and breathing today, and that this culture of commercialisation and stereotyping actively harms their relationships with Western society, and the world at large. Their struggle is just as present as any other people suffering mistreatment and attempted destruction, such as the Uyghurs, Yezidi and Australian First Nations.
If you can't see how why history should be used to inform present-day societal systems (cultural or otherwise), nor believe that marginalised groups should be assisted in fighting against injustices perpetrated against them, then why do you think these imbalances exist in the first place, and what do we do about them?
The Native American branding aside, I don't really see an issue with the use of the name Chiefs. Going beyond the historical reasoning behind the name of which I have no issues with, Native American culture doesn't have a monopoly on tribal societal structure. There were tribes in the UK for thousands of years before the Romans came, and indeed those tribes usually had a chief. In fact, the South-West in places like Devon alongside Cornwall have a lot of history of holdout if those Celtic societies long after the Kingdom of England was created. Why not rebrand with a fucking scary looking woad painted Celtic chieftain, with a matching mascot that would run around and beat up a mascot representing the opposite team dressed up in Roman armour? The fans can pain themselves up too and spike their hair up, so you don't even lose the costume party dynamic
Even with the Native American branding, there is no problem. If people are extremely over-sensitive, then that is their problem and not the clubs.
Being offended on someone else’s behalf so that you can feel that you are a great person is just stupid ‼️
I mean yeah, that's actually what Exeter is named after. The Native imagery came a lot later. They just need to return to the English Chief background
I think when considering this argument, you have to consider where the complaint are coming from. If it's from the middle class white, want to be offended by something woke brigade, then ignore it; if on the other hand there are genuinely indigenous tribal Indianswho have been upset by this (far less likley) then take it seriously.
In this case I'm not sure where the complaints were coming from, but I know my youngest loved Big Chief and misses his absence on game days.
Great video and good job getting it reuploaded so quick 👍
Doing my bit for _The Algorithm_ since Exeter clearly don't want this to be seen by thousands of people. Also, I concur with the others who've pointed out that you don't even need to change the name. Just lose the pointless Native American imagery. There were plenty of tribal chiefs in the southwest that have been documented from Roman times to the middle ages. Pick one of them ffs, it isn't hard.
100%. I don't get why it has to be a Native American chief when, like, what does it have to do with anything about the Exeter area?
Respect
Sometimes we won’t know the sensitivities around certain things that to us may not seem important. The tribal feathers of Native American people are routinely worn for stag parties yet in some tribes, those feathers are worn only by the oldest, holy men and only on important holy days. Some myths and stories, rituals and rites of other cultures have particular significance, are imbued with history and identity, and are not easily shared or understood.
There is a book about cultural appropriation with an appropriate title that certainly speaks to me - it's called Borrowed Power.
Not a good sign when a professional club can't take criticism and listen to a reasoned point that has been previously highlighted by groups of supporters across the rugby community. Excellent video 👍
Exeter Dickheads sounds more fitting to me.
They could keep the name “chiefs” but turn the logo into an ancient British chief aka Boudicca or similar.
Great to see this video back up so soon.
As with all your work you presented a respectful, reasoned and thoughtful look at this issue which deserved a similarly constructed and considered response, not a copyright strike. “NO FURTHER STATEMENTS!!”
Keep up the great work NGJ 👍
Continuing to call the team 'Chiefs' isn't really an issue imo. It's a fairly universal term. The branding and culture though, there has to be some recognition of this issue. There's plenty of good English chiefs to base the branding from. How about Boudica? There's a chief it would be easy to get behind, especially if they were playing an Italian team.
Quite. And Boudica ties in brilliantly with the Roman connection to Exeter.
'Chieftains' is the more neutral term. 'Chiefs' has a Native American connotation in NA, & today sports teams have a global fan base. I have a good friend from Exeter on this side of the Herring Pond who agrees it should be changed.
@@unseen_stranger That and their logo is literally a Native American chief. Like you said, would be much better if they went the New Zealand Chiefs route and made it more Britton-centric.
I agree, though Boudicca was from East Anglia not the South West so they might not want to go with her... then again they don't mind going with logos not related to Devon!
Wow this was woke rubbish! talk about getting offended on behalf of others, unless I am unaware of some historical incident where the people of Exeter committed some terrible act of violence on the native Americans than this is ridiculous. Naming a team after a warrior culture is very common and is a mark of respect. If you had anything but respect for them you wouldn’t then go and name your team after them so clearly It’s a mark of respect for that warrior culture who’s values and courage you admire an hope to emulate. That arrogant presumption that you’ll be on the right side of history is laughable.
Appreciate you uploading it, I’m sorry about the comments you’re gonna get
I don’t see an issue. As long as no one is hurt or offended there’s no foul. And where does this end if you say people can’t take the identity for entertainment purposes, where does this stop? Should I stop eating Chinese food because I’m not Chinese? Should I stop listening to reggae because I’m not Jamaican? Should I refuse to attend a bar if it’s Latin night? Should I not grow dreadlocks if I’m not Greek? Should I remove my tribal tattoos because I’m not Polynesian?
We live in a melting pot of different cultures and identity and they are ALL to be celebrated. I don’t have any problem using any identity as long as it’s not at the expense of dignity add done with good energy. We should try to include everyone of all members of society’s identities in our day-to-day life.
I would like the review to be done by a team of the minority affected in cases of these events and action taken at their bequest. Not a board of the company effected...seems a bit unfair....or the woke brigade either for that matter. No one should come in and white knight to speak on behalf of other people of whom their identity is not related.
I used to play for a club that had a number of players that meant it should have been named The Dickheads.
Really well put together video. Glad to see it back up. It would be so easy to just go on the attack with Exeter Chiefs (they have worked hard to make themselves less likable this year), but I appreciate your controlled and measured approach which gets the point accross brilliantly.
So glad to see this re-edited video back online and remain perplexed as to why the powers that be at Exeter Chiefs asked NGJ Rugby to take the video down but didn’t allow him anytime to do it before reporting him to RUclips which has an impact on his free speech and right to trade.
I make no assumptions about why they may have done that but agree with a lot of posters both here and on Twitter that it doesn’t look good!
As a Diversity and Inclusion consultant I would have advised Exeter Chiefs as to the reputation risk and potential/actual PR disaster of this action. I guess they thought they knew better and it’s what they think that matters an assumption that at the very least is arrogant and is of course “problematic”.
The silence from Exeter Chiefs Premiership Rugby and BT Sport has been deafening, talk about this on the clubs forums and on Facebook has been banned. Perhaps they are hoping it will all go away?
My expectation an acknowledgment and engagement in a debate with someone other than themselves would be in order as marking your own homework doesn’t mean you passed the test!
They’ve changed the badge now
First video I’ve ever seen of yours, really good
Great video mate 👏🏼
I remember Exeter playing Glasgow a few years ago and loads of their fans wearing Native American head dresses. This is disrespectful to the native peoples of North America as the head dress is an earned object within their culture and it is therefore culture appropriation. The response that Exeter have made is a very poor one in this day and age.
get a life !
@@Emjaygee1950 I would make a joke about your life, but I see life already beat me to it.
I am a exeter chiefs fan and there is nothing offensive
Fantastic edit and Re-upload well argued and I totally agree. I won’t support them even thought they’re my local club until they get rid of the racist imagery and the Dreadful Tomahawk song
I can see how the Exeter issue is different to Washington. The 'Redskin' logo was an actual racist slur. The 'Chiefs' name isn't. In fact it's origins are local to Exeter.
IMO they don't need to change the name, but should change the brand image of native Americans as it is sensitive and only a recent part of the clubs history. Likewise Saracens shouldn't change it's name because it was a tribute to the Saracens warriors, not a slur on them. That's fine and couldn't be conflated with say the racist origins of Washington's brand.
I come from Exeter and find it hard to support the team because I find the name Chiefs so moronic. Exeter is steeped in its own history, so why the need to commodify Native American culture in the first place? Its so distasteful, how embarrassing.
Well said Ieuan.I'm a great fan of rugby and have watched a lot but i cringe when the tomahawk chop accompanied with drums can be heard during a game and the wearing of Chieftain head dress - it's reminding me of a less enlightened time when anything was deemed ok by the dominant,more powerful culture.
Excellent video, nice one 👍
Tigers don't exist in the UK, is that cultural appropriation by Leicester?
I wonder what the countless millions of American Indians and other minorities who can't afford a bus ticket to one of these rugby matches (never mind an entrance ticket) think of the 'inclusivity' doctrine you are defending here. Hypocrisy maybe? This video does have some sensible ideas in it (being considerate of others cultures et.), but the wider (inappropriately named) 'woke' doctrine some of the ideas come from is mostly psuedo-liberal dogma, and kind of an insult to people who have suffered real forms of racism social injustice. Racism used to mean actions which actually *harm* the interests or opportunities of the people of a particular race, and to a self-identifying classical liberal like myself (and many others!), that is what it still means. I invite you (or anyone else who supports the views expressed in this video) to explain how the interests or opportunities of indigenous American Indians are harmed by Exeter Chiefs' using this logo or the name 'Chiefs', or come up with a meaningful definition of 'racism', or 'insensitivity' in this context.
"In 2005, the APA called for the immediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols, images and personalities by schools, colleges, universities, athletic teams and organizations. APA's position is based on a growing body of social science literature that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping and inaccurate racial portrayals, including the particularly harmful effects of American Indian sports mascots on the social identity development and self-esteem of American Indian young people."
As it's not enough of a reason that they have asked for their culture not to be used in this way, maybe believing the Science will be enough.
www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/indian-mascots#:~:text=The%20APA%20is%20calling%20upon,colleges%2C%20universities%2C%20athletic%20teams%20and
@@MaryWilliamsMOMXWdzyn Thanks for your response. I have read the summary of the report you linked me to. Id like to ask you a few questions about it if you don't mind. Although some of its conclusions are to me incontrovertible and correct, many strike me as clearly false or dogmatic, and not very scientific at all. Eg. 'the use of native American Indian symbols..teaches children that it's OK to participate in culturally abusive behaviour'. Are you familiar with this report and other such research personally and able to provide some explanation or defense of claims like this?
@@dalenewton9697 As I am not a specialist in the field I'm not qualified to answer questions on the specifics of the study. If that is your speciality then possibly contact your peers to conduct a peer review. Alternatively read the full report as opposed to the summary (which was created for laymen such as myself) or contact the American Psychological association who did the scientific research. I provided the information as you appeared to be under the impression that it was a fictitious grievance.
@@MaryWilliamsMOMXWdzyn So you have sent me a report in support of the views expressed in this video, and you claim this provides a scientific basis for it, yet you don't actually understand the conclusions in the abstract, including even the one that most relates to the claims made in the video. Is that correct?
@@dalenewton9697 No, that is incorrect. I understand the study and the content as a memeber of a marginalised community with comparable lived experience. Your demands for academic and scientific evidence that then must be debated in order to be true, rather than respecting, believing and listening to the affected communities means I'm not going to continue this conversation. The science is there and if you want to debate it then you should find a psychologist to debate it with as there is a lot of emotional labour and trauma for me to 'debate' with someone that is essentially calling marginalised people's similar to myself liars (even if you want to think you're just playing 'devils advocate'). I don't care if you feel like you have one up or if you feel empowered by this. I *do* care about the futher psychological harm I would be subjecting myself to by continuing this discourse. You're a random stranger on the internet and it's just not worth my mental health or the emotional labour needed to continue a conversation you feel entitled to. If you want to believe the evidence or not that's your perogative, I truly don't think of you as important enough to try and convince you otherwise.
It is a bullshit idea
Comments to help the algorithm
👏🏽
What are you thoughts on the Waikato Chiefs?
Chiefs there refers to Maori chiefs which seems far more appropriate. If Exeter just changed the logo and mascot to a local historical chief of the South West it would make sense. It’s just random and in appropriate to use Native American chiefs for a club based in Exeter in England
Yeah the Waikato chiefs represent a part of Aotearoa with long traditions of Māori. It was the geographic center of a large resistance movement to English colonisation and many of the players are Māori or have links to Māori. The respect runs deep there
@@Jo3M So, that's exactly how I feel about them (Waikato). buuut, so much of that is cos Liam Messam was captain, local boy, and driving the 'mana.' (also I lived in Hamilton at the time haha)
If you take out Liam or Dave Rennie, then doesn't it feel like the old awkward 80's haka?
How is it offensive though?
Take a look at Exeter Chiefs For Change @exchiefs4change on twitter/Instagram for some info
The real issue is that so many people in our society seem to think that this type of thing is a problem. Being offended on behalf of other people, who themselves are not offended; is a nausea inducing form of patronising, self-righteousness that we'd do well to move on from.
Who says that Native people aren't offended? It's well documented that a majority are
@@lauraburrows1712 where?
Past polling of native Americans in the United States shows a pattern of relative indifference to the name Washington redskins to gradually becoming more offended. This shows that their offence isn't a instinctive one, rather a learned one; probably perpetuated by a holier than thou white activist with nothing better to do looking for issues where there aren't any, trying to justify their movement. Note that redskins actually has some racist connotations, unlike chiefs. Furthermore I'd imagine that at least 99% of native Americans aren't even aware of the Exeter chiefs, so they couldn't possibly give two hoots about the name.
@@dominicstemp5690 if you want native Americans who have an issue with this look up Iroquois Roots Rugby. Bearing in mind most native Americans don’t know the team exists which says lots about how it’s being used in a respectful way
1500 Nations have called for an end to race based Mascots. Over 65% actively want race based mascots gone.
A large percentage were put in Residential schools and indoctrinated. Consider looking up the information first instead of making incorrect assumptions.
wasps need to be banned also their name and logo is deeply upsetting to entomologists !
Sale sharks is offending to fish, they need to change their branding
Am I allowed not to care
Also the funding for an NFL team compared to a rugby club is drastically different a reason the aren’t changing could be that they don’t see he investment in a rebrand worth it. I love my rugby and hate to see people making issues out of these things there are bigger issue in the world than the name of a rugby club.
Would you support them if they were the Zulu chiefs and be okay with people turning up in blackface and doing racist stereotypes?
@@johnbrappus yes black face is a step to far never been to see the chiefs live as I’m from Scotland but wasn’t aware of people painting there face but that’s an issue with the crowd not the club. If they were always the Zulu chiefs I wouldn’t really care I’m a rugby fan i like seeing good rugby don’t really care what the team is called barring something outrageous “black faced bastards”. If people have an issue with this I see the all blacks becoming an issue. I don’t care I want to watch rugby and not have to think about racial issue that quite frankly I couldn’t care less about. Yes issues of racist abuse are abhorrent and racist people are rightly looked down on but quite frankly the name of a rugby club rank low on my list of big issues and it’s not worth a second thought as the club have stated.
Teams rebrand pretty often actually. Logo changes etc, or look at Bristol who did a total rebrand and it was a massive success
Congratulations, you're part of the problem
@@galacor re read the first line
How many native American Indian residents in the exeter area?...not many imagine..and if you did catch up with any in the USA they probably haven't heard of the exeter chiefs and secondly couldn't care less never mind being offended...The name of the team may have came about through respect for the Native Indians...similar to the USA army naming their helicopters after Native Indian tribes..chinnook, apache etc..
Soooo ignorance should only be challenged when people notice it. Hmm.
I think you'll find Native Americans are very protective and sensitive about their traditions and ceremonial garb being used for fun by ignorant non Native Americans. Ye know... people like you
@@galacor let me see...when was the last time I wore native American garb to make fun of Native American traditions...just checking my diary here...hold on. Yip never...
This comment loses any impact when Indigenous people (some of whom do live in Devon and have attended a game) have written to the club to say they are not honoured by the branding.
@@issieatcheson9295 Indigenous people in Devon?..that's Native English mate..
Good on Exeter ! 2 fingers to the woke mob !
Reading many other comments, I will be in the minority because I will sound like I'm on one side , because of ... the world as it is at the moment etc etc etc - is it possible a person or club can make their own decisions before pressure to CANCEL as this culture seems to put on us overrides common sense ( Political Correctness!) and choice.
Don't like ,then.. don't follow, don't watch, don't comment - it's only a game... of rugby - not trying to change the world.
Battle on the field, friends off the field.