RugbyRebels

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48566104

I think this is wholly sensitive and appropriate.

richy678 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48566104

I think this is wholly sensitive and appropriate.

Ditto. There's arguments to be made about the name being appropriate or not, but the iconography and glorifying of horse-mounted knights whose sole purpose was to travel to Muslim countries and kill Muslim people because of their religion is kinda problematic and it probably shouldn't've taken a home-grown terrorist to point that out.

Mind, we've got Exeter Chiefs and no-one gives a monkeys about that, so I guess I can't throw stones.

Puja

It is a ridiculous brand marketing strategy. Fortunately now it's seen as not simply cringe, but inappropriate. Look for some angry cracker push back but.


The Exeter brand thing is a disgrace too...

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!?

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!?

As with the Crusaders, the issue is less with the name*, but in the branding, monetisation, and marketing surrounding it. It's taking several real-life cultures, religious dresses, and ceremonies and reducing them down to a Western-movie level caricature of "Indians" with big noses, feathered headdresses, waving weapons around, and shouting warchants. There's a lot of problems, not limited to the fact that this caricature came out of white settlers invading and genociding several nations, and is now being trivialised as a mascot of strength and violence.

Further reading from an actual Native American person: https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-ne ... al-1139539

Puja

*I mean, the name's not completely unproblematic, as it is a powerful group appropriating a symbol of an unpowerful group, but like England's use of Swing Low and Saracens' name, it's not too harmful.

I've always thought the knock off pound shop american style branding of rugby was pathetic anyway. The reason americans are obsessed with premier league football is the history and the tradition. You can't manufacture that.

Also I say this as an exe fan, call the club Exeter RFC. The name should stand for itself, no shitty gimmicks needed. Exeter the place has been around for thousands of years.

twitchy wrote:I've always thought the knock off pound shop american style branding of rugby was pathetic anyway. The reason americans are obsessed with premier league football is the history and the tradition. You can't manufacture that.

Also I say this as an exe fan, call the club Exeter RFC. The name should stand for itself, no shitty gimmicks needed. Exeter the place has been around for thousands of years.

Indeed. We need more clubs like Quins

For all the mockery and derision that it got at the start of the season, Bristol appear to have got away with their rebranding to Bristol Bears. It certainly seems to be rolling off the tongues of commentators and fans better than Shoguns ever did, anyway.

Puja

Just call them "bristol". Revolutionary idea.

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

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.

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.

Sale and Exeter took their nicknames in 1999, long before plans to crack America; but, yeah, I’m not sure what Lions have to do with Gloucester or Bears with Bristol.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Personally I think it’s unachievable regardless of branding. That said, show your research to PRL. It should interest them.

So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

Diggers, I’m surprised this even crosses your mind. You strike me as a chino or corduroy wearer.

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

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

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

What is "arguing in good faith"?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

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

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

Diggers, I’m surprised this even crosses your mind. You strike me as a chino or corduroy wearer.

I do own such items, though in tones of brown, fawn and beige rather than red, yellow or purple

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:So it's important nobody but the French wear jeans lest cultural appropriation occur?

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

The fact is Native americans have been fighting against the stereotypical usage of their culture for a while now in American sports, it would be massively naive to think that they would be fine with an English club with no ties to the culture what so ever doing it.

If their was any problems with it in NA sport I would agree, but their has been a large backlash against such things.

Mellsblue wrote:

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.

Sale and Exeter took their nicknames in 1999, long before plans to crack America; but, yeah, I’m not sure what Lions have to do with Gloucester or Bears with Bristol.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Personally I think it’s unachievable regardless of branding. That said, show your research to PRL. It should interest them.

Well, pedantically, the Gloucester crest has sported two lions for the last 450 odd years. Why we have chosen to make more of a link to it now is admittedly a small mystery, but I don’t think I have heard anyone refer to us as anything other than Gloucester Rugby, even since the rebranding.

Gloskarlos wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

twitchy wrote:

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.

Sale and Exeter took their nicknames in 1999, long before plans to crack America; but, yeah, I’m not sure what Lions have to do with Gloucester or Bears with Bristol.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Personally I think it’s unachievable regardless of branding. That said, show your research to PRL. It should interest them.

Well, pedantically, the Gloucester crest has sported two lions for the last 450 odd years. Why we have chosen to make more of a link to it now is admittedly a small mystery, but I don’t think I have heard anyone refer to us as anything other than Gloucester Rugby, even since the rebranding.

Ah, the wild Gloucester lions of 1569. I remember them roaming the Forest of Dean well

Mellsblue wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Sale and Exeter took their nicknames in 1999, long before plans to crack America; but, yeah, I’m not sure what Lions have to do with Gloucester or Bears with Bristol.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Personally I think it’s unachievable regardless of branding. That said, show your research to PRL. It should interest them.

Well, pedantically, the Gloucester crest has sported two lions for the last 450 odd years. Why we have chosen to make more of a link to it now is admittedly a small mystery, but I don’t think I have heard anyone refer to us as anything other than Gloucester Rugby, even since the rebranding.

Ah, the wild Gloucester lions of 1569. I remember them roaming the Forest of Dean well

Only way to keep the rabbit population under control
And possibly the boar.

Mellsblue wrote:

Gloskarlos wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Sale and Exeter took their nicknames in 1999, long before plans to crack America; but, yeah, I’m not sure what Lions have to do with Gloucester or Bears with Bristol.
I’m not saying it’s a good or bad idea. Personally I think it’s unachievable regardless of branding. That said, show your research to PRL. It should interest them.

Well, pedantically, the Gloucester crest has sported two lions for the last 450 odd years. Why we have chosen to make more of a link to it now is admittedly a small mystery, but I don’t think I have heard anyone refer to us as anything other than Gloucester Rugby, even since the rebranding.

Ah, the wild Gloucester lions of 1569. I remember them roaming the Forest of Dean well

Gloucester was a fairly major Duchy and a power base that controlled the destination of the throne on several occasions. Royalty in mediaeval times liked importing lions as they felt it gave them an air of power, both in terms of "Look at what I can afford to do" and "Look, I have captured an apex predator and keep it in a pit, regard my power" and you see a lot of them in royal heraldry in England because of this. The Duke of Gloucester having them on the crest would've been an unsubtle reminder of their power and links to the throne.

Random useless fact of the day.

Puja

Puja wrote: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 wrote:Gloucester was a fairly major Duchy and a power base that controlled the destination of the throne on several occasions. Royalty in mediaeval times liked importing lions as they felt it gave them an air of power, both in terms of "Look at what I can afford to do" and "Look, I have captured an apex predator and keep it in a pit, regard my power" and you see a lot of them in royal heraldry in England because of this. The Duke of Gloucester having them on the crest would've been an unsubtle reminder of their power and links to the throne.

I also like this, but I suspect that this might be more appropriate for James