• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Offensive Team Names

The Rugby Forum - Global Rugby Union News, Six Nations & RWC Discussion

Help Support The Rugby Forum:

Dan Kelly is Irish said:
Might clash with the Cornish All Blacks who were in the championship I want to say 10 or so years ago
Click to expand...
07/08 in the old National 1. I think that it was around then that they received a cease and desistletter from the NZRU. I can't remember how it was resolved, but they still use the name. It would be a rough trick to Exeter to pinch the name of a side 40 miles or so down the road, although they're already standing on the toes of other westcountry clubs who refer to their first team as the "chiefs" by claiming it as their own. If someone in my home town asks me who "the chiefs" are playing today, I would tell them that they're away to Esher today.

I don't think there's anything CABs could do though, Taunton adopted the Titans moniker while they were at level four, despite the fact that Rotherham were already using it at level 2. Presumably they couldn't think of anything else starting with a "T"!
 
RedruthRFC said:
07/08 in the old National 1. I think that it was around then that they received a cease and desistletter from the NZRU. I can't remember how it was resolved, but they still use the name. It would be a rough trick to Exeter to pinch the name of a side 40 miles or so down the road, although they're already standing on the toes of other westcountry clubs who refer to their first team as the "chiefs" by claiming it as their own. If someone in my home town asks me who "the chiefs" are playing today, I would tell them that they're away to Esher today.

I don't think there's anything CABs could do though, Taunton adopted the ***ans moniker while they were at level four, despite the fact that Rotherham were already using it at level 2. Presumably they couldn't think of anything else starting with a "T"!
Click to expand...
There's a club in Galway called the Connemara All Blacks and I don't think they've ever had any issues legally!
 
Groundhog said:
There's a club in Galway called the Connemara All Blacks and I don't think they've ever had any issues legally!
Click to expand...
I managed to find an old news article about it, it looks like the NZRU kicked up a fuss when Launceston tried to register Cornish All Blacks as a UK trademark.

Stus7 said:
Poor from Nick Cain
Click to expand...
As a tweet I read earlier on said, I suppose that he thinks that the Black And White Minstrels were a salute to black music and dance.

It staggers me how many people are arrogant enough to think that they're better qualified to decide how Native American people feel than they themselves are.
 
Is it a win win for Exeter if the Native American stuff gets banned?

1. Because they don’t have to offend fans who like the branding (as they are forced to remove it)

And

2. They remove the branding so all the fans that dislike it it’s gone.

Are Exeter just waiting to be forced to remove it?
 
Don't Skip Leg Day said:
Is it a win win for Exeter if the Native American stuff gets banned?

1. Because they don’t have to offend fans who like the branding (as they are forced to remove it)

And

2. They remove the branding so all the fans that dislike it it’s gone.

Are Exeter just waiting to be forced to remove it?
Click to expand...
No,

Because they are resisting it they are turning a lot of fans against them. As noted the everyone's 2nd team ideal they had. It does damage to the Exeter brand even post ban.

If they wanted the "be banned, everyone wins tactic" they wouldn't be giving everyone the bird about it. They'd be just saying "we thinks it's up to the RFU and we'd support them in the decision they make".
 
....is anyone else kind of sick of the franchise names in general? it was one thing when these nicknames were unofficial or just the mascot...but to make it the official name just sets them up to become dated...as we're seeing

whats wrong with Exeter RFC etc

I look at the highlanders logo that hasn;t changed since 1996 and its a bit cringeworthy and very 90's

i obviously follow wimbledon in the football, one of our nicknames is the dons, when MK moved up the road they were a bit of a laughing stock for including Dons in their official name
 
Kiwiwomble said:
....is anyone else kind of sick of the franchise names in general? it was one thing when these nicknames were unofficial or just the mascot...but to make it the official name just sets them up to become dated...as we're seeing

whats wrong with Exeter RFC etc

I look at the highlanders logo that hasn;t changed since 1996 and its a bit cringeworthy and very 90's

i obviously follow wimbledon in the football, one of our nicknames is the dons, when MK moved up the road they were a bit of a laughing stock for including Dons in their official name
Click to expand...
I think most traditional rugby fans were already over the franchise names in 1996 when they started happening (here).

But we weren't going to leave the sport anyway, so they're not for us. They're to attract new, younger viewers to help create a tribal affiliation.
 
I think part of it was that the pro clubs spawned from existing amateur ones, and in some cases the amateur side continued on after
Sale FC were awarded a pro contract, so created Sale Sharks while leaving Sale FC to continue on as an amateur side - I think Worcester RFC is still going too
 
Which Tyler said:
I think most traditional rugby fans were already over the franchise names in 1996 when they started happening (here).

But we weren't going to leave the sport anyway, so they're not for us. They're to attract new, younger viewers to help create a tribal affiliation.
Click to expand...
This why being fans of teams located in Somerset is a good thing, the cricket team tried to call themselves the "Sabres" but then they gave up and are just Somerset again.

I don't think Bath have ever tried it.
 
ncurd said:
I don't think Bath have ever tried it.
Click to expand...
When the pro club split off from the amateur, the amateurs kept the name "Bath Football Club"; and the pro.s took the franchise name of "Bath Rugby"
I believe we flirted with the idea of "Bath Romans" for about 2 minutes before being shot down in flames at the first meeting it was aired.
 
Which Tyler said:
When the pro club split off from the amateur, the amateurs kept the name "Bath Football Club"; and the pro.s took the franchise name of "Bath Rugby"
I believe we flirted with the idea of "Bath Romans" for about 2 minutes before being shot down in flames at the first meeting it was aired.
Click to expand...
Surely you'd go for Centurion's?
 
ncurd said:
Surely you'd go for Centurion's?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go for anything; I mourn the loss of "FC" as it is!

I suspect the suggestion was "Bath Romans" to ride the coat-tails of the "Roman Baths" - but it seems that it never evolved into an actual conversation at the club

ncurd said:
The Roman's not really having chiefs or anything referred to as such might be the greatest stumbling block there. Wiped out quite a few mind.
Click to expand...
Seems appropriate at the moment
 
Which Tyler said:
I think most traditional rugby fans were already over the franchise names in 1996 when they started happening (here).

But we weren't going to leave the sport anyway, so they're not for us. They're to attract new, younger viewers to help create a tribal affiliation.
Click to expand...
I for one don’t like these tacky add on names…. Pointless and unnecessary….
 
i mentioned this at the time of the Crusaders drama, im not sure why teams just dont stick to animals, elements or colours (bears, hurricanes, sharks, blues etc), just so much safer. I was kind of hoping we'd ditch the Highlanders as the long we use it the more outcry when someone finally does get offended by it
 
Kiwiwomble said:
....is anyone else kind of sick of the franchise names in general? it was one thing when these nicknames were unofficial or just the mascot...but to make it the official name just sets them up to become dated...as we're seeing

whats wrong with Exeter RFC etc

I look at the highlanders logo that hasn;t changed since 1996 and its a bit cringeworthy and very 90's

i obviously follow wimbledon in the football, one of our nicknames is the dons, when MK moved up the road they were a bit of a laughing stock for including Dons in their official name
Click to expand...
Funny that you say that. It’s been a year since the Washington team changed their name and theirs a growing sentiment that they should just remain the Washington football team.
 
Kiwiwomble said:
i mentioned this at the time of the Crusaders drama, im not sure why teams just dont stick to animals, elements or colours (bears, hurricanes, sharks, blues etc), just so much safer. I was kind of hoping we'd ditch the Highlanders as the long we use it the more outcry when someone finally does get offended by it
Click to expand...
Not sure. I think that is a bit unfair. Anachronistic. Do you think many people would have considered exeter chiefs to be offensive back in 1999? Was there any intent whatsoever to offend or negatively discriminate with that choice of name? Is there now?

And regarding the alternatives, people will find a way to see some offense in anything you come up with. Shark attack victims, hurricane survivors, people who suffer from a particular type of colour blindness...
If the current state of affairs has taught us anything is that where there is a statement, any statement, there is someone claiming that statement to be offensive.

I dont believe all names are equally offensive, granted, but if you open that door there is no coming back.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Not sure. I think that is a bit unfair. Anachronistic. Do you think many people would have considered exeter chiefs to be offensive back in 1999? Was there any intent whatsoever to offend or negatively discriminate with that choice of name? Is there now?

And regarding the alternatives, people will find a way to see some offense in anything you come up with. Shark attack victims, hurricane survivors, people who suffer from a particular type of colour blindness...
If the current state of affairs has taught us anything is that where there is a statement, any statement, there is someone claiming that statement to be offensive.

I dont believe all names are equally offensive, granted, but if you open that door there is no coming back.
Click to expand...
If you can learn to read for once, its got nothing to do with the Chiefs name its the Native American imagery that has been used historically and even currently to racially discriminate against them. Those people have specifically asked for sports teams to stop using it.

And yes it was a problem in 1999 not the name but the imagery in fact indigenous groups have been complaining since the 1960's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

Ah yes but have to worry about shark attack victims....
 
Look its simple all the Chiefs have to do is pay for the rights and change the logo to this guy

latest


And don't use any of images of the PoC in the comics.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Do you think many people would have considered exeter chiefs to be offensive back in 1999? Was there any intent whatsoever to offend or negatively discriminate with that choice of name? Is there now?
Click to expand...
Yes, people found the Exeter Chiefs imagery offensive in 1999 - but it was generally felt (amongst people who weren't from the marginalised community) that a minor sport on the other side of an ocean from the victims, where they'd pretty much never heard of rugby was "no harm, no foul". Crass, but okay at the time.
Since then though, the world has evolved, and our understanding of racism, victimisation etc has evolved; whilst rugby has become properly professional, and is becoming a much bigger sport in the USA, with MLR, Olympic7s, and RWC bids. It's now right in the face of the victims, rather than hidden half-a-world away.

I'm sure there wasn't, and still isn't intend to be offensive - but guess what - intent would only aggravate the seriousness, lack of intent doesn't absolve.


Cruz_del_Sur said:
And regarding the alternatives, people will find a way to see some offense in anything you come up with. Shark attack victims, hurricane survivors, people who suffer from a particular type of colour blindness...
If the current state of affairs has taught us anything is that where there is a statement, any statement, there is someone claiming that statement to be offensive.
Click to expand...
Now you're just being silly (or "Reductio Ad Absurdum" as it's otherwise known)

Cruz_del_Sur said:
I dont believe all names are equally offensive, granted, but if you open that door there is no coming back.
Click to expand...
And the "slippery slope" (absent any actual logical rationale) is a well known and acknowledged logical fallacy
file.php
 
Last edited:
Which Tyler said:
Yes, people found the Exeter Chiefs imagery offensive in 1999 - but it was generally felt (amongst people who weren't from the marginalised community) that a minor sport on the other side of an ocean from the victims, where they'd pretty much never heard of rugby was "no harm, no foul". Crass, but okay at the time.
Since then though, the world has evolved, and our understanding of racism, victimisation etc has evolved; whilst rugby has become properly professional, and is becoming a much bigger sport in the USA, with MLR, Olympic7s, and RWC bids. It's now right in the face of the victims, rather than hidden half-a-world away.
file.php
Click to expand...
We should also note the fact the world has literally changed since 1999 in terms of globality of a brand or group and awareness of issues. In 1999 its fair to say most people did not have regular internet access hell home computing was still in its infancy but about rapidly expanding. We studied the American West at school at the very time Exeter were adopting it and we did a fair amount of time on the systematic destruction of the native American people what we didn't study is how those stereotypes still existed then (1999-2001) and now continue almost two decades later.

Now with internet access and huge population carrying phones in their pockets we can see in real time that these issues are not just a 'then' problem but also a 'now' problem. Many people think we should actually act on that instead of shurgging our shoulders and go 'ah well it always been like that'.
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
Not sure. I think that is a bit unfair. Anachronistic. Do you think many people would have considered exeter chiefs to be offensive back in 1999? Was there any intent whatsoever to offend or negatively discriminate with that choice of name? Is there now?
Click to expand...

Yes…and I’m pretty sure it’s been talked about in this very thread, that there was controversy around the Native American imagery, just like there was in 96 when the crusaders was chosen…they just decided it wasn’t a big deal and are now all annoyed when they realise it is a big deal to lots of people
 
Cruz_del_Sur said:
And regarding the alternatives, people will find a way to see some offense in anything you come up with. Shark attack victims, hurricane survivors, people who suffer from a particular type of colour blindness...
Click to expand...

But there are teams called the sharks and hurricanes and there isn’t the call for them to change their names by those groups…so the point kind of falls over
 

Similar threads

W
EA Unveils the Next Generation of Games at E3
2 3
Replies
85
Views
8K
ak47
A

Latest posts

Back
Top