By Pooneil
#6685
Hi. Apologies in advance for making my first post a controversial one. :shifty:

I’m sure many of you are aware of the issue (particularly in America) of ‘Indian’ mascots in sports. I think it's becoming increasingly likely that this issue is something English rugby will need to address sooner or later – especially if rugby continues to expand into the USA.

In relation to our sport, it is quite simple: Exeter is the only professional rugby union team in the world that uses an extant ethnic minority, to which they have absolutely no cultural or hereditary connection, as a merchandising brand. If any other ethnic minority were used in any way similar to how the Exeter brand stereotypes ‘Indian’ culture, it would simply not be tolerated.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Exeter Rugby or their fans are setting out to disparage anyone. I’m not calling anyone out. I simply think we (the rugby community) need to have an open and informed discussion, to establish the facts of the matter and dispel the myths, before the issue is forced upon us.

The National Congress of American Indians launched it’s campaign against ‘Indian’ mascots in 1968. And, in case previous decades of pressure, education and advocacy weren’t clear enough, they passed a resolution in 1993 to “condemn the racist and condescending attitude of team owners, colleges and high schools, which continue to demean the members of our Nations” and called upon “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.” This campaign, to “oppose the use of racist and demeaning ‘Indian’ sports mascots”, is still very much a current concern.

I’m certain there was no ill intent when Exeter adopted their current ‘Indian’ brand in 1999, but it seems clear that, at best, they didn’t think to consult the people whose culture they were appropriating. Indeed, it seems likely they simply didn’t even consider, at the time, that there were actual people behind the stereotype. This is the dehumanizing effect of racial stereotypes: people become objects.

The fact that Exeter didn’t consider the autonomy of the culture they were appropriating at the time does not mean we should ignore the issue now.

Arguments in defence of ‘Indian’ mascots have become increasingly untenable. In America two-thirds of ‘Indian’ sports brands have been retired during the past 35 years. The sooner Exeter voluntarily embraces that trend the better; I believe a proactive change would only be a good thing for Exeter rugby club, as well as a positive statement on rugby values in general.

I believe this is a subject that the rugby community needs to discuss in the open. It is as much of a rugby related topic as anything else that happens on our terraces. If the issue was homophobia, we would be discussing it; if it was sexism, we would be discussing it; if it were any other form of racial stereotyping, we would be discussing it.

The three main questions for me are:
1. Are Exeter Rugby Club using and perpetuating a stereotype of an ethnic minority?
2. If yes, is that stereotype harmful and are that ethnic minority aggrieved by the use of that stereotype?
3. If yes, is this something we should accept in our sport?
The answer to the first two questions appears to be a very clear ‘yes’ – but I’m open to persuasion otherwise. I’d like to hear what other people think about question three.

.
By Peter D
#6688
You make a good point.

Exeter have always argued that the title "Chiefs" has nothing to do with native American culture. The tradition in Devon was, apparently, to style the first XV as "Chiefs." I've no doubt that that is true. However, they have over the years clearly appropriated elements of native American culture - the headdress, the "Red Indian Chief" in their logo and the chanting of the Tomahawk Chop - all of which the native Americans find offensive and disrespectful to their culture. This makes the "nothing to do with native American culture" argument a bit disingenuous.

I'm sure that, as you say, no disrespect is intended by Exeter but times have changed from the time of my youth when cowboys and Indians was a favourite game and the Hollywood view of Red Indians prevailed in which native Americans were either the "baddies" or a subjugated, servant society.

One might, of course, put a similar argument forward about the use of the crescent moon and star symbols, and the name of the club, with Saracens. The issues, I think, are somewhat different.

There are good reasons to have a discussion about the appropriateness of such cultural appropriation.
Pooneil liked this
By Pooneil
#6699
Hi, Peter.
I agree, the Chiefs moniker in a general sense may not in itself be problematic – although considering it apparently gained popular usage in exactly the same era as many of the worst and most entrenched ‘Indian’ brands in America were established, I’d be surprised if there were no ‘Indian’ connection even then.

That said, it is possible to argue that ‘chief’ is a generic nickname. But that defence is meaningless as long as all the other stuff that was added to the brand in 1999 remains.

Personally, I don’t see a comparison with Saracens. There is no distinct ethnic group of ‘Saracens’, extant now or even, in any meaningful sense, historically. The name was loosely applied to describe a political or cultural ‘Them’, in the same way as ‘Crusaders’ doesn’t realistically apply to ‘Us’.

Depending on context, it might be argued that linking a sports brand to a particular historical event is insensitive, but apart from the fact that no one has the right to never being offended, historical events and even labels – and I assume it goes without say, animals, insects etc. – are a ‘something’.

Mascots are a something. A human being is a someone.

.
By Peter D
#6708
I agree about the Saracens name, although it still carries significance in the Middle East (as does Crusaders) and the Crusades are still held up by some as evidence of Western oppression (remote as that might seem to us).

The Crescent moon and star though remains a potent symbol for Islam, featuring as it does on the flags and emblems of many Islamic states and flying on many mosques.
User avatar
By patgadd
#6718
I can claim a little bit of knowledge about Native Americans, or at least those who lived on the plains; I can't claim to speak for them of course. Pooneil says correctly that here is no distinct ethnic group of Saracens, but many would claim that the Apache and the Eskimos (please don't insult the latter by calling them Inuits) are separate nations just as the Saracens were. It's worthy of debate, but for me the Indians, having been brutally mistreated and almost obliterated in the past, are honoured by being remembered, even in such a silly way.
By Pooneil
#6730
Peter.
To clarify, my point was that there is no autonomous extant ethnic group, as far as I’m aware, that identifies as ‘Saracens’. There has never been a separate nation or ethnic group of ‘Saracens’. I confess I don’t know what the situation, or implications, of the Crescent moon and star are. I’m not aware of any autonomous group has any objection to it’s use.
By Pooneil
#6732
Patgadd, you are correct that there are many separate Nations under the ethnic group umbrella of Native American Indians. The first link in the OP describes 566 federally recognized tribes, all of which are sovereign nations, representing over 5.2 million American Indian or Alaska Native people, which is close to 2 percent of the US population (as of 2010 Census). The reality of this diversity is one of the objections to the use of homogenised ‘Indian’ stereotypes.

Apart from a couple of exceptions, there is an overwhelming consensus among the people of these nations against, in the words of the NCAI, “derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people”.
It's worthy of debate, but for me the Indians, having been brutally mistreated and almost obliterated in the past, are honoured by being remembered, even in such a silly way.
With respect, this is exactly the issue. It is not up to you, or me, or ‘us’, to decide how an extant ethnic minority should be ‘remembered’.

Native American Indians are mothers, teachers, postal workers, army veterans, gardeners, stamp collectors, students… they come from a diverse range of distinct cultures, some are active in their communities and some are not, they live on reservations, and in cities, and in other countries. They are people, just like you or I. They don’t want to be ‘remembered’ as archaic characters from 1950’s cowboy movies. They want to be treated with the same dignity and respect as the rest of us expect and demand.

Again, in the NCAI’s own words, “rather than honouring Native peoples, these caricatures and stereotypes are harmful, perpetuate negative stereotypes of America’s first peoples, and contribute to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples.”. This has been their position for over 50 years, regardless of how well intentioned any cultural appropriation might be.

What may seem silly to us has real life consequences of the people being stereotyped. For example, in 2005, based on a growing body of social science literature that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping, the American Psychological Association called for the immediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols and images.
By SimonG
#6763
Pooneil wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:40 pm
Hi. Apologies in advance for making my first post a controversial one. :shifty:

I’m sure many of you are aware of the issue (particularly in America) of ‘Indian’ mascots in sports. I think it's becoming increasingly likely that this issue is something English rugby will need to address sooner or later – especially if rugby continues to expand into the USA.

In relation to our sport, it is quite simple: Exeter is the only professional rugby union team in the world that uses an extant ethnic minority, to which they have absolutely no cultural or hereditary connection, as a merchandising brand. If any other ethnic minority were used in any way similar to how the Exeter brand stereotypes ‘Indian’ culture, it would simply not be tolerated.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Exeter Rugby or their fans are setting out to disparage anyone. I’m not calling anyone out. I simply think we (the rugby community) need to have an open and informed discussion, to establish the facts of the matter and dispel the myths, before the issue is forced upon us.

The National Congress of American Indians launched it’s campaign against ‘Indian’ mascots in 1968. And, in case previous decades of pressure, education and advocacy weren’t clear enough, they passed a resolution in 1993 to “condemn the racist and condescending attitude of team owners, colleges and high schools, which continue to demean the members of our Nations” and called upon “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.” This campaign, to “oppose the use of racist and demeaning ‘Indian’ sports mascots”, is still very much a current concern.

I’m certain there was no ill intent when Exeter adopted their current ‘Indian’ brand in 1999, but it seems clear that, at best, they didn’t think to consult the people whose culture they were appropriating. Indeed, it seems likely they simply didn’t even consider, at the time, that there were actual people behind the stereotype. This is the dehumanizing effect of racial stereotypes: people become objects.

The fact that Exeter didn’t consider the autonomy of the culture they were appropriating at the time does not mean we should ignore the issue now.

Arguments in defence of ‘Indian’ mascots have become increasingly untenable. In America two-thirds of ‘Indian’ sports brands have been retired during the past 35 years. The sooner Exeter voluntarily embraces that trend the better; I believe a proactive change would only be a good thing for Exeter rugby club, as well as a positive statement on rugby values in general.

I believe this is a subject that the rugby community needs to discuss in the open. It is as much of a rugby related topic as anything else that happens on our terraces. If the issue was homophobia, we would be discussing it; if it was sexism, we would be discussing it; if it were any other form of racial stereotyping, we would be discussing it.

The three main questions for me are:
1. Are Exeter Rugby Club using and perpetuating a stereotype of an ethnic minority?
2. If yes, is that stereotype harmful and are that ethnic minority aggrieved by the use of that stereotype?
3. If yes, is this something we should accept in our sport?
The answer to the first two questions appears to be a very clear ‘yes’ – but I’m open to persuasion otherwise. I’d like to hear what other people think about question three.

.


You seem to be posting this all over the place. Have you directed your concerns to the club themselves?
By Pooneil
#6776
All over the place?

After a couple of recent commentary references to 'scalping', I had a look around some rugby forums to see if anyone else was discussing this subject. I added a couple of posts to a thread on the Leicester (Rugby Network?) forum that touched on the subject, but couldn't find much else. I then thought it would make sense to start a specific thread on the Exeter forum, to see if there was any reasonable defence for keeping the brand. Before I could respond to the one post that wasn’t an ad hominem attack, the moderator called me a sad c*nt and deleted the thread… they really do not want to talk about it there. :lol

So I started it here.

Yes, I’ve contacted the club a couple of times, but they’ve never responded. As far as I know they’ve always declined to comment whenever it’s come up in the media as well, so I didn’t really expect a reply.
They can't possibly be unaware that their brand might be 'problematic'. Maybe they are in contact with the NCAI, or independently looking at options. Maybe they are just ignoring it because they assume (possibly rightly) that it's not likely to ever be a big issue in the UK. I think that would be a shame; as the saying goes, integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching. :thinking:

.
By ale shark
#6781
I wouldn't worry about it Pooneil. There’ll soon be a tipping point, a critical mass of self-appointed paragons of virtue, people who have no interest in Exeter Rugby Club, the City of Exeter and the sport of Rugby Union, people who have zero links to the culture that they fight so valiantly for. They’ll take their fight for justice to Twitter and take up arms against the club.

The club will ignore them so they’ll turn they attentions to the club’s sponsors. The board of said sponsors will get a sniff of this mass outrage and ill feeling towards themselves through their association with the club and threaten to withdraw their sponsorship. This outrage will have come from well-meaning folks who had previously never spent a penny on the products supplied by the sponsors and have probably never even heard of them. The club will relent and, for the good of mankind, justice will ultimately be served. The mob will move onto their next worthy cause.

Soon the world will be a sterile waste ground, devoid of anything or anyone of remote interest. In this utopia we’ll live on pills and water. Until then, you can probably go and live in North Korea, I’m sure they’ll take you in.

Have a lovely Christmas. Be careful not to appropriate anything for your own enjoyment.
Monty9, AndaleManito, SimonG and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By patgadd
#6800
Trouble is, you're both right. You have to be sensitive to the feelings of those whose ancestors have suffered, but on the other hand people who take offence on behalf of others can be pretty annoying. I've got a sore *rse from sitting on this particular fence.
By SimonG
#6803
An excellent response ale shark. Now if you will forgive me I have to run as I need to write to Queens Park Rangers complaining that their name is an insult to the gay community.
By Pooneil
#6828
ale shark wrote:I wouldn't worry about it Pooneil. There’ll soon be a tipping point, a critical mass of self-appointed paragons of virtue, people who have no interest in Exeter Rugby Club, the City of Exeter and the sport of Rugby Union, people who have zero links to the culture that they fight so valiantly for. They’ll take their fight for justice to Twitter and take up arms against the club.
Can you clarify for me; are you saying that Exeter’s ‘Indian’ brand does not stereotype an extant ethnic minority? And / or that that ethnic minority is not aggrieved? Or are you saying that the stereotyping of an ethnic minority, for financial gain, is something we should accept?
ale shark wrote:Soon the world will be a sterile waste ground, devoid of anything or anyone of remote interest. In this utopia we’ll live on pills and water. Until then, you can probably go and live in North Korea, I’m sure they’ll take you in.
Although I don’t personally understand why anyone would want or get 'enjoyment' from promoting any negative racial stereotype, I actually strongly defend any individual’s right to do so. Everyone has a right to freedom of expression, and no one has a right to never being offended – if that were not the case we would have a ridiculous situation... much like the silly North Korean pills and water Strawman argument you tried to attribute to me. :shame:

We all have the freedom to express our ideas and opinions without censorship, but with that freedom comes an implied responsibility. You have the right to walk down Exeter high street screaming racial slurs at the top of your voice. But you also have the responsibility to accept the fact that exercising your ‘rights’ has an impact on the rest of society, and you also have a responsibility to accept the societal consequences.

A businesses, club, organization, etc. promoting a racial stereotype for financial gain is completely different.
ale shark wrote:...people who have zero links to the culture that they fight so valiantly for.
Following this reasoning would suggest no one has any right defending the civil rights of anyone that isn’t ‘like Me’. Substitute ‘Indian’ for any other marginalised or minority group – be it race, gender, disability, etc. – and you should be able to see what a flawed line of reasoning this is.

Also I can’t ignore the irony of you (personally) valiantly fighting on behalf of people who choose to negatively stereotype a culture to which they have zero links to. :doh:

.
Last edited by Pooneil on Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Pooneil
#6831
SimonG wrote:An excellent response ale shark. Now if you will forgive me I have to run as I need to write to Queens Park Rangers complaining that their name is an insult to the gay community.
Have you read anything I have written?

Queens Park Rangers is not a reference to homosexuality.
Queens Park Rangers are not promoting a negative stereotype of homosexuality for financial gain.
There are no relevant advocacy groups objecting to the stereotype (that Queens Park Rangers are not even promoting)
I've explained that historical events, names, labels, animals, insects AND mascots are a ‘something’.
I've explained that a human being is a someone, and not a something
Etc.
Etc.

I realise you are poking in jest, but strawmen, ad hominem and general obfuscation makes reasonable discussion difficult and unpleasant. I’m open to opposing opinions, if they are relevant to the discussion.

.
By ale shark
#6832
Pooneil wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:32 pm

Can you clarify for me; are you saying that Exeter’s ‘Indian’ brand does not stereotype an extant ethnic minority? And / or that that ethnic minority is not aggrieved? Or are you saying that the stereotyping of an ethnic minority, for financial gain, is something we should accept?

.....

Also I can’t ignore the irony of you (personally) valiantly fighting on behalf of people who choose to negatively stereotype a culture to which they have zero links to. :doh:

.


I've got nothing to clarify because frankly I couldn't care less, I'm certainly not fighting on behalf of people who choose to negatively stereotype a culture, far from it. Exeter can do what they want. If it became no longer commercially viable for them then I'm sure they’d explore other options. In the meantime, they’re one of the best supported clubs in the country and one of the only ones who make a profit.

Looking forward to welcoming them up to Salford tomorrow. First time AJ Bell has sold out. Maybe there's an army of disgruntled Apaches who are turning up to protest, maybe not.
AndaleManito liked this
By SimonG
#6833
Pooneil wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:39 pm
SimonG wrote:An excellent response ale shark. Now if you will forgive me I have to run as I need to write to Queens Park Rangers complaining that their name is an insult to the gay community.
Have you read anything I have written?

Queens Park Rangers is not a reference to homosexuality.
Queens Park Rangers are not promoting a negative stereotype of homosexuality for financial gain.
There are no relevant advocacy groups objecting to the stereotype (that Queens Park Rangers are not even promoting)
I've explained that historical events, names, labels, animals, insects AND mascots are a ‘something’.
I've explained that a human being is a someone, and not a something
Etc.
Etc.

I realise you are poking in jest, but strawmen, ad hominem and general obfuscation makes reasonable discussion difficult and unpleasant. I’m open to opposing opinions, if they are relevant to the discussion.

.
Yes I have read what you have written. Endlessly and on several different sites.

I'll leave the name calling to you.

I wonder how many native Americans have complained to Exeter?
AndaleManito liked this
By Pooneil
#6984
SimonG wrote:I wonder how many native Americans have complained to Exeter?
I already wrote:The first link in the OP describes 566 federally recognized tribes, all of which are sovereign nations, representing over 5.2 million American Indian or Alaska Native people, which is close to 2 percent of the US population (as of 2010 Census).
and wrote:Apart from a couple of exceptions, there is an overwhelming consensus among the people of these nations against, in the words of the National Congress of American Indians, “derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people”.

The National Congress of American Indians, in line with the overwhelming consensus among American Indian Nations, advocacy groups and individuals, have unambiguously called for “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.”

I see absolutely no reason why ““all reasonable individuals...” wouldn't, or shouldn’t, apply to Exeter Rugby club. Exeter Rugby can't possibly be unaware of this issue. Why should a specific ‘complaint’ to Exeter Rugby even be necessary?

Besides that, it’s actually irrelevant ‘who’ is ‘complaining’ anyway; do you have a specific number for how many “native Americans” qualifies, in your mind, as a valid complaint? If the complainants have a multiracial heritage, for example half-American Indian, would you need twice as many? :thinking:
.
By SimonG
#7030
Pooneil wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:52 pm
SimonG wrote:I wonder how many native Americans have complained to Exeter?
I already wrote:The first link in the OP describes 566 federally recognized tribes, all of which are sovereign nations, representing over 5.2 million American Indian or Alaska Native people, which is close to 2 percent of the US population (as of 2010 Census).
and wrote:Apart from a couple of exceptions, there is an overwhelming consensus among the people of these nations against, in the words of the National Congress of American Indians, “derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people”.

The National Congress of American Indians, in line with the overwhelming consensus among American Indian Nations, advocacy groups and individuals, have unambiguously called for “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.”

I see absolutely no reason why ““all reasonable individuals...” wouldn't, or shouldn’t, apply to Exeter Rugby club. Exeter Rugby can't possibly be unaware of this issue. Why should a specific ‘complaint’ to Exeter Rugby even be necessary?

Besides that, it’s actually irrelevant ‘who’ is ‘complaining’ anyway; do you have a specific number for how many “native Americans” qualifies, in your mind, as a valid complaint? If the complainants have a multiracial heritage, for example half-American Indian, would you need twice as many? :thinking:
.
You remind me of the excellent point made by the late Terry Wogan that there is never any shortage of people wishing to take offence on behalf of others.

You claim to be open to the opinion of others. Doesn't seem much like it to me.
User avatar
By Abmatt
#7214
Pooneil wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 12:40 pm
Hi. Apologies in advance for making my first post a controversial one. :shifty:

I’m sure many of you are aware of the issue (particularly in America) of ‘Indian’ mascots in sports. I think it's becoming increasingly likely that this issue is something English rugby will need to address sooner or later – especially if rugby continues to expand into the USA.

In relation to our sport, it is quite simple: Exeter is the only professional rugby union team in the world that uses an extant ethnic minority, to which they have absolutely no cultural or hereditary connection, as a merchandising brand. If any other ethnic minority were used in any way similar to how the Exeter brand stereotypes ‘Indian’ culture, it would simply not be tolerated.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting Exeter Rugby or their fans are setting out to disparage anyone. I’m not calling anyone out. I simply think we (the rugby community) need to have an open and informed discussion, to establish the facts of the matter and dispel the myths, before the issue is forced upon us.

The National Congress of American Indians launched it’s campaign against ‘Indian’ mascots in 1968. And, in case previous decades of pressure, education and advocacy weren’t clear enough, they passed a resolution in 1993 to “condemn the racist and condescending attitude of team owners, colleges and high schools, which continue to demean the members of our Nations” and called upon “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.” This campaign, to “oppose the use of racist and demeaning ‘Indian’ sports mascots”, is still very much a current concern.

I’m certain there was no ill intent when Exeter adopted their current ‘Indian’ brand in 1999, but it seems clear that, at best, they didn’t think to consult the people whose culture they were appropriating. Indeed, it seems likely they simply didn’t even consider, at the time, that there were actual people behind the stereotype. This is the dehumanizing effect of racial stereotypes: people become objects.

The fact that Exeter didn’t consider the autonomy of the culture they were appropriating at the time does not mean we should ignore the issue now.

Arguments in defence of ‘Indian’ mascots have become increasingly untenable. In America two-thirds of ‘Indian’ sports brands have been retired during the past 35 years. The sooner Exeter voluntarily embraces that trend the better; I believe a proactive change would only be a good thing for Exeter rugby club, as well as a positive statement on rugby values in general.

I believe this is a subject that the rugby community needs to discuss in the open. It is as much of a rugby related topic as anything else that happens on our terraces. If the issue was homophobia, we would be discussing it; if it was sexism, we would be discussing it; if it were any other form of racial stereotyping, we would be discussing it.

The three main questions for me are:
1. Are Exeter Rugby Club using and perpetuating a stereotype of an ethnic minority?
2. If yes, is that stereotype harmful and are that ethnic minority aggrieved by the use of that stereotype?
3. If yes, is this something we should accept in our sport?
The answer to the first two questions appears to be a very clear ‘yes’ – but I’m open to persuasion otherwise. I’d like to hear what other people think about question three.

.


More in life to worry about.

I wasted 5 mins of my life reading this over-sensitive snowflake drivel.
SimonG and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#7263
What caught my eye was the reporting of being called “a sad c*nt” by a moderator on a Rugby Network forum.

Surely this is not acceptable?

And anyway, from what I remember of our time on Sports (Rugby) Network the software had blocks preventing such words being shown.

As to the core discussion, frankly I can’t get outraged on behalf of Native American peoples, but I wouldn’t want to sit behind anyone wearing a huge feather head-dress unless I’d brought along some good sharp scissors.
By SimonG
#7266
TeflonTed wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:56 am
What caught my eye was the reporting of being called “a sad c*nt” by a moderator on a Rugby Network forum.

Surely this is not acceptable?

And anyway, from what I remember of our time on Sports (Rugby) Network the software had blocks preventing such words being shown.

As to the core discussion, frankly I can’t get outraged on behalf of Native American peoples, but I wouldn’t want to sit behind anyone wearing a huge feather head-dress unless I’d brought along some good sharp scissors.
I once sat next to a man with a shark on his head. I asked him which team he was supporting and he said "Sharks". I think my question managed rather passed over his head which was an achievement in itself!
By Pooneil
#9158
Bored "omoji" is bottom row, forth one in. :bored:

If you have a valid defence of why it is acceptable to stereotype an ethnic minority, it would be interesting to hear it.

Ad hominem is tedious and contributes nothing. Posting that you’re not interested (because it’s an issue that doesn’t directly effect you) is pointless and self contradictory.
By Pooneil
#9201
Firstly, I didn’t say you had to provide a defence. I said it would be interesting to hear one (from anyone).

You asked a question before, “I wonder how many native Americans have complained to Exeter?”, which I answered. You chose to ignore that answer and returned to personal attacks. Your ‘opinion’ of me personally is off topic.

You don’t have to agree, you don’t have to care, you don’t have to be interested… and you also don’t have to respond at all. You certainly don’t have to respond with personal attacks; this is nothing more than flaming, it adds nothing to the discussion and is most probably against forum rules.

If you don’t like what you see, don’t look.
By AndaleManito
#9211
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/t ... ropriation

I'd suggest having a read of this Pooneil.

At the heart of it, I'd have to say I disagree with anyone telling someone else what they can or can't wear, providing what they're wearing isn't deliberately designed to cause cause fear/incite hatred in others (notice I don't include "offend" in this).

If the Chiefs or their fans were "redding up" for the games then that's a different matter, but as far as I'm aware that's not what's happening. I don't think anyone should not be allowed to wear a feathered headdress, regardless of where they come from or what superstrate culture they adhere to.

The world is built on taking from other cultures, or "cultural appropriation" as you might call it.

Regardless, I'd say you're wasting your time (or at least not going about this in the right way) getting into semantics on a rugby forum, where people like to talk about rugby, and not be told that their opinions on social matters are wrong. I for one see sport as an escape from politics and the like, but I admit that's not true for everyone. I don't disagree though that the point you raise is interesting and worthy of consideration. However,

"I believe this is a subject that the rugby community needs to discuss in the open. It is as much of a rugby related topic as anything else that happens on our terraces. If the issue was homophobia, we would be discussing it; if it was sexism, we would be discussing it; if it were any other form of racial stereotyping, we would be discussing it."

I would totally disagree with you here, and I think equating "cultural appropriation", which people might argue doesn't exist/isn't actually harming anyone/is a quintessential part of society, to homophobia, sexism and racism. Racism, sexism and homophobia are clearly definable and visible, no one would argue that they they aren't harmful, and in many countries there exist laws preventing their presence in the work place and at home. As far as I'm aware no one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for wearing a headdress, bindi or turban.

I must ask you, do you honestly, really believe that the club Exeter Chiefs truly and discernibly hurts Native Americans through their name and branding?

By extension, if I wore a sombrero at a party, would that truly and discernibly hurt the Mexican nation and it's culture? Whilst it is an extrapolation, I believe it is a logical one.

Anyway, I do think it is an interesting discussion, but I think from the outset your title of "People are not mascots." kinda makes it seem like you're setting out to lecture people on what is, frankly, your opinion.

Whilst I agree with some of your points, telling people that their opinion is wrong from the outset isn't really conductive to persuading them to change their views, and if anything just riles people up on what is for the most part a peaceful forum. It certainly makes it seem like you want to tell everyone what is right and what is wrong, rather than engage in healthy discussion.

Just my 2 cents
Last edited by AndaleManito on Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
SimonG, Abmatt liked this
By Van Cannonball
#9213
Well I’ve always thought that the “Sharks” suffix was a bit silly, although there are benefits to branding, but I think it’s high time that we apologise to the Shark population for this appropriation. Clearly not all Sharks are fearsome creatures, most probably just want to be left alone to live a quiet life. Same goes for Bears and Tigers etc.

Whilst we’re on it, if it’s not appropriate to consider a race of all people to be the same, and therefore offensive to use them in a club name, why is it not a problem to use a place name?

To use your argument, I’m sure there are all kinds of people who live in Exeter, Sale and everywhere else, all living different lives with different professions and quite likely not all that much like the rugby players purporting to represent them. How dare they?

I propose that the teams are renamed Rugby club 1, club 2 etc to fix this before the relevant locations start a petition, although there may be some debate around who gets to be the earlier numbers who would clearly appear to be superior...so perhaps 12 clubs with exactly the same name and no one knows who is who or where they play and we just sack the whole thing off.
SimonG, AndaleManito, Abmatt liked this
By Pooneil
#9251
Hi, AndaleManito. Thanks for the link. On the whole I agree with the gist of the author’s point. All cultures borrow from others, everyday acculturation creates healthy diverse societies, I’m all in favour of that. But I think the author is conflating two different things: acculturation is not the same as promoting inaccurate (never mind offensive) stereotypes. Putting Reggae Reggae Sauce on your Shepard's Pie is not the same thing as branding jam with a golliwog.

As far as I understand it, there is no issue with Native culture being absorbed into other cultures. The problem is that the ‘American Indian culture’ that is being ‘borrowed’ and ‘absorbed’ by sports brands is, according to American Indians themselves, a distorted, crass and offensive stereotype – a stereotype that stems from a long and very brutal history of subjugation. This point is actually made in your link, when the author quotes the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians.
GQ wrote:Jacqueline Pata, executive director at The National Congress Of American Indians, told me, “The sports mascot and name issue [the name Washington Redskins is so resented she refuses to say it] creates a stereotype that doesn’t represent who we really are. It gets misused by fans.”
AndaleManito wrote: At the heart of it, I'd have to say I disagree with anyone telling someone else what they can or can't wear, providing what they're wearing isn't deliberately designed to cause cause fear/incite hatred in others (notice I don't include "offend" in this).
I 100% agree. I’ve already said the same, in reply to ‘ale shark’ in post #6828.
However, there is a vast difference between individuals making personal choices (often innocent and respectfully, sometimes ignorant and offensive) and organisations promoting a distorted stereotype of an ethnic minority for financial gain. The campaign against Indian Mascots is very much focused on the latter.
AndaleManito wrote:Regardless, I'd say you're wasting your time (or at least not going about this in the right way) getting into semantics on a rugby forum, where people like to talk about rugby, and not be told that their opinions on social matters are wrong. I for one see sport as an escape from politics and the like, but I admit that's not true for everyone. I don't disagree though that the point you raise is interesting and worthy of consideration
Fair enough. But if someone is not interested in a particular subject, or it offends their political sensitivities, there is always the option to just ignore the thread. I don’t believe we should censor ourselves to create political safe spaces, just because certain discussions make some people uncomfortable… and I’m the snowflake, apparently. :whistle:
AndaleManito wrote:I would totally disagree with you here, and I think equating "cultural appropriation", which people might argue doesn't exist/isn't actually harming anyone/is a quintessential part of society, to homophobia, sexism and racism. Racism, sexism and homophobia are clearly definable and visible, no one would argue that they they aren't harmful, and in many countries there exist laws preventing their presence in the work place and at home. As far as I'm aware no one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for wearing a headdress, bindi or turban.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Promoting a harmful racial stereotype of American Indians – an extant ethnic minority – is exactly the same as promoting a harmful stereotype of any other ethnic minority. One could quibble over how comparatively ‘racist’ each example is, but it makes no sense to say that racism (or sexism, or homophobia) in some way doesn’t apply to American Indians in the same way it does to any other group.

I can’t stress this enough… the issue is not acculturation. The issue is the promotion of what the NCAI and other advocacy groups describe as derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people.

Using your headdress, bindi or turban example (not that anyone was suggesting prosecuting people for wear such headgear)… Imagine if a sports team opted to brand themselves as, for example, The Harrogate Indians, complete with generic snake-charming foam mascot for half time entertainment. Imagine fans in mock turbans and choruses of bastardised Bollywood chants… you get the idea. People might argue it’s just a bit of fun, or that it honours these ‘poor but happy’ people, some might vociferous claim they don’t care or aren’t interested, but in this context I think most people can understand that such branding is problematic at best.

It is totally fine to eat curry and do yoga… though probably not at the same time. :)
AndaleManito wrote:I must ask you, do you honestly, really believe that the club Exeter Chiefs truly and discernibly hurts Native Americans through their name and branding?
Well, it’s not something I simply made up.
The NCAI and other advocacy groups, as well as over 500 individual federally recognized tribes, representing over 5.2 million American Indian or Alaska Native people, have unequivocally stated their clear position against “derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular cultureand have called for “all reasonable individuals in decision-making positions to voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.

There is also a growing body of social science literature that shows the harmful effects of racial stereotyping, and the American Psychological Association has called for the immediate retirement of all American Indian mascots, symbols and images. Other bodies have passed similar resolutions.

I doubt Exeter Rugby Club are at the forefront of their concerns, but don’t see any reason why Exeter would be exempt from “all reasonable individuals...”
AndaleManito wrote:By extension, if I wore a sombrero at a party, would that truly and discernibly hurt the Mexican nation and it's culture? Whilst it is an extrapolation, I believe it is a logical one.
Again, that is your personal choice, which I would argue is different to an organisation promoting an ethnic stereotype for financial gain, especially if it’s expressly against the wishes of the ethnic group in question.
AndaleManito wrote:Whilst I agree with some of your points, telling people that their opinion is wrong from the outset isn't really conductive to persuading them to change their views, and if anything just riles people up on what is for the most part a peaceful forum. It certainly makes it seem like you want to tell everyone what is right and what is wrong, rather than engage in healthy discussion.
I don’t think I’ve told anyone they are wrong, especially from the outset. If it’s come across that way, that was not my intention. I went out of my way in the OP to stress that I don’t believe there was any ill intent in Exeter’s branding and that I wasn’t calling anyone out. It seems to me that some people are overly defensive and have been unnecessarily combative. I haven’t exchanged any personal attacks and I’ve requested we stick to healthy discussion a couple of times. You, and others, were able to discuss the issue without getting 'riled up', I can’t be responsible for how other people choose to react.
Last edited by Pooneil on Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
By Pooneil
#9252
Van Cannonball wrote:Well I’ve always thought that the “Sharks” suffix was a bit silly, although there are benefits to branding, but I think it’s high time that we apologise to the Shark population for this appropriation. Clearly not all Sharks are fearsome creatures, most probably just want to be left alone to live a quiet life. Same goes for Bears and Tigers etc.
The other reason for using the title ‘People are not Mascots’…
The most harmful effect of racial stereotyping – not just my opinion, but backed up by countless peer reviewed studies – is that it dehumanizes marginalised groups of people. The fact that you have here equated an ethnic minority with animals makes this point very well.

I assume you recognise that you, Van Cannonball, as a human being, have certain rights that are different to and beyond the rights of animals. But you’ve effectively stated that the rights of this particular group of human beings (Native Americans) are the same as the rights of sharks, bears and other animals. Are you really suggesting that this particular group of humans don’t, like you and I, have human rights that are different to and beyond the rights of animals?
Van Cannonball wrote:Whilst we’re on it, if it’s not appropriate to consider a race of all people to be the same, and therefore offensive to use them in a club name, why is it not a problem to use a place name?
Is this a serious question? A geographical place name is an objective fact, and geographical locations are inanimate non living things. Really, this makes your animal / ethnic minority comparison look well thought out. :doh:
Van Cannonball wrote:To use your argument...
With respect, you have clearly not understood my argument.
Last edited by Pooneil on Wed Feb 05, 2020 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#9255
Pooneil wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:26 am
I assume you recognise that you, poyntonshark, as a human being, have certain rights that are different to and beyond the rights of animals. But you’ve effectively stated that the rights of this particular group of human beings (Native Americans) are the same as the rights of sharks, bears and other animals. Are you really suggesting that this particular group of humans don’t, like you and I, have human rights that are different to and beyond the rights of animals?
With respect, I have stated nothing of the sort. I have, in fact, stated nothing.
I have queried Van Canonball's obvious disdain for the people of the Midlands town of Rugby.

Just for a little more information. I used to work for US-based software companies, I know a few native Americans in Alaska, California, Texas, and Louisiana. Of those that I know one or two of them are passionate about the campaign to remove the mascots and other misrepresentations of their culture, but the majority simply don't care. They don't take offense because they don't associate themselves with what the mascots (mis) represent.
By Pooneil
#9256
Sorry, poyntonshark, I pasted in the wrong name. My bad. :doh: I've corrected in now.

As it happens the most recent study, published this week, confirms the anecdotal evidence that support for ending Indian mascots is growing. https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/na ... ts-survey/

Personally I'm not a fan of using polls to judge the validity of issues like civil rights. If colonialists had been more successful in eradicating the native population, it wouldn't make the rights of the few that survived any less important. During the Jim Crow laws, poll after poll showed few blacks prepared to object to segregation; having just achieved freedom from slavery, the mood was to not rock the boat further. Obviously, and thankfully, that still changed over time.
Last edited by Pooneil on Wed Feb 05, 2020 12:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
By ale shark
#9257
poyntonshark wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 2:55 am
So Van Cannonball, what exactly is your beef with the good people of Rugby?
Sorry Poynton but please can you stop using the term beef. Thanks.
By AndaleManito
#9259
"Using your headdress, bindi or turban example (not that anyone was suggesting prosecuting people for wear such headgear)… Imagine if a sports team opted to brand themselves as, for example, The Harrogate Indians, complete with generic snake-charming foam mascot for half time entertainment. Imagine fans in mock turbans and choruses of bastardised Bollywood chants… you get the idea. People might argue it’s just a bit of fun, or that it honours these ‘poor but happy’ people, some might vociferous claim they don’t care or aren’t interested, but in this context I think most people can understand that such branding is problematic at best."

To be fair it's kind of hard to disagree with you on that. I suppose I would argue that the "Exeter Chief mascot" is not really a figure based on reality, more a fictional warrior in the same vein as the Glasgow Warriors, the York City Knights or the Widnes Wikings. I mean the Egyptian National Football team is called "The Pharaohs".

I think there is a slight fallacy in your comparison to the "Harrogate Indians" in that it's not direct - not the Exeter Natives/Exeter Indians/Exeter "Redskins" - not every Native American is a Chief.

It seems to me that the club, after calling their 1st XV "Chiefs", as is common for rugby clubs in the south west, liked the idea of what the "Chief" represented - a Warrior.

An alternative comparison to make would be a club called "Exeter Knights", whose mascot is a knight in shining armour and whose fans chant "Jerusalem" and "Swing Low" - what would you think of that? I mean, as far as I know, none of the York City Knights' fans are part of the nobility! :lol
By Pooneil
#9261
AndaleManito wrote:I suppose I would argue that the "Exeter Chief mascot" is not really a figure based on reality...
This is certainly true, it’s an archaic and derogatory stereotype from an era before Native peoples were even legally recognised human. But this is the problem, it is clear who the stereotype applies to. Golliwogs are no more acceptable today because it’s become increasingly understood that they are not based on reality.
AndaleManito wrote:I think there is a slight fallacy in your comparison to the "Harrogate Indians" in that it's not direct - not the Exeter Natives/Exeter Indians/Exeter "Redskins" - not every Native American is a Chief.
Already answered that, in reply to Peter D in post #6699
I agree, the Chiefs moniker in a general sense may not in itself be problematic on it’s own. But coupled with a well understood stereotype of an extant ethnic minority and it becomes a problem. There is no escaping the fact that the Exeter brand is a reference to an archaic stereotype from 1950’s cowboy movies.
AndaleManito wrote:It seems to me that the club, after calling their 1st XV "Chiefs", as is common for rugby clubs in the south west, liked the idea of what the "Chief" represented - a Warrior.

Again, it's not just the name... The Indian Nobel Warrior is also an inaccurate stereotype that misrepresents a diverse ethnic minority.
AndaleManito wrote:An alternative comparison to make would be a club called "Exeter Knights", whose mascot is a knight in shining armour and whose fans chant "Jerusalem" and "Swing Low" - what would you think of that? I mean, as far as I know, none of the York City Knights' fans are part of the nobility! :lol
I wouldn't and don't have a problem with that. Knights, Warriors and even Pharaohs are not an extant ethnic minority, and certainly not a historically subjugated minority that is currently fighting on several fronts for the same human rights, dignity and respect that the rest of us expect and demand.

Exeter Chiefs are the only club that uses an extant ethnic minority as it's branding.
Animals, insects, historical references, concepts, geographical place names etc. are a something

Mascots are also a something People are someone.
By AndaleManito
#9264
"This is certainly true, it’s an archaic and derogatory stereotype from an era before Native peoples were even legally recognised human. But this is the problem, it is clear who the stereotype applies to. Golliwogs are no more acceptable today because it’s become increasingly understood that they are not based on reality."

- why/how is it derogatory?

"Again, it's not just the name... The Indian Nobel Warrior is also an inaccurate stereotype that misrepresents a diverse ethnic minority."

- I think this would be an issue if Exeter were claiming that their branding is an accurate representation of American Indians, which they're clearly not doing.

"I wouldn't and don't have a problem with that. Knights, Warriors and even Pharaohs are not an extant ethnic minority, and certainly not a historically subjugated minority that is currently fighting on several fronts for the same human rights, dignity and respect that the rest of us expect and demand."

- why would it matter if they're an extant ethnic minority/historically subjugated? This is where I think your argument falls short, and pisses people off. It's a slippery slope that leads to saying things like "you can't be racist if you're a person of colour/you can't be offended if you're white/only people of colour can experience racism" (not putting words in your mouth, but surely you can see how your argument is similar). It really seems like your argument boils down to if the Native Americans hadn't been persecuted then it would be fine to dress up as them and sing their songs.
By Pooneil
#9265
Van Cannonball. The argument – that if we stop using ethnic minorities, we’ll have to stop using animals – is frequently used as a defence for Indian Mascots in all seriousness. I admit I jumped the gun and didn’t realise that you were joking. Sorry about that. :angel:
By AndaleManito
#9266
I would also refer you back to your title - "PEOPLE ARE NOT MASCOTS."

it seems you now want to clarify this by saying "people are not mascots unless they weren't persecuted and then it's fine for them to be mascots"
By Pooneil
#9269
AndaleManito wrote:- why/how is it derogatory?
Because, according to the people being stereotyped, it is disparaging and belittling, and tends to distract and diminish their true identity. I’m perhaps not the right person to explain this in detail. The NCAI have a contact address on their site, and a mission statement to inform and educate. I’m sure they would welcome the dialogue. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/derogatory
AndaleManito wrote:- I think this would be an issue if Exeter were claiming that their branding is an accurate representation of American Indians, which they're clearly not doing.
Okay. Personally, I think an inaccurate stereotype is worse that an accurate representation (despite having no cultural or historical connection with Exeter). I suppose we’ll have to disagree on this point.
AndaleManito wrote:- why would it matter if they're an extant ethnic minority/historically subjugated? This is where I think your argument falls short, and pisses people off. It's a slippery slope that leads to saying things like "you can't be racist if you're a person of colour/you can't be offended if you're white/only people of colour can experience racism" (not putting words in your mouth, but surely you can see how your argument is similar). It really seems like your argument boils down to if the Native Americans hadn't been persecuted then it would be fine to dress up as them and sing their songs.
It wasn’t until 1924 that ‘Indians’ were legally recognised by the US government as human beings. Even then, for another 50 years they were prohibited by many laws from expressing or exercising their own traditional religious rights, spiritual and cultural practices. Up until very recently in US history, wearing a headdress could get a Native American Indian jailed or even killed. While the stereotype that we are familiar with was becoming established – in movies, branding and white kids playing cowboys and indians – Native American children were still being forcibly removed from their families to be ‘civilized’ in state institutions.
I’m not suggesting subjugated minorities are the only people who have rights, I’m simply suggesting that what we might see as a silly distraction is justifiably seen as a more serious issue by others.

It's impossible to fully understand the point of view of other people, but in a civil society we owe it to others to accept that their points of view are as genuinely held as our own, even if we disagree. I have no reason to believe that Native Americans are being over sensitive or kicking up a fuss about nothing.
By Pooneil
#9272
AndaleManito wrote:
Wed Feb 05, 2020 1:55 pm
I would also refer you back to your title - "PEOPLE ARE NOT MASCOTS."

it seems you now want to clarify this by saying "people are not mascots unless they weren't persecuted and then it's fine for them to be mascots"
Exeter are the only club that brand themselves with an extant autonomous group of people, so I have no comparison to what else would or wouldn't be fine.
By Pooneil
#13764
Following the renewed focus on systemic racism, Native American mascots are in the spotlight again.

A petition has been launched, asking “Exeter Chiefs to drop its racist use of Native American imagery & branding”.

It’s long overdue that English rugby got on the right side of history. Please sign the petition and urge Exeter to at least address the issue

There is also a counter petition that states “The usage of the Native American in the Exeter Chiefs logo and brand is to honour and respect their cultural beliefs.”

This is like wolf-whistling and making crass lewd remarks at women who are complete strangers, and then telling them they should feel attractive and flattered. :doh:

Apparently the ‘honour’ and ‘respect’ of the author and signatories of this petition didn’t extend as far as bothering to find out how actual Native Americans feel about having their culture used as a marketing device.

The petition calling for the Exeter ‘Indian’ brand to be dropped contains a link to the National Congress of American Indians – the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, representing 566 federally recognized tribes, all of which are sovereign nations, representing over 5.2 million American Indian or Alaska Native people, which is close to 2 percent of the US population (as of 2010 Census).

In that link, just five paragraphs down, is this statement:
Specifically, rather than honoring Native peoples, these caricatures and stereotypes are harmful, perpetuate negative stereotypes of America’s first peoples, and contribute to a disregard for the personhood of Native peoples. -- National Congress of American Indians

This unequivocal position of the NCAI is frequently reflected in Indian representative media, by Native Americans themselves, and is backed up by numerous social science studies, for example, here, and here.

The practice of using Native mascots emerged at the same time the US government had active policies to destroy Native culture, Native language and Native traditions – such as the forced removal of Native children from their families to be ‘civilised’ in Christian boarding schools; white children were playing ‘Indian’ at a time when Native Americans could be jailed, or in some cases killed, for practising their own cultural traditions.

The Exeter brand is not respecting or honouring Native Americans, it is ‘honouring’ a racial stereotype of ‘Indians’, very much against the wishes of Native Americans.
AndaleManito liked this
By SimonG
#13872
Another lecture from the poster who is totally unable to accept any opinions other than his own are valid and who rubbishes those that don't agree with him.

If nothing else it has encouraged me to sign the counter petition
https://www.change.org/p/exeter-rugby-c ... ur-to-them

I would encourage anyone else who objects to the tactics used by self-righteous bullies like this to do the same.
ale shark liked this
By Pooneil
#13928
Dude, stop being such a snowflake. No one is bullying you, you are not the victim in this. :lol

As for not accepting contrary opinions, you have offered nothing here but strawman arguments and ad hominem, as was the case when I raised this issue on the Exeter forum. You don’t have the luxury here of a moderator who is prepared to selectively delete posts and entire threads of information and opinions that you and he personally don’t like. I’m open to opposing opinions – anything from Exeter Rugby would be better than the years of deafening silence – but your personal opinion of me or my motives is irrelevant.

If it makes you feel better, sure, sign the petition telling an ethnic minority what is respectful and honourable to their culture, regardless of whether they agree or not. After more than five decades of objecting to ‘Indian’ mascots, and five centuries of colonialism, introduced disease, ethnic cleansing, slavery and forced removal from ancestral lands, perhaps a petition from bunch of folk in Devon will finally make the ungrateful bastards accept the honour of being racially stereotyped for marketing purposes. :thinking:

As U.S. Army colonel and Native American, John Orendorff, put it some time ago:
"I often feel that the underlying point of these 'honors' is that my Indian heritage is owned by others. The message I'm constantly getting is: 'We own you. We will define how we honor you. Don't tell us whether you like it or not, because we own you.
By SimonG
#13930
Another lecture from the poster who is totally unable to accept any opinions other than his own are valid and who rubbishes those that don't agree with him.

Along with same name calling this time for good measure.
By Elgar
#13943
I’m largely, quite strongly, with the original poster on this one.

There doesn’t need to be any intended offence to in fact cause offence and clearly nobody at the club ever sought to cause any offence.

But where genuine offence is felt, it’s not clear to me why the appropriate response is to ignore or be defensive rather than to be receptive, understanding and accommodating.

Particularly given the context around the history and present disadvantage of the Native American people and culture.

Nor is it clear to me what changing the branding (which probably wouldn’t even require changing the club’s name) would be the start of a slippery slope toward.

Garvey's joined Gloucester for the rest of this se[…]

Trouble at Welford Road t'mill.

Still rumours that Manu is on his way to you

tantrum

Aotearoa Matches

... And a Sale connection on the Force tighthead.