General Rugby Discussion II

Teferi

At risk of being pulled into a thoroughly boring debate about appropriation, the Saracens weren't a minority culture, the Native Americans are.

thomond2006

Saracen was a Middle Ages term. I don't think it carried a derogatory tone but I'm open to correction.

Yeah_Right

errlloyd wrote: »

There was a big backlash from the native American community against Kansas City and the Washington Red Skins. But also against festival goers wearing fake Indian headpieces to music festivals. I guess its all cultural appropriation and they see it a little like blackface?

Figured Exeter were far enough away to avoid it, but if they're nipping it in the bud here fair play to them.

I knew the Redskins were getting a lot of grief (and rightly so) didn't realise the Chiefs were as well. I've heard noise about the Cleveland Indians as well but never anything about the Chicago Blackhawks or the Golden State Warriors.

I wonder how long it will be before the Crusaders or the Highlanders get targeted.

pickarooney

Teferi wrote: »

At risk of being pulled into a thoroughly boring debate about appropriation, the Saracens weren't a minority culture, the Native Americans are.

I'd say they both are in Devon. If it's a.btanding clash surely the well known rugby side 'the chiefs' would be a more obvious one than a US hockey team?

The whole crest thing makes no sense for me.in relation to Exeter though. What were they thinking exactly?

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

At risk of being pulled into a thoroughly boring debate about appropriation, the Saracens weren't a minority culture, the Native Americans are.

The Saracens weren't a culture at all. It's seen as a pejorative. It was just a blanket term used by British writers to refer to people from the Arabic peninsula in the same way "Oriental" was used to refer to people from the far east. Hence it's usage pretty much disappearing in modern times.

I don't have any crazy problem with either usage. I think its weird for white people in London and Exeter to call their teams Saracens and Chiefs and dress up in fezes and head dresses, but I don't think they're harming anyone and I don't think anyone is offended. I think it's taken far worse when it's a team in America.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Teferi wrote: »

At risk of being pulled into a thoroughly boring debate about appropriation, the Saracens weren't a minority culture, the Native Americans are.

The Saracens weren't a culture at all. It's seen as a pejorative. It was just a blanket term used by British writers to refer to people from the Arabic peninsula in the same way "Oriental" was used to refer to people from the far east. Hence it's usage pretty much disappearing in modern times.

I don't have any crazy problem with either usage. I think its weird for white people in London and Exeter to call their teams Saracens and Chiefs and dress up in fezes and head dresses, but I don't think they're harming anyone and I don't think anyone is offended. I think it's taken far worse when it's a team in America.

Nope, the saracens were originally a distinct ethnic group before the word eventually evolved into a word to describe all Muslims in the Middle-Ages.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

Nope, the saracens were originally a distinct ethnic group before the word eventually evolved into a word to describe all Muslims in the Middle-Ages.

They weren't a distinct ethnic group. They were Arabs. It was just a word that was adopted because it was the name of a region on the peninsula and people weren't particularly enlightened about these things in the 2nd century. And that word wasn't 'saracens' but the English word is derived from it.

However there's absolutely no doubt its usage as a pejorative term. And the usage in England specifically is that usage, referring to non-Christians as enemies and often in a racist way, not the usage in Greek or Roman (which was a different word).

It's pretty easy to make the case that its far worse than "Chiefs", which wasn't really ever used that way as far as I'm aware, might be wrong on that.

British Poetry Companion:

The Facts on File Companion to British Poetry Before 1600 wrote:

SARACEN The word Saracen is an English adaptation of the Greek word sarakenos (easterner). It was used commonly in medieval and early modern British literature to refer to any non-Christian, non-Jewish person, usually from the Middle East but also possibly from North Africa or even Spain; Arab or Muslim are rough synonyms. The use of the term is usually pejorative and indicates an opponent of Christianity. It is seldom attached to actual cultural knowledge; instead, most literary depictions of Saracens involve simple behavioral stereotypes (treachery, greed, cowardice), either for comic effect or as part pro-Christian propaganda.

So really, I think if the decision is that Chiefs isn't acceptable for Exeter, Nigel Wray should be under similar pressure with his lot. Personally, I think they're both fairly innocuous.

Buer

I don't know what I can and can't say anymore in case someone gets offended. I see The Simpsons is coming under increasing fire now too over the past several weeks for their characters.

There's a line, people.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

I don't know what I can and can't say anymore in case someone gets offended. I see The Simpsons is coming under increasing fire now too over the past several weeks for their characters.

There's a line, people.

Friends was also under fire for episodes released in the early 2000s, supposedly. I wonder how large the footprint actually is for either of the groups of "people insulted by X TV show from the 90s/2000s" or "people insulted by the naming of English rugby teams"

If there's people actively protesting you should absolutely listen to them and consider the weight of their complaint, but I think social media, and the media websites that are fuelled by it, has turned us all into Dougal when it comes to estimating the size of crowds.

Former Former

I just hope the Cornish Pirates are finally held accountable.

sydthebeat

In order to be seen in social media you need to have a view that is an outlier, being in the extreme. There are people who are eternally outraged, and use social media as their outlet to express this outrage.

Squatter

I wonder did the great Moroccan and French rugby player (and devout muslim) Abdelatif Benazzi complain about the club name when he signed for Saracens in 2001!

OldRio

And I'm outraged I tell you. Outraged at the racial stereotyping used by Notre Dame University. 'The fighting Irish' indeed.

Squatter

Former Former wrote: »

I just hope the Cornish Pirates are finally held accountable.

Indeed.

Not forgetting Cobh Pirates RFC whose nefarious activities are legendary throughout Munster!

And, switching sports for a moment, surely Longford Slashers players should be obliged to wear nappies both on and off the pitch?

Buer

OldRio wrote: »

And I'm outraged I tell you. Outraged at the racial stereotyping used by Notre Dame University. 'The fighting Irish' indeed.

They've come under a lot of fire in the past year about their logo.

irishbucsfan

OldRio wrote: »

And I'm outraged I tell you. Outraged at the racial stereotyping used by Notre Dame University. 'The fighting Irish' indeed.

To be fair, it's not nearly as inaccurate or insulting a name as "London Irish"

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

They've come under a lot of fire in the past year about their logo.

Really? Presumably not from actual Irish people...

thomond2006

Newport Gwent Dragons. Did anyone ask dragons how they feel about that name?!

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

Really? Presumably not from actual Irish people...

I'm sure the sports media could find plenty who would be willing to give them an opinion in both directions.

Which is all they want really, and they're the ones pulling at the thread. If there's consensus either way, they won't make anything off it.

Teferi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Teferi wrote: »

Nope, the saracens were originally a distinct ethnic group before the word eventually evolved into a word to describe all Muslims in the Middle-Ages.

They weren't a distinct ethnic group. They were Arabs. It was just a word that was adopted because it was the name of a region on the peninsula and people weren't particularly enlightened about these things in the 2nd century. And that word wasn't 'saracens' but the English word is derived from it.

However there's absolutely no doubt its usage as a pejorative term. And the usage in England specifically is that usage, referring to non-Christians as enemies and often in a racist way, not the usage in Greek or Roman (which was a different word

The Saracens were a distinct group differentiated from other Arabs as far back as the Romans, and possibly the Greeks. The word evolved to mean all Arabs.

It’s a pejorative in the way that anything that was non-Christian was hated. Applying modern understanding of racism to the middle-ages thinking would be a madness.

irishbucsfan

Teferi wrote: »

The Saracens were a distinct group differentiated from other Arabs as far back as the Romans, and possibly the Greeks. The word evolved to mean all Arabs.

It’s a pejorative in the way that anything that was non-Christian was hated. Applying modern understanding of racism to the middle-ages thinking would be a madness.

Surely you understand that your second paragraph is my entire point? Right?

I’ll ask again in case it was forgotten, what is the difference between Chiefs and Saracens? You could probably throw Pirates in there, the poor bastards. If we’re throwing “Chiefs” out, Saracens can’t survive the same examination. Especially in North London.

Edit: never even thought of the poor Barbarians in all of this

Yeah_Right

Why wouldn't the Exeter Chiefs not just change their logo to a Chieftan from ancient Britain? They keep the name, swap the feather head wear for some sort of a helmet and adapt the tomahawk chop chant (that they stole from the Atlanta Braves and the FSU Seminoles) into something with a sword or axe. Sorted.

As for Saracens, clearly a racist organisation that should be burnt to the ground and everyone associated with it imprisoned.

Hurrache

For me, and probably others of a certain vintage, every time I think of Saracens I think of the cool character who was usually referred to as 'Saracen' in the 1980's Robin of Sherwood TV series, played by an English man.



A couple of years ago was a debate in the Dublin athletic club Crusaders and the connotations of the club name and cross on the club singlet after someone hacked the club website claiming to represent ISIL or someone like that. Some members suggested that they drop the cross from the club singlet and others were adamant they don't, because it was a dumb idea. There was a broader discussion about the club name and association with the middle age crusades. I think there's 2 versions of the singlet, one with the cross, one without.

razorblunt

Deleted User wrote: »

They should embrace that to be honest. Great stuff.

The same Gallagher's that sponsors a few NZ Super Rugby teams I presume.

pickarooney

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They weren't a distinct ethnic group. They were Arabs. It was just a word that was adopted because it was the name of a region on the peninsula and people weren't particularly enlightened about these things in the 2nd century. And that word wasn't 'saracens' but the English word is derived from it.

However there's absolutely no doubt its usage as a pejorative term. And the usage in England specifically is that usage, referring to non-Christians as enemies and often in a racist way, not the usage in Greek or Roman (which was a different word).

It's pretty easy to make the case that its far worse than "Chiefs", which wasn't really ever used that way as far as I'm aware, might be wrong on that.

British Poetry Companion:


So really, I think if the decision is that Chiefs isn't acceptable for Exeter, Nigel Wray should be under similar pressure with his lot. Personally, I think they're both fairly innocuous.

Seems pretty similar to Barbarians...

RobbieRuns

irishbucsfan wrote: »

OldRio wrote: »

And I'm outraged I tell you. Outraged at the racial stereotyping used by Notre Dame University. 'The fighting Irish' indeed.

To be fair, it's not nearly as inaccurate or insulting a name as "London Irish"

What is insulting about the name"London Irish"

Buer

RobbieRuns wrote: »

What is insulting about the name"London Irish"

It's not even in London or Ireland! I'm outraged!

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Surely you understand that your second paragraph is my entire point? Right?

I’ll ask again in case it was forgotten, what is the difference between Chiefs and Saracens? You could probably throw Pirates in there, the poor bastards. If we’re throwing “Chiefs” out, Saracens can’t survive the same examination. Especially in North London.

Edit: never even thought of the poor Barbarians in all of this

I think you're probably on the same page as me I think.

I think the existence of a modern group who actually take offense to this is important - not keyboard warriors just trying to anticipate what *might* offend someone. With the Chiefs they are reacting to actual native American Chiefs who still exist.

If the Irish (us) were a properly marginalised group in society somewhere who struggled for rights and constantly fought against a negative perception. So if we were native Americans for instance. I'd balk at the idea that somewhere in Indiana was a University full of students who knew nothing about Ireland, but put on Leprechaun hats, got drunk, pretended to fight and thought that was all Irishness was about.

irishbucsfan

Brad Weber

https://twitter.com/brad_weber9/status/986178316716527617

Oh lordy lord this has taken a turn

Hurrache

It's only surprising that it's taken so long for someone to come out publicly and say it.