Squamfan Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 3 minutes ago, Canada Hockey Place said: As opposed to...? i mean the name change it ha not been a issue so why i it a issue now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradyBoone Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Maybe they have a legitimate gripe maybe not. In my opinion I think people nowdays just need to complain. They want to fight. In these days of social media where you can gain a following and support very easily from the comfort of your own home, with minimal effort... it's easy to do. However, (again, my opinion) if changing a team name is on your to-do list, maybe you need a new list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 8 minutes ago, BradyBoone said: Maybe they have a legitimate gripe maybe not. In my opinion I think people nowdays just need to complain. They want to fight. In these days of social media where you can gain a following and support very easily from the comfort of your own home, with minimal effort... it's easy to do. However, (again, my opinion) if changing a team name is on your to-do list, maybe you need a new list. Maybe it's just social media giving people the power to correct historical wrongs? And if it's no big deal as people here are saying, and you aren't Inuit or an Eskimos fan then why would you care? I wouldn't stick up for a corporation that I have zero vested interest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 if someone rejects something outright, isn't that thing now free to be appropriated by someone else? doesn't it seem funny for someone to say "this term does not apply to me, but I don't want anybody else to use it because its application is offensive to me". don't you have to pick one or the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradyBoone Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 2 minutes ago, theminister said: Maybe it's just social media giving people the power to correct historical wrongs? Nope. Social media should be used only for photos of cats and food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 8 minutes ago, nzan said: if someone rejects something outright, isn't that thing now free to be appropriated by someone else? doesn't it seem funny for someone to say "this term does not apply to me, but I don't want anybody else to use it because its application is offensive to me". don't you have to pick one or the other? This is a very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada Hockey Place Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 1 minute ago, Squamfan said: i mean the name change it ha not been a issue so why i it a issue now It was an issue. I think since the 70s. But there were bigger issues (like lack of representation) and we're just hearing about it now through an official spokesperson in a major newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Ban sports! -clumsy people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 27 minutes ago, theminister said: And, regardless, it's more about making a mascot of a racial/cultural group without their blessing or benefit. There is not, and never has been, a requirement for blessing or benefit from the group being used as a mascot. They seem to want money out of all this. Nothing new there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 25 minutes ago, Squamfan said: i mean the name change it ha not been a issue so why i it a issue now This is painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 23 minutes ago, Offensive Threat said: There is not, and never has been, a requirement for blessing or benefit from the group being used as a mascot. They seem to want money out of all this. Nothing new there. Nope, you're correct. But, at the same time, if a private interest group can effect enough influence on a private business, through social media and swaying public perception, to change what they perceive as culturally insensitive and wrong then i say all the power to them. I'm not a shareholder or an Eskie's fan so I don't care if it's changed. A rebranding would have zero noticeable affect on my life. I find it in contrast that people complain about this being a PC brigade issue, It;'s not IMO, but they are equally guilty of having an opinion on something that doesn't affect them. Who's being too sensitive? I don't think it's the Inuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 58 minutes ago, Squamfan said: why do natives always want thing going their way Not just natives. Any minority or anyone who perceives themselves to be a minority do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Just now, Rounoush said: Not just natives. Any minority or anyone who perceives themselves to be a minority do this. Actually, majorities do too. Why wouldn't anyone want things to go their way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 4 minutes ago, theminister said: Actually, majorities do too. Why wouldn't anyone want things to go their way? What if they're tanking for a better tax hand out?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 12 minutes ago, theminister said: Actually, majorities do too. Why wouldn't anyone want things to go their way? True. But I was more talking about the tenure of today being people identifying themselves as these oppressed minority groups that the whole world is treating poorly. That's why I said "perceived minority." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Just now, Rounoush said: True. But I was more talking about the tenure of today being people identifying themselves as these oppressed minority groups that the whole world is treating poorly. That's why I said "perceived minority." I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that is the case with the Inuit. The claims made in the letter in the OP are entirely true and verifiable. They have been oppressed, greatly, in the very recent past. They want this done and I would support them in doing so. No skin off of my nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Eskimo means 'eaters of raw meat', so the work-around has always been that the intent was to name the team after eaters of raw meat. 'Grrrr.' The other factor is that no Inuit person has been featured as a logo of the team. There is a polar bear, and polar bears eat raw meat. This is trying to play off the Washington Redskins complaint, but it isn't quite at the same level because the Redskins feature an actual american indian on the logo and 'redskin' has always been a fairly racist term. I don't think the Edmonton Eskimos will be forced to change their name any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 2 hours ago, theminister said: They consider it derogatory and it's not really for outsiders to argue. And, regardless, it's more about making a mascot of a racial/cultural group without their blessing or benefit. Yeah for those claiming this is just about "political correctness" I encourage you guys to actually listen to them and consider how your opinion might be different if you were in their shoes. Until you've walked in their shoes you don't really get to decide whether they should find it derogatory or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 8 minutes ago, etsen3 said: Yeah for those claiming this is just about "political correctness" I encourage you guys to actually listen to them and consider how your opinion might be different if you were in their shoes. Until you've walked in their shoes you don't really get to decide whether they should find it derogatory or not. How about we stop calling people them and us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 6 minutes ago, Alflives said: How about we stop calling people them and us? Diversity is a strength in the world and not a weakness. I am not an Inuit and don't pretend to be. I am not them. They are not me. Besides, if they are 'us' then why does Canada make treaties with aboriginal groups? Countries don't make treaties with their own citizens. That should be obvious. There is s difference. This has nothing to do with the point though. If you consider the Inuit as equals then listening to them should be important. That's how you become inclusive and not exclusionary . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.