Attention Edmonton Eskimos: Inuit are not mascots

[Drewismyname]

4 minutes ago, Edlerberry said:

 

If I feel your name offends me, it's the same thing as you calling me a N****. There is no argument to be had.

 

Why you calling me a N****.

Racist.

Now you're using un-sound logic to cover up racism. That's disgusting. 

I wouldn't be surprised if a large percentage of the racists in this thread get banned. As far as I know racism is not tolerated at CDC. 

[Edlerberry]

Just now, Drewismyname said:

Now you're just using un-sound logic to cover up racism. That's disgusting. 

what makes my feelings any less valid than 'theirs'. 

I used your logic verbatim.

 

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

14 hours ago, theminister said:

But not to 'Inuits.' Did you even read the OP?

The call is to stop using indigenous peoples as mascots for private corporations. Period.

Go easy on him.

All that cocaine is clouding his mind. It's pure though, so it's OK.

[Baer.]

It's just a name. Who cares?

Just change it instead of milking the media cows if they care so much.

Which also bears the question: Why do they even care? You'd think I'd care if a sports team decided to name their team the Caucasians? It would be stupid but I certainly wouldn't do anything about it.

[etsen3]

6 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Because aboriginals have as much to do with the blackhawks as a white American has to do with the term G I Joe. They don't have the right to say anything about the Blackhawks because unless they have anything to do with chief black hawk or were part of the Blackhawk division in ww1. 

What these attention seekers don't understand is logos aren't a mockery. Logos are glorified and treated with the upmost respect. If they've ever played sports they would know that jersey are to never touch the ground. The Logo in the middle of the dressing room is to never be stepped on. 

Funny how come you never hear anyone complain about the patriots fighting Irish. Or Vikings. 

Well yeah, they are attention seekers, that's the whole point lol.  Judging by this thread they have no other choice since a lot of people refuse to at least even acknowledge them.

[Lancaster]

Remember when back in the day when you're against something, you just simply vote with your feet and wallet.  You don't shop, patronize or support said group, organization, etc.

Nowadays, it seems people are going out of their way to force their views on others.

 

Anything could be considered as racist if that's your intention to begin with.  I'll just use the Chinatown example.... I mean, shouldn't as a society we should dismantle it, since it was created during a time when the Chinese were called "Chinamen" (I guess Chinawomen for females?) and were segregated from the rest of society?  The demeaning conditions, the violation of civil rights, the target of blatant racism.  I mean, even the name Chinatown is homage to that colonial past since the more appropriate name should be something along the lines of "the former predominantly ethnic Chinese district"?

[Slegr]

I'm not so sure that it's racism so much as ignorance with some of the comments, spoken from a privileged perspective. 

Imagine you are part of a nation that is a minority within a larger population. That larger population makes all sorts of policies and laws that continue to put you in a position of disadvantage. You have kids, and then the larger population takes them from you, hits them if they speak your language, and there's a good chance you'll never seem again. The larger population calls you a derogatory term. Then a company from that larger population uses that derogatory term and makes millions of dollars on it, naming a sports franchise by that name. It reminds you of how the large majority has treated your nation over the years, and named you what they wanted to name you, like a bully. Would you really want to see that name continue? 

[theminister]

30 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Remember when back in the day when you're against something, you just simply vote with your feet and wallet.  You don't shop, patronize or support said group, organization, etc.

Nowadays, it seems people are going out of their way to force their views on others.

 

Anything could be considered as racist if that's your intention to begin with.  I'll just use the Chinatown example.... I mean, shouldn't as a society we should dismantle it, since it was created during a time when the Chinese were called "Chinamen" (I guess Chinawomen for females?) and were segregated from the rest of society?  The demeaning conditions, the violation of civil rights, the target of blatant racism.  I mean, even the name Chinatown is homage to that colonial past since the more appropriate name should be something along the lines of "the former predominantly ethnic Chinese district"?

Yeah....no. Your 'back in the day' is clearly recent.

Political activism goes back hundreds of years. There has always been more than economic sanctions in exercising of political power. The reason that is, going back to the union and Suffrage movements of 100 years ago, was that by nature it impairs those that are poor and marginalized. Not having the ability to affect the bottom line of a company personally is why humans form groups to change the way things are done. It's not new. Magna Carta ring a bell?

Your example makes zero correlation. What does the city of Edmonton, the football team, or the CFL have to do with Inuit heritage and history? Nothing. That's why it's an inappropriate appropriation. 

Anyway...same, same....if it's not a big deal why do people care to defend it? Is this issue about as clearly delineated among CDC users as the Rebel Flag debate? I'd guess so.  

[-DLC-]

4 hours ago, Drewismyname said:

I am absolutely disgusted by the hateful and borderline racist comments in this thread. 

If they feel the term is derogatory, then it is akin to having a football team called the whateverville N words. There is no argument to be had. 

 

Holy hell, I had no idea there were so many racists on this board. The fact you're even arguing against this complaint shows a multitude of disrespect not even I could fathom and I've seen quite a few idiots online in my day.

We will review the thread but I don't recall a report on it?  Start there, it's how things get flagged in a direct way with a solution, rather than simply being part of the problem. 

You realize that calling people "racist" is namecalling and rather unproductive in working through a problem.  Only seems to add to it in my view, so let's try to quickly identify and eliminate anything inappropriate (vs building on/from it).

 

The thread will be reviewed but it's up to members to use the report button (which is why it's there) to flag offensive content rather than use it as an excuse to namecall and participate.

[RWMc1]

7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Funny how come you never hear anyone complain about the patriots fighting Irish. Or Vikings. 

Since when has Patriots or Vikings ever been used as a derogatory term? If a team named themselves the Whitetrash, do you think people would complain? Of course they would.

On occasion Irish groups have complained about the Fighting Irish. They claimed it was a stereotype that depicted them as people who get drunk and fight all the time. I believe the explanation for that was similar to the Blackhawks explanation.

To the poster a few posts above- ^Caucasions has never been used as derogatory term either, so that is not a comparable.^

 

[Lancaster]

3 hours ago, theminister said:

Yeah....no. Your 'back in the day' is clearly recent.

Political activism goes back hundreds of years. There has always been more than economic sanctions in exercising of political power. The reason that is, going back to the union and Suffrage movements of 100 years ago, was that by nature it impairs those that are poor and marginalized. Not having the ability to affect the bottom line of a company personally is why humans form groups to change the way things are done. It's not new. Magna Carta ring a bell?

Your example makes zero correlation. What does the city of Edmonton, the football team, or the CFL have to do with Inuit heritage and history? Nothing. That's why it's an inappropriate appropriation. 

Anyway...same, same....if it's not a big deal why do people care to defend it? Is this issue about as clearly delineated among CDC users as the Rebel Flag debate? I'd guess so.  

Those examples you used are people or segment of society without any outlet to express their voices.  When people have no venue and no rights, they use violence and other measures, hence the suffrage movements and Magna Carta (albeit, originally just a bunch of rich nobles disagreeing with the monarch). 

 

True that my example has no correlation.... and that Edmonton has no relevance with the Inuit community, but why should that make any difference?  The Inuits doesn't have a monopoly over whatever culture, imagery, likeness copyright over anything related to them.  The Minnesota Vikings doesn't have exclusive rights over the medieval Scandinavian culture, nor does Notre Dame over Ireland.  Should Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, those residing in Normandy be offended with the Vikings portrayal of their history?  I mean, I doubt the NFL Vikings are promoting historical achievements like the arts, diplomacy and trade.  They're portraying those Northern European as aggressive, violent and bloodthirsty people.  Likewise with the Notre Dame Fighting Irish insinuating those from the Irish counties being drunken and boorish people prone to fisticuffs.  Definitely much worse than the archaic and inaccurate lexicon of "Eskimo". 

Images, words, ideas.... they're only offensive and racist if they're used in an offensive manner.  For all intent and purposes, the Edmonton Eskimos are attempting to show the Eskimos as a proud, strong and resilient people by having their football team to sprout those ideals.  Just so happened that they're also victims of the time. 

[kyledude]

Let's start changing the names of all private entities because someone, somewhere, might be offended.

If you don't like the name, don't buy tickets.

[Canada Hockey Place]

58 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

................

Images, words, ideas.... they're only offensive and racist if they're used in an offensive manner.  For all intent and purposes, the Edmonton Eskimos are attempting to show the Eskimos as a proud, strong and resilient people by having their football team to sprout those ideals.  Just so happened that they're also victims of the time. 

Who are we to decide on behalf of anyone what is offensive to them? Are others allowed to decided what offensive to you? 

"It's not racist, I meant it as a compliment" doesn't make it OK. 

"Victims of the time" is a very poor choice of words.

[Lancaster]

7 minutes ago, Canada Hockey Place said:

Who are we to decide on behalf of anyone what is offensive to them? Are others allowed to decided what offensive to you? 

"It's not racist, I meant it as a compliment" doesn't make it OK. 

"Victims of the time" is a very poor choice of words.

Being offended doesn't automatically mean the initial issue is offensive.  It all depends on the context of the disagreement.

Just because something is offensive to me doesn't mean the counter-party has to automatically bend to my position.  I can choose to ignore, I can choose not to patronize that business, I can try to convince others to follow my lead. 

Attempt to change things by using the race, religious, culture, ethnic card is just flimsy since a lot of it is subjective at best.  I mean, should I demand that the city of Vancouver remove all references to Chinatown since as a Chinese-Canadian I'm offended by it?  Being at the heart of the DTES, I'm interpreting it as a shot against Chinese people.  By even calling it a "Chinatown" it just perpetuate that Chinese are still "2nd tiered" citizen and segregated in a supposedly multicultural city.  I am offended... and if you disagree, you're racist!   /sarcasm

A tolerant society means accepting the faults and problems of others.... not trying to force or brainwash others to accept a collective groupthink narrated by less-than-objective people. 

[HerrDrFunk]

Let me put it this way: show of hands (or whatever passes for hands on a forum) who here has Inuit blood in them? Didn't say "I do!"? Then you don't get to tell Inuit people what is and isn't offensive to them. 

[Gurn]

Ok, so is it illegal to offend somebody?

[HerrDrFunk]

24 minutes ago, gurn said:

Ok, so is it illegal to offend somebody?

Nope, but generally if someone is offended by something, it's considered respectful to stop doing that.

[theminister]

15 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Nope, but generally if someone is offended by something, it's considered respectful to stop doing that.

Or, at the very least, hear them out. Consider that their point of view has validity to their experience. 

Ultimately, they are just making a call to have a corporate name changed. It's hardly a major request in the grand scheme of things. It's likely a major issue to them. 

I still can't understand why people would be ranting so strongly against this group using their voice. They're entitled to it. 

[etsen3]

10 minutes ago, theminister said:

Or, at the very least, hear them out. Consider that their point of view has validity to their experience. 

Ultimately, they are just making a call to have a corporate name changed. It's hardly a major request in the grand scheme of things. It's likely a major issue to them. 

I still can't understand why people would be ranting so strongly against this group using their voice. They're entitled to it. 

Sooner or later you have to wonder who the oversensitive people really are.

Is it the people who are mad because they percieve that their culture is being mocked and their people are actually being demeaned, or is it those that are mad because a sports team they don't even identify might have to change their nickname?

[HerrDrFunk]

4 minutes ago, theminister said:

Or, at the very least, hear them out. Consider that their point of view has validity to their experience. 

Ultimately, they are just making a call to have a corporate name changed. It's hardly a major request in the grand scheme of things. It's likely a major issue to them. 

I still can't understand why people would be ranting so strongly against this group using their voice. They're entitled to it. 

Very true. I should have articulated the post you quoted a bit better.