The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[Acajack]

I am not advocating for the retention of this imagery at all.

But it's interesting that with all of this there is a danger that it will ironically lead to fewer representations of black and indigenous people in corporate branding.

I guess the argument is that people don't want to be part of the branding if it's offensive (and that the branding should be appropriate), but for having been involved in such things in the past, even the most robust processes can often have their blind spots.

And something you thought was OK and was quadruple vetted by everyone and their uncle ends up getting you into tons of trouble.

We shouldn't be surprised if a lot of organizations quietly decide "screw it, it's not worth the trouble".

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess. But I also grew up with tons of movies and TV shows where indigenous people referred to Euro-Americans as "pale face" (translated to "visage pâle" in French versions).

Are there any professional sports teams currently profiting off of the image and likeness of this?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

No one says it anymore, though...

For either group (pale face or redskin), actually.

Except for the name of DC's NFL team.

Just like most people today don't actually think of the Irish in these terms:

https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+c...36&bih=722&dpr=1.25#imgrc=ubY2cmZMTSylpM

https://www.google.com/search?q=notre+da..._AUoAXoECBgQAw&biw=1536&bih=722&dpr=1.25

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Are there any professional sports teams currently profiting off of the image and likeness of this?

No, but I wasn't referring to today. We were discussing how "Redskins" seemed objectionable to Esquire when he was a kid. I simply said that "redskin" and "pale face" were around when I was a kid.

In that context, at least for me "redskin" didn't stand out as especially offensive.

Though I did give some examples of how sports teams still depict Irish people today.

[MonctonRad]

I am generally not an advocate of renaming sports teams. You're monkeying with a lot of team tradition and history when you do.

The only one I find offensive in any way is really the Washington Redskins. An argument could be made that the Eskimos is also offensive.

1) - it is a pejorative name given to the Inuit people by the northern Cree.
2) - there are no "Eskimos" within at least 1000 miles of Edmonton.

To counterbalance this however, the native peoples of northern Alaska apparently have no problem with being called Eskimos, so I have no idea if a name change is necessary.

Most sports teams named after native Americans I take little issue with.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am generally not an advocate of renaming sports teams. You're monkeying with a lot of team tradition and history when you do.

The only one I find offensive in any way is really the Washington Redskins. An argument could be made that the Eskimos is also offensive.

1) - it is a pejorative name given to the Inuit people by the northern Cree.
2) - there are no "Eskimos" within at least 1000 miles of Edmonton.
...

Edmonton has been engaging with the Inuit community regarding the name.
No change
More engagement

But some politicians want the name changed

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not advocating for the retention of this imagery at all.

But it's interesting that with all of this there is a danger that it will ironically lead to fewer representations of black and indigenous people in corporate branding.

I guess the argument is that people don't want to be part of the branding if it's offensive (and that the branding should be appropriate), but for having been involved in such things in the past, even the most robust processes can often have their blind spots.

And something you thought was OK and was quadruple vetted by everyone and their uncle ends up getting you into tons of trouble.

We shouldn't be surprised if a lot of organizations quietly decide "screw it, it's not worth the trouble".

Exceedingly unlikely, istm. Diversity in imagery is here to stay. I don't think anybody (that I know of) is asking to be excluded from branding, they simply want to be in control of how people like them are presented (like white people always have been ....).

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

This thread is full of stubborn resistance to progress and change, a stubborn refusal to listen. The answers to your questions are out there. There are plenty of books to be read, podcasts to listen to, and social media accounts to follow. From an argumentative stance, someone may not be able to “change your mind”. Because you won’t let that happen. It’s your mind after all and you choose what you allow in. You can either keep pouting here where you have some like-minded souls to commiserate with or you can do the work of learning some new perspectives. It’s entirely up to you whether or not you do that. The consequences of not doing so, however, will put you further and further out of sync with the evolution of culture.

Well said. So many posters here seem confused and upset about some impending socialist revolution, or something. This is of course perpetuated by whackjobs on youtube that talk a good game.

It's also these people that claim to not care about what other people think who are getting so wrapped up in it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Exceedingly unlikely, istm. Diversity in imagery is here to stay. I don't think anybody (that I know of) is asking to be excluded from branding, they simply want to be in control of how people like them are presented (like white people always have been ....).

If you end up being right, then that's a positive development.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by lio45

The only reason the Sioux and Ojibwe were killing each other before the year 1492 was the toxic telepathic influence of Europeans across the North Atlantic, no question.

These are some great strawmen you are building. What's the future plan for them?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am generally not an advocate of renaming sports teams. You're monkeying with a lot of team tradition and history when you do.

The only one I find offensive in any way is really the Washington Redskins. An argument could be made that the Eskimos is also offensive.

1) - it is a pejorative name given to the Inuit people by the northern Cree.
2) - there are no "Eskimos" within at least 1000 miles of Edmonton.

To counterbalance this however, the native peoples of northern Alaska apparently have no problem with being called Eskimos, so I have no idea if a name change is necessary.

Most sports teams named after native Americans I take little issue with.

Ultimately, I don't really care whether or not these teams change their names or logos.

It's none of my business really, and a matter between the teams and the people who may or may not be offended by these logos.

My point is simply that these depictions don't necessarily give off negative impressions in the eyes of all beholders.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

If you end up being right, then that's a positive development.

One lives in hope.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

dleung is only very rarely denounced on here, so I don't have any choice but to conclude that he is considered at least somewhat serious.

Regardless of dleung, why does the opinion of other SSP posters really matter? Can't you judge what people say independent of how much support they get here?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Sadly true...........

Why is that sad? Can't we call it a win-win?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Regardless of dleung, why does the opinion of other SSP posters really matter? Can't you judge what people say independent of how much support they get here?

I was only responding to what others have said and to questions.

And I'd say dleung's track record speaks for itself!

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I guess. But I also grew up with tons of movies and TV shows where indigenous people referred to Euro-Americans as "pale face" (translated to "visage pâle" in French versions).

...and that's racist too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

One lives in hope.

I'd say that drawn depictions of minorities will likely dry up considerably, as they're way too risky.

You're definitely correct when it comes to photo and video of actual people, though.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd say that drawn depictions of minorities will likely dry up considerably, as they're way too risky.

You're definitely correct when it comes to photo and video of actual people, though.

In a few generations we will see so many more races getting married and having "mixed" kids, then those kids will further mix, etc. It will become difficult, in a good way, to see specific races in people.

Of course this is half the reason all of the white "master race" types are up in arms.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

...and that's racist too.

Never said otherwise. Though it didn't seem racist to me as a kid. Or at least, I didn't feel threatened or offended by it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

In a few generations we will see so many more races getting married and having "mixed" kids, then those kids will further mix, etc. It will become difficult, in a good way, to see specific races in people.

Of course this is half the reason all of the white "master race" types are up in arms.

I sincerely hope you're right.

Not sure that history supports that hypothesis, though.