Calgary Openings, Closings, and Developments

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Here's the thing.
The name Fort Calgary, kind of implies that the only history that matters, or that the place is built upon is that fort.

The name The Confluence, doesn't exclude Fort Calgary, nor does it exclude anything that existed there, before it.
The actual fort part will still be a part of the site, it's just not what it'll be named after.

I really dislike the position that rebranding something, to specifically include everything, rather than highlighting a specific part is somehow not remembering or erasing that specific part.

Also, if you're so concerned about the rise of dangerous populism, maybe using "Wokewashing" completely seriously, isn't the best place to start.

Seriously, rebranding to INCLUDE indigenous history does not equal erasing white history.

Seriously. Go on the website or click on the strategic plan and it talks a bunch of Fort Calgary and how their programming is going to including Fort Calgary PLUS the indigenous history of the area.

I guess I’ll just enjoy people watching people read the headline and cry about “woke washing.” People who likely never even went to Fort Calgary in the first place lol.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Here's the thing.
The name Fort Calgary, kind of implies that the only history that matters, or that the place is built upon is that fort.

The name The Confluence, doesn't exclude Fort Calgary, nor does it exclude anything that existed there, before it.
The actual fort part will still be a part of the site, it's just not what it'll be named after.

I really dislike the position that rebranding something, to specifically include everything, rather than highlighting a specific part is somehow not remembering or erasing that specific part.

Also, if you're so concerned about the rise of dangerous populism, maybe using "Wokewashing" completely seriously, isn't the best place to start.

Seriously, rebranding to INCLUDE indigenous history does not equal erasing white history.

I'm certain that most people don't go to Fort Calgary very often or ever but the site has incorporated significant indigenous history on site along with the history of the fort and the history of Calgary. The indigenous perspective prior to Fort Calgary and during has not been lacking in what is presently at the site. Is it possible that more history can be included at the site than is currently offered? Probably yes, but it doesn't require rebranding necessarily.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Seriously. Go on the website or click on the strategic plan and it talks a bunch of Fort Calgary and how their programming is going to including Fort Calgary PLUS the indigenous history of the area.

I guess I’ll just enjoy people watching people read the headline and cry about “woke washing.” People who likely never even went to Fort Calgary in the first place lol.

Please accept my humblest apologies that you and BBS were triggered by the term woke washing. I couldn't think of a more succinct way to say this is an example of the use of social justice themes in marketing campaigns (or re-brands in this case) to create a positive image while seemingly taking limited new beneficial action...

I am sure you know that the focus has already been on Fort Calgary PLUS the indigenous history of the area for easily the past 5 years and maybe even longer (and yes, I've been there, and you would surely know this too... this is hardly heralding in a brand new theme as calgarygeologist noted).

[Bigtime]

Fort Calgary had plans many years ago to try and build new museum structures on site, I wonder if part of this rebranding is to help revitalize those efforts by making it more of a catch all?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I'm certain that most people don't go to Fort Calgary very often or ever but the site has incorporated significant indigenous history on site along with the history of the fort and the history of Calgary. The indigenous perspective prior to Fort Calgary and during has not been lacking in what is presently at the site. Is it possible that more history can be included at the site than is currently offered? Probably yes, but it doesn't require rebranding necessarily.

So then what exactly is "Wokewashing" about rebranding it to what it actually is then?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So then what exactly is "Wokewashing" about rebranding it to what it actually is then?

I have no relation to that comment. Don't ask me.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Please accept my humblest apologies that you and BBS were triggered by the term woke washing. I couldn't think of a more succinct way to say this is an example of the use of social justice themes in marketing campaigns (or re-brands in this case) to create a positive image while seemingly taking limited new beneficial action...

I am sure you know that the focus has already been on Fort Calgary PLUS the indigenous history of the area for easily the past 5 years and maybe even longer (and yes, I've been there, and you would surely know this too... this is hardly heralding in a brand new theme as calgarygeologist noted).

So then what exactly is "wokewashing" about rebranding something to get the message about about what they actually do?

Is the site exclusively about Fort Calgary? No.
So why is the site just called Fort Calgary?

Why are you so triggered by what is essentially a company updating their brand to be more accurate about what they do?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So then what exactly is "wokewashing" about rebranding something to get the message about about what they actually do?

Is the site exclusively about Fort Calgary? No.
So why is the site just called Fort Calgary?

Why are you so triggered by what is essentially a company updating their brand to be more accurate about what they do?

If they wanted to pursue a rebranding exercise they missed a money making opportunity by not selling the naming rights. It could be Rogers Confluence Historic Site and Parkland and they could be generating some extra funds for programming and education.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

So then what exactly is "wokewashing" about rebranding something to get the message about about what they actually do?

Is the site exclusively about Fort Calgary? No.
So why is the site just called Fort Calgary?

Why are you so triggered by what is essentially a company updating their brand to be more accurate about what they do?

Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish goals of the site. The evolution to discuss all history was well underway already. I noted it will inflame a lot of people, I'm not one of them. I just think its sad, superficial, and diminishes the important of the Fort as a catalyst to the modern city.

You seem to think it was needed to show that its about more than the western history of the area. I don't. Simple as that. I think we can agree to disagree here.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish goals of the site. The evolution to discuss all history was well underway already. I noted it will inflame a lot of people, I'm not one of them. I just think its sad, superficial, and diminishes the important of the Fort as a catalyst to the modern city.

You seem to think it was needed to show that its about more than the western history of the area. I don't. Simple as that. I think we can agree to disagree here.

You still haven't explained why you think rebranding to a more accurate name is "Wokewashing"
What do you think "Wokewashing" is?

And maybe the rebranding of the site was necessary to accomplish their goals. What if their goal was to have a site that in as may ways as possible demonstrates that the history of the area goes back well beyond the fort?

Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish goals of the site

I think what you meant was:
Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish (what I think) the goals of the site (aught to be).

To be completely honest, I really don't care about the rebranding.
But I think calling it "Wokewashing" is pretty stupid.

[Bill Bumface]

This is like renaming the Calgary Tower to "The Palliser Pavillion" because don't forget this part is there too guys, but it still includes the tower!:

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If they wanted to pursue a rebranding exercise they missed a money making opportunity by not selling the naming rights. It could be Rogers Confluence Historic Site and Parkland and they could be generating some extra funds for programming and education.

Parkland Fuel Corporation Confluence and Parkland

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

This is like renaming the Calgary Tower to "The Palliser Pavillion" because don't forget this part is there too guys, but it still includes the tower!:

There's a train station in there somewhere! Seriously though - I'd love to see it, even though it will be underwhelming.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If they wanted to pursue a rebranding exercise they missed a money making opportunity by not selling the naming rights. It could be Rogers Confluence Historic Site and Parkland and they could be generating some extra funds for programming and education.

Rogers Confluence Historic Site presents the Scotiabank Parkland

Gotta squeeze those teats for all they are worth!!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Because in my view, the name change was wholly unnecessary to accomplish goals of the site. The evolution to discuss all history was well underway already. I noted it will inflame a lot of people, I'm not one of them. I just think its sad, superficial, and diminishes the important of the Fort as a catalyst to the modern city.

You seem to think it was needed to show that its about more than the western history of the area. I don't. Simple as that. I think we can agree to disagree here.

How can the name be both superficial and unnecessary to accomplish the goals of the site, and able to diminish the importance of a part of the city’s history?

You say they’re already talking about indigenous history, but they’re also already talking about Fort Calgary and continue to do so, so if changing the name does nothing to positively impact the former goal, how exactly do you reason that it negatively impacts the latter?

Your position just kind of contradicts itself.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Fort Calgary has gone woke

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Please accept my humblest apologies that you and BBS were triggered by the term woke washing.

Serious question, how do each of you define the term “woke”?

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Serious question, how do each of you define the term “woke”?

I probably should have used green text, but figured my posting history would suggest I was just having some fun with the announcement. Little did I know the real firestorm was coming...

[edslunch]

I think renaming to emphasize a broader scope, even if it already exists, is reasonable. “Fort Calgary” suggests to the uninitiated that it’s specifically and narrowly focused on the Fort and its history.

I think “The Confluence” is a poor choice. I get the multiple meanings of physical confluence of the rivers and the confluence of cultures - it’s clever - but the average person will have no clue what it is or is about.

I’m sightseeing in Halifax at the moment and Museum of Immigration tells me exactly what it’s about, Maritime Museum tells me exactly what it’s about. The Citadel covers a range of topics but is still calked the Citadel - there is no point hiding the dominating physical structures behind a more inclusive name.

[troutman]

WOLFE AND THE SPARROWS

https://www.calgary.ca/content/dam/w...tion-guide.pdf

[DownInFlames]

Fun fact: A confluence is the collective noun for a group of snails.

Another fun fact: I made that up.