Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone
i guess here is my view as an able bodies white male:
for the most part when i see logos like the Eskimo's or Backhawks I think of how these groups of people lived off the land and lived a simple life of honor and tradition.
To me the Redskins are the worst of the lot - but where do you stop this? The Yankees? The Canucks? Hell even the Flames could be truamtic to someone who recently dealt with a fire.
Do we just start numbering teams based on date of entry into the league. Jay and Dan could say tonight team 13 took on team 17 at team 13's rink?
|
No offense meant, but this exactly illustrates the point i was trying to make about the lumping together of cancel culture devaluing rational arguments.
To me it's pretty clear there is a difference in level of potential offense between Redskins and Eskimos vs any of the other listed names you mention.
Yankees: non-endeering term that was actually largely made in derision, but it's not a reference to an attribute someone has that they cant change (i.e. their "race") instead it is a reference to where they lived and which side they fought on during an old war. Given no one is currently taking offense to this at all, I suspect it is fine to continue.
Blackhawks: This one is the most contentious- it was meant as an honouring of a specific indigenous individual who was a war hero. However, given they they constantly have to defend it it's still obviously causing some grief in the community. This one is up in the air and I think the toughest of the lot to categorize.
Flames: The exception to this is obviously ridiculous. Yes, this is a reference to an act of war 200 years ago, but only in the Atlanta context. In the calgary context it actually refers to the great Calgary fire, which burned down the entire wooden town and resulted in a ruling that they must build out of paskapoo sandstone at the ground level in buildings downtown. Regardless, again, the name is not a reference to a quality of a person beyond that individuals choosing or control.
Redskins: the most egregious; obviously a slang term for indigenous people that was most frequently used in an era where the trail of tears was underway.
Eskimos: I am unsure what the actual inuit communities think; I would imagine the opinion is disparate. However I think that's immaterial, it's the standard that's at issue here. The word itself was never used by the people it references, but was used by their southern neighbors as a belittling term to describe them as backwards snow dwellers.
It doesn't seem that hard to me to split these rationally.