Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole436
I think there is a fine line with creation and exploitation. And I want to be clear, my argument isn’t about removing ethnic imagery from society or corporate brands, but questioning our acceptance of private corporations profiting off of disenfranchised communities. When I say disenfranchised I am talking about the loss of privilege due to governments and the same types of corporations now using their image.
This is a complicated and multifaceted issue, and I also don’t have the answers for it. I think it’s very valid when I hear the anger from people in these groups about how they are treated by a society that actively oppresses them, while that same society profits off the idea of them.
I do think corporations need to be more accountable with using that kind of imagery, and I think it’s one of those issues which will have gradual change, likely from small businesses up.
Something to consider is, how well do you think the Canucks logo would have been received if it was introduced in 2020? Do you think a logo evoking indigenous artwork, designed by a white artist would be received well?
|
Bringing it back to the Canucks' logo, I don't really see how they're profiting off of indigenous people. This isn't a case of a corporation having taken control of things like land or other limited material or intellectual resources. It's also not, as far as I can see, a case where indigenous people are harmed through the use of the image.
I agree that anger about oppression is valid, I guess I just don't see how something like a logo of a whale made in a style of art that's inspired by indigenous art is actually oppressive. In cases like the Cleveland Indians, the former Washington Redskins, the Edmonton Eskimos or the Chicago Blackhawks, I can see how the names and/or images are part of oppression and promotion of ethnic stereotypes or tokenizing indigenous identities, but in the case of the Canucks it's just a whale.
I also don't see how the year it was introduced or the race of the artist are particularly important either. An act of oppression is an act of oppression. The Redskins name and logo was no less oppressive in the 1930s than in 2020. And as long as the design selection process wasn't discriminatory or oppressive in itself, I don't see how it matters if the artist who drew the Canucks' whale logo was white.
It's definitely a multi-faceted issue, and I'm very sympathetic and receptive to recognition of the oppression of indigenous people in Canada, but the Canucks' logo just seems like an unfair target for anger stemming from those issues.
I could totally understand indigenous artists being upset about the Canucks having associated an indigenous style of art with a garbage hockey team. The style of art in itself deserves more respect. That wouldn't be related to oppression or racism though.