Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

I'm sorry but cancel culture is absolutely a thing. Yes, many do as you suggested, there is no denying that; but cancel culture goes far beyond racists and bigots; outrage culture also feeds cancel culture and people have lost their livelihoods over unjust circumstances, simply because they were found guilty in the court of public opinion.

I disagree- I think the term cancel culture is entirely born out of malice for disruption of activities that could be seen as bigoted or racist. The only purpose of the term is to lump individuals with incredibly disparate views into an easily identifiable "them".

There is certainly a troubling aspect of the age of social media and viral internet content where internet vigilantism targets specific individuals and sometimes unjustly ruins their lives. But lumping these incidents (my notable example would be the faux boston bomber suspects) in with completely valid examples (the video of the woman in the park who told the black man she was calling the police on him just because of his presence there...) is a targeted attempt to devalue all future incidents like this. It's a cover, they are trying to associate the actual outrage with misplaced outrage, in an effort to make all outrage outrageous.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

There's a large difference between Cancel Culture and what they discuss in the Harper's article- please go read it. And again, many signatories to the Harper's article later retracted or were uncomfortable once they found out who else signed it.

are there incidents of false virtue signalling leading to poor societal outcomes? Yeah, I can think of some notable ones. E.g. those white ladies who burnt down a wendys in the states in the name of George Floyd. But the list of incidents of racism leading to poor societal outcomes would be much longer... Deflecting from the main point of this conversation (eliminating racist imagery from pro sports) and saying it's an element of cancel culture is certainly the act of a racist or bigot who is trying to change the nature of the conversation. It's not about "too many things getting shut down for opinions". it's about these specific teams continuing to use imagery that is obviously injurious for sections of the population.

I've read it. Most media outlets are using the term 'cancel culture' in regards to the point of the letter. I think you're the only one with your own definition of the thing.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

JK Rowling is mad she can’t be transphobic. It’s unclear whether she is prejudiced or just ignorant between the difference between gender and sex.

Not really the best champion for this.

Where Cancel culture is concerning is in the journalism and academic field. (Note that Wendy Mesley not being able to say N*** is not included in this concern) but there needs to be Academic and journalistic freedom from boundary pushing in those fields. It isn’t as big of issue as many make it out to be.

Outside of that people who make their living in public opinion losing their livelihood because public opinion changes is not a concern. So celebrities and entertainers being canceled is not a concern. Unless of course you are also concerned that a celebrity is created. The rise of celebrity culture certainly is.

If I no longer read Harry Potter because the author has views that I don’t agree with that is a perfectly reasonable outcome.

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement regarding Rowlings' ideology and is at best, extremely reductive. i'm not sure I have a take on this one way or the other but her opinion seems quite well thought out and nuanced.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/

[GGG]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement regarding Rowlings' ideology and is at best, extremely reductive. i'm not sure I have a take on this one way or the other but her opinion seems quite well thought out and nuanced.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/

Thanks for sharing that article.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

It’s fairly clear from the article in her own words that she does not accept trans-women as women. From this article I think it’s is clear that she is not ignorant. This article is just phrased far better than tweet referring to Women who menstruate . I don’t get why she objects being called a trans-exclusionary feminist.

I do think some of the concerns on how transitioning occurs are valid though.

The point remains though if people don’t read Harry Potter as a result of her opinions that isn’t being canceled.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GGG

Thanks for sharing that article.



It’s fairly clear from the article in her own words that she does not accept trans-women as women. From this article I think it’s is clear that she is not ignorant. I don’t get why she objects being called a trans-exclusionary feminist.

I do think some of the concerns on how transitioning occurs are valid though.

The point remains though if people don’t read Harry Potter as a result of her opinions that isn’t being canceled.

As a cisgendered man, the one thing I can safely say is that I don't think I'm qualified to give an opinion on is what is means to be a "woman".

I mean the idea that there is a difference between biological women and transwomen seems reasonable to me but that's a very surface based analysis.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Igottago

I've read it. Most media outlets are using the term 'cancel culture' in regards to the point of the letter. I think you're the only one with your own definition of the thing.

Nah man, this is a very well documented split. Searching cancel culture on google will yield you 100s of articles about exactly this topic- yes cancel culture may once have been a more nebulous term that referred to over the top internet activism with uncertain boundaries, but it has been weaponized by the right in an attempt to make criticism unjust.

There's a defined split between the nebulous (and purposely not called such) cancel culture derided in the Harper's letter vs the Cancel Culture that is being used in the context of this thread and more recently the BLM movement.

One is in an academic setting, involving defenseable positions, well thought out research, and in general a lot of understanding and amenability to everyone's view points.

The other- the Cancel Culture that is now being referred to broadly- is a targeted effort to delegitimize very real social issues (i.e. it's being called cancel culture to tear down statues honouring confederate war participants- actual committers of treason against their own country and notable racists.)

[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?

[Scroopy Noopers]

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?

It stops at groups that are still oppressed today! Yankees and Canucks?... you can’t be serious.

[Monahammer]

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.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by David Struch

Mayo, and anyone else who believes the polls show that Natives aren't too offended by these names should go ask them yourselves.

Go to your local First Nation and ask people, see what kind of response you'll get LMAO!

It's doesn't matter anyway what the Natives Peoples' think, Sports team racist stereotypes only listen when sponsors speak.

all i can do is speak from my own experience of owning an embroidery company for 20 years. i have done countless jobs over the years for native sports teams and they love love LOVE using native themed logos from profession sports teams. these jobs have been for everyone from regular band members all the way up to high ranking band council members. i've actually made a point of asking them about using these "offensive" logos and the reaction is always something like a laugh followed by "we f***in' love these logos!"


now, i'm not saying that these encounters speak of all native peoples views on the matter, but in 20 years of doing work for native bands i've only met people that love the designs.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

all i can do is speak from my own experience of owning an embroidery company for 20 years. i have done countless jobs over the years for native sports teams and they love love LOVE using native themed logos from profession sports teams. these jobs have been for everyone from regular band members all the way up to high ranking band council members. i've actually made a point of asking them about using these "offensive" logos and the reaction is always something like a laugh followed by "we f***in' love these logos!"


now, i'm not saying that these encounters speak of all native peoples views on the matter, but in 20 years of doing work for native bands i've only met people that love the designs.

Even this one?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

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.

I have been doing a lot of reading on this lately and it sounds like it is a pretty divisive issue. I don't think the word "Eskimo" was meant to be derogatory when it was originally used. The exact origin of the word seems to be from the Algonquian languages (possibly Ojibwe or Cree) for what they called the Inuit. It's not uncommon for natives in a nation to refer to themselves as one name and foreigners to use another name. Just to name a few common examples, Albanians, Hungarians, Croats and Japanese don't call themselves that in their own languages, but they aren't derogatory either.

In the context of naming a sports team after a nationality, whether the name itself is a slur or not, I think it becomes a different issue. I mean, what does it say about how you view a group of people when most other sports teams are named after animals, natural disasters, weapons, or other things that are meant to be intimidating? At the very least, the name should have some geographical or historical connection to the team (like Islanders, Leafs, etc...). Eskimos and Inuit are from nowhere near Edmonton. You could probably call the team the "Mohawks" or "Na###o" and it would be just as geographically and historically appropriate.

Whether someone likes or doesn't like the word "Eskimo" used to describe Inuit people might not be as important as how the word is applied in this case.

But like you said, I don't think there is a majority opinion even among Inuit, and there also seems to be some animosity about the issue. For example, it seems that Inuit in Nunavut are more against the team name than those in the Western Arctic.

[DownhillGoat]

Na###o being censored here is by far the best thing I've seen all day.

[FlamesAddiction]

Yeah, what's with that....

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, what's with that....

Not sure if serious...

But it's just ### that's censored.

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Spoiler!

Even this one?

hmmm.. i think so. it's tough to go back and find the designs becuz it would be saved using the local team's name, not cleavland indians.

chicago blackhawks are a huge favourite (and variations of that design) but i think i did cleavland's logo for at least one team. i know i've also done the redskins design for a team

[Firebot]

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?

RIP

[FaFaFlamey]

We had an Elder speak to us at work about all things aboriginal. The gentleman began his speech with something like: "First you called us Indians, then you called us Natives, then it was Aboriginals, and now it's First Nations. I wonder what it's going to be next to cure that guilty conscience".

He was great. He provided us with all kinds of insight into their way of life and culture. He was very friendly, not angry or aggressive. Some of his stories about racism were terrible, like walking into a store and everyone looking nervous.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have been doing a lot of reading on this lately and it sounds like it is a pretty divisive issue. I don't think the word "Eskimo" was meant to be derogatory when it was originally used. The exact origin of the word seems to be from the Algonquian languages (possibly Ojibwe or Cree) for what they called the Inuit. It's not uncommon for natives in a nation to refer to themselves as one name and foreigners to use another name. Just to name a few common examples, Albanians, Hungarians, Croats and Japanese don't call themselves that in their own languages, but they aren't derogatory either.

In the context of naming a sports team after a nationality, whether the name itself is a slur or not, I think it becomes a different issue. I mean, what does it say about how you view a group of people when most other sports teams are named after animals, natural disasters, weapons, or other things that are meant to be intimidating? At the very least, the name should have some geographical or historical connection to the team (like Islanders, Leafs, etc...). Eskimos and Inuit are from nowhere near Edmonton. You could probably call the team the "Mohawks" or "Na###o" and it would be just as geographically and historically appropriate.

Whether someone likes or doesn't like the word "Eskimo" used to describe Inuit people might not be as important as how the word is applied in this case.

But like you said, I don't think there is a majority opinion even among Inuit, and there also seems to be some animosity about the issue. For example, it seems that Inuit in Nunavut are more against the team name than those in the Western Arctic.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I have been doing a lot of reading on this lately and it sounds like it is a pretty divisive issue. I don't think the word "Eskimo" was meant to be derogatory when it was originally used. The exact origin of the word seems to be from the Algonquian languages (possibly Ojibwe or Cree) for what they called the Inuit. It's not uncommon for natives in a nation to refer to themselves as one name and foreigners to use another name. Just to name a few common examples, Albanians, Hungarians, Croats and Japanese don't call themselves that in their own languages, but they aren't derogatory either.

In the context of naming a sports team after a nationality, whether the name itself is a slur or not, I think it becomes a different issue. I mean, what does it say about how you view a group of people when most other sports teams are named after animals, natural disasters, weapons, or other things that are meant to be intimidating? At the very least, the name should have some geographical or historical connection to the team (like Islanders, Leafs, etc...). Eskimos and Inuit are from nowhere near Edmonton. You could probably call the team the "Mohawks" or "Na###o" and it would be just as geographically and historically appropriate.

Whether someone likes or doesn't like the word "Eskimo" used to describe Inuit people might not be as important as how the word is applied in this case.

But like you said, I don't think there is a majority opinion even among Inuit, and there also seems to be some animosity about the issue. For example, it seems that Inuit in Nunavut are more against the team name than those in the Western Arctic.

Thanks for this post- you seem to be right about the origin of the term eskimo and certainly are right about the frequency with which indigenous bands referred to each other as "us" and "other people". The point you make about naming standards and conventions is very valid for the eskimos, and definitely makes me question the intent of the name originally.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

And again, many signatories to the Harper's article later retracted or were uncomfortable once they found out who else signed it.

Several signatories have since retracted. Out of dozens. And anyone who retracts their support for a statement championing freedom of expression on the grounds that someone they disagree with also signed the statement doesn't understand the principles of the statement in the first place.