Renaming Sports Teams

[SpeedFlex27]

4 hours ago, Floyd said:

So to recap, insurance companies suck so it’s not fair to change the name because the Inuit have not held a referendum... ummmm

I gave you a real life example of blatant racism by an insurance company & you just sloughed it off like it isn't important. I thought what the insurance company did to that band councillor & his family  was absolutely brutal. I doubt if they'd even try that in 2020 but this was 1989. But hey, according to you I only posted that story because I think insurance companies suck? No, denying insurance coverage to s First Nations family was racism & that sucks. They would never have done that to a white family in Thompson. If all you take from that story is that I think insurance companies suck then you just don't get it.

BTW, I don't think insurance companies or the industry sucks. I was a claims adjuster for a lot of years in both property & auto. I was proud of the work I did. I liked helping people & companies get back on their feet again after a financial loss.  I've seen & experienced a lot of things doing claims. A lot of good & some bad.  Seeing corporate racism for the first & only time was unnerving & I felt really bad about what happened. So much so that I remember it 31 years later. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by SpeedFlex27

[TBURGESS]

16 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

The term East Indian is ignorant. There's no East India; there's just India. Why are indigenous people in Canada still called Indians? It's simple: a history of ignorance. They're exonyms based on historical events from a long, long time ago.

Is it a racist term? I guess that's up for debate*. Maybe racially insensitive is a better term...? Who am I to say. But there's no question it's ignorant - and certainly inappropriate when taking today's sociocultural worldview into consideration.

* it isn't my say one way or the other but I think there's a case to be made for those who would deem it as racist

I was told earlier in this thread the people can't use the word Indian alone because it's racist unless it had the word East in front of it because our indigenous peoples might take offence.  What is the politically correct term these days?

12 hours ago, Floyd said:

cool - well you drive down to Stony Plain and go say hi to all the ‘Indians’ living there... go to the casino and have a beer talk about how Paki is offensive and Indian is not... neither are as bad as the n-word for sure... 

Best case scenario you won’t get your ass kicked and you will once and for all prove your moral high ground - I’ll wait in the Yukon for your update

If you don't see the difference in the terms, that's on you. People are way more than just their race or where their ancestors happen to have been born or the colour of their skin. I take people individually as I meet them, and I hope they take me the same way, not as a Genocidal, Slave Owning, Land Stealing, white man.

If you want to call me a racist because I don't believe that Indian or Eskimo or Pakistani are racist, then that's your right and I think you have every right to call me that, even though it's a poor definition of racism. I'll go with the Websters definition: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. By that definition, I'm most certainly not racist.

[blue_gold_84]

5 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I was told earlier in this thread the people can't use the word Indian alone because it's racist unless it had the word East in front of it because our indigenous peoples might take offence.  What is the politically correct term these days?

You mostly come across as pretty intelligent and while you're not necessarily coming across as racist in this thread, you're most surely coming across as ignorant. I can't say I understand your acting obtuse here; I can only speculate boredom.

I think you know full well what the correct term is, politically or otherwise. A person from what's known presently as The Republic of India or whose ancestors are from that region is an Indian. Full stop. A person of First Nations descent/heritage from this continent is not an Indian in any way, shape, or form. That exonym applied by European explorers several hundred years ago is neither accurate nor appropriate; it never was. Its application is completely ignorant.

That shovel of yours must be getting pretty dull at this point, man.

[TBURGESS]

51 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

You mostly come across as pretty intelligent and while you're not necessarily coming across as racist in this thread, you're most surely coming across as ignorant. I can't say I understand your acting obtuse here; I can only speculate boredom.

I think you know full well what the correct term is, politically or otherwise. A person from what's known presently as The Republic of India or whose ancestors are from that region is an Indian. Full stop. A person of First Nations descent/heritage from this continent is not an Indian in any way, shape, or form. That exonym applied by European explorers several hundred years ago is neither accurate nor appropriate; it never was. Its application is completely ignorant.

That shovel of yours must be getting pretty dull at this point, man.

When people use the term Indian in Canada, do you immediately think of people from the Republic of India? I bet 90% of Canadian's don't automatically go there.

The law that covers indigenous people in Canada is still called the Indian Act and it certainly doesn't cover people from the Republic of India. 

And yes... it's partly boredom along with a desire to get people to think for themselves instead of blindly following what the media and politicians feed us. 

[Mr Dee]

👁‍🗨 The E.E. survey is too long. It should be more basic and to the point. 

The survey cannot be posted now because it is over.

But seeing as this issue will not go away, and is still in question, I would think a name change is in order and will be upcoming.

[blue_gold_84]

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

When people use the term Indian in Canada, do you immediately think of people from the Republic of India? I bet 90% of Canadian's don't automatically go there.

The law that covers indigenous people in Canada is still called the Indian Act and it certainly doesn't cover people from the Republic of India. 

And yes... it's partly boredom along with a desire to get people to think for themselves instead of blindly following what the media and politicians feed us. 

Here's the thing: all of that in bold is at the heart of the issue. And it doesn't make your position right, acceptable, or respectful - at all. "That's just the way it is and the way it's been for ages and the majority of people would agree with me" is a terrible way to look at this and a really archaic attitude to have. An exonym applied from a position of pure ignorance centuries ago has led to these ongoing symptoms, including the very legal and legislative framework that has ruled over and caused immeasurable hardship to generations of indigenous people. How is perpetuating such a mistake in any way defensible, much less conducive to your supposed desire to get people to think for themselves? 

If you want others to think for themselves as you're saying, you must practice what you preach. Think for yourself and understand what's incorrect and disrespectful with this exonym as it pertains to the indigenous populations here in Canada. Dying on a hill of historical ignorance doesn't strengthen your position, much in the same way throwing around numbers pulled ostensibly out of thin air doesn't. If 90% of Canadians do in fact share the same view as you, then we're worse off in this country than I thought. I sincerely believe that isn't the case, though. I think Canada's made considerable progress but there's still so much room for improvement as far as reconciliation goes with our First Nations.

This issue has very little to do with blindly following the media or politicians, unless you think being respectful of others is just somehow without merit. It's about putting an end to erroneous labels fuelled by a history of ignorance and racial insensitivity.

[Mr Dee]

19 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

The survey cannot be posted now because it is over.

A small sample of the questions on the E.E. survey...

 

 

[Tracker]

According to an Inuit historian, the term, "Eskimo" is a derogatory term used by the Cree, so that alone ought to be enough to change it.

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Here's the thing: all of that in bold is at the heart of the issue. And it doesn't make your position right, acceptable, or respectful - at all. "That's just the way it is and the way it's been for ages and the majority of people would agree with me" is a terrible way to look at this and a really archaic attitude to have. An exonym applied from a position of pure ignorance centuries ago has led to these ongoing symptoms, including the very legal and legislative framework that has ruled over and caused immeasurable hardship to generations of indigenous people. How is perpetuating such a mistake in any way defensible, much less conducive to your supposed desire to get people to think for themselves? 

If you want others to think for themselves as you're saying, you must practice what you preach. Think for yourself and understand what's incorrect and disrespectful with this exonym as it pertains to the indigenous populations here in Canada. Dying on a hill of historical ignorance doesn't strengthen your position, much in the same way throwing around numbers pulled ostensibly out of thin air doesn't. If 90% of Canadians do in fact share the same view as you, then we're worse off in this country than I thought. I sincerely believe that isn't the case, though. I think Canada's made considerable progress but there's still so much room for improvement as far as reconciliation goes with our First Nations.

This issue has very little to do with blindly following the media or politicians, unless you think being respectful of others is just somehow without merit. It's about putting an end to erroneous labels fuelled by a history of ignorance and racial insensitivity.

I'm actually just saying that you're wrong about the generally accepted use of the word Indian. Maybe 90% is an over reach but, the connotation isn't only people from India. In fact you know that they are generally referred to as East Indians.

Our laws that pertaining to aboriginals is called the Indian Act. That's simply a fact and the way it is and the way its been for over a hundred years. I get that you want to change it, but changing a football team's name doesn't make any real difference to the affected peoples. If you were on your soapbox saying the Indian Act needs a major revamp and a name change, I'd be totally on your side. Any legislation that needs to know what your race is to know who to apply it to is racist by definition.

Changing the common name from Indian to Indigenous People or Eskimo to Inuit doesn't do anything to change their past or current situation. It doesn't right any wrongs. It's just something that people can do that doesn't cost them anything and makes them feel like they're helping in some way. Kinda like 'Thoughts and Prayers'. 

[Brandon]

To lighten up the mood of this thread... whenever I hear Eskimo I always think of this old Mad TV bit....

 

[Floyd]

43 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm actually just saying that you're wrong about the generally accepted use of the word Indian. Maybe 90% is an over reach but, the connotation isn't only people from India. In fact you know that they are generally referred to as East Indians.

Our laws that pertaining to aboriginals is called the Indian Act. That's simply a fact and the way it is and the way its been for over a hundred years. I get that you want to change it, but changing a football team's name doesn't make any real difference to the affected peoples. If you were on your soapbox saying the Indian Act needs a major revamp and a name change, I'd be totally on your side. Any legislation that needs to know what your race is to know who to apply it to is racist by definition.

Changing the common name from Indian to Indigenous People or Eskimo to Inuit doesn't do anything to change their past or current situation. It doesn't right any wrongs. It's just something that people can do that doesn't cost them anything and makes them feel like they're helping in some way. Kinda like 'Thoughts and Prayers'. 

You're missing the entire point and now doubling down in a wounded 'you called me a racist- I don't see colour' persona and then saying 'well if we were changing the Indian Act oh then I would be on your side'... ha that's rich... what a weak move.

Once again, Indian and Eskimo have not been the 'common names' since the 1980s/90s... there's no excuse for you not to understand that.  The whole point of the issue is that Inuit is the Inuktitut word for their people, Indigenous is the word that First Nations cultures chose to use... not names that were labels - with derogatory connotations - given to them by other cultures.

No one is calling you racist but your ignorance does unfortunately highlight the systemic racism that people are currently campaigning against.  You don't mean to be racist - and claim to just be being fair - yet your continued use of these terms does hurt and offend people in these cultures.

The amount of effort for you to educate yourself and use Inuk instead of Eskimo for example - is about zero - no impact on your life whatsoever.  Yet it demonstrates a basic respect for another culture that becomes a part of slowly changing society. 

Your unwillingness to even consider that says a lot more than you realize.

[bearpants]

Another thought aside from whether the name is racist or not... the financial impact of a complete brand change for the Edmonton Football club... why don't we wait to see if there's still a CFL and the club is still financially viable before spending millions of dollars on re-branding...

I know, this is not the crux of the issue... but something to consider...

[Mr Dee]

Let’s hope this issue gets settled quickly because some posters here might be getting a wee bit postist.

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

You're missing the entire point and now doubling down in a wounded 'you called me a racist- I don't see colour' persona and then saying 'well if we were changing the Indian Act oh then I would be on your side'... ha that's rich... what a weak move.

Once again, Indian and Eskimo have not been the 'common names' since the 1980s/90s... there's no excuse for you not to understand that.  The whole point of the issue is that Inuit is the Inuktitut word for their people, Indigenous is the word that First Nations cultures chose to use... not names that were labels - with derogatory connotations - given to them by other cultures.

No one is calling you racist but your ignorance does unfortunately highlight the systemic racism that people are currently campaigning against.  You don't mean to be racist - and claim to just be being fair - yet your continued use of these terms does hurt and offend people in these cultures.

The amount of effort for you to educate yourself and use Inuk instead of Eskimo for example - is about zero - no impact on your life whatsoever.  Yet it demonstrates a basic respect for another culture that becomes a part of slowly changing society. 

Your unwillingness to even consider that says a lot more than you realize.

I'm not missing the point. I'm disagreeing with you. The two things are vastly different. I never said I don't see colour. That's a ridiculous statement. Everyone sees colour. I would be on your side if you were talking about changing the name of the Indian act to something they like better. Of course I know that wouldn't change a single thing in anyone's life.

There is no excuse for you to pretend that if you simply use the word Indian that most folks in Canada are thinking India. Inuit is the word for one of the 3 northern groups, not all 3. It hasn't been Indigenous since the 80's or 90's and that's the only choice. I doubt that Indigenous is even a word in any Indigenous language. It's an English word that means Native or Aboriginal and it doesn't just apply to a group of people.

According to Websters: 'Eskimo has no exact synonym; it has a general meaning that encompasses a number of indigenous peoples, and it continues for now in widespread use in many parts of the English-speaking world.'

I know that Inuk is the singular form of Inuit. Not sure how that helps me tho. I can't think of a time when I've singled out a specific Inuk. I can think of times when I've talked about a group of people, but I couldn't tell an Inuit from a Yupic or a Iñupiat and I'd suspect that most folks can't.

I'm not unwilling to use any of the words. You on the other hand are unwilling to use Indian and Eskimo because you believe they are offensive or derogatory. That's great for you, but when you say no one should use those words because you think they are offensive, then you've overstepped. As I said early on. My religion doesn't allow me to do something is OK. My religion doesn't allow you to do something... Nope, just nope.

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

There is no excuse for you to pretend that if you simply use the word Indian that most folks in Canada are thinking India.

Yeah, umm that is someone else's argument...

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Inuit is the word for one of the 3 northern groups, not all 3. It hasn't been Indigenous since the 80's or 90's and that's the only choice. I doubt that Indigenous is even a word in any Indigenous language. It's an English word that means Native or Aboriginal and it doesn't just apply to a group of people.

According to Websters: 'Eskimo has no exact synonym; it has a general meaning that encompasses a number of indigenous peoples, and it continues for now in widespread use in many parts of the English-speaking world.'

I know that Inuk is the singular form of Inuit. Not sure how that helps me tho. I can't think of a time when I've singled out a specific Inuk. I can think of times when I've talked about a group of people, but I couldn't tell an Inuit from a Yupic or a Iñupiat and I'd suspect that most folks can't.

Way to google...  looks like you're an expert on northern Indigenous culture now too!!  Its a big day.

 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

You on the other hand are unwilling to use Indian and Eskimo because you believe they are offensive or derogatory. That's great for you, but when you say no one should use those words because you think they are offensive, then you've overstepped. 

Still missing the point...  'I' didn't decide they were offensive - I am simply respecting the decision and the request of these other cultures based on 20+ years in the north and their territories. 

You've done a great job of twisting your original argument of 'why should we change Esks becuase it has history and only some are offended' to 'I'm attacking free speech because of my personal offence'

I worked with the inuvialuit for two years and they are the Inuit group that is most accepting of the term 'Eskimo' in Canada... I can assure you that the term Eskimo is never substituted for Inuvialuit or Inuit anywhere other than at a cabin or the Legion or on a weekend fishing expedition...  

Anyway, you've dug your heels in and along the way, you have opened my eyes to what systemic racism actually is in Canada... I hope you sit down and at least consider your error.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Floyd

[TBURGESS]

14 hours ago, Floyd said:

Yeah, umm that is someone else's argument...

Way to google...  looks like you're an expert on northern Indigenous culture now too!!  Its a big day.

 

Still missing the point...  'I' didn't decide they were offensive - I am simply respecting the decision and the request of these other cultures based on 20+ years in the north and their territories. 

You've done a great job of twisting your original argument of 'why should we change Esks becuase it has history and only some are offended' to 'I'm attacking free speech because of my personal offence'

I worked with the inuvialuit for two years and they are the Inuit group that is most accepting of the term 'Eskimo' in Canada... I can assure you that the term Eskimo is never substituted for Inuvialuit or Inuit anywhere other than at a cabin or the Legion or on a weekend fishing expedition...  

Anyway, you've dug your heels in and along the way, you have opened my eyes to what systemic racism actually is in Canada... I hope you sit down and at least consider your error.

You love to make stuff up to complain about. No, I didn't say I'm an expert on Indigenous culture but that doesn't change the fact that the most people in Canada don't think India when you say Indian or that Eskimo is still used around the world to describe northern groups. Yes, I googled stuff instead of going to library. How else do you expect people to learn, by simply accepting your point of view?

My original argument was we shouldn't force sports teams to change their names because a minority are offended. Have a vote and go with the majority. It's still the same argument. We stopped talking about sports teams pages and pages ago. Neither of us are 'attacking free speech'.

I find it funny that you think I'm missing the point whenever I disagree with you. Especially when you missed my original argument and what the current argument is.

Changing the words does absolutely nothing to change the way people think or the lives of the affected peoples. Eg: Changing the Indian Act to the Indigenous peoples act wouldn't change what's in the act and removing the 'N' word didn't get rid of racism. You think that's called systemic racism. I don't. You should use your White Guilt to champion actual change, because that's where respect really comes from. Getting rid of Indian and Eskimo from English isn't actual change, it's the thoughts and prayers of White Guilt.

Edited July 15, 2020 by TBURGESS

[Stickem]

What's in a name??? So where does this all end...Do the Cleveland Indians still retain their name....Do all of those motorcycles with the manufacturer's name Indian on them have to be removed...??? This sure can get complicated and I doubt that's going to happen

Edited July 15, 2020 by Stickem

[Tracker]

How about "The Edmonton Ookpiks"? (Blast from the past reference, but I kinda like it)

[blue_gold_84]

18 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm actually just saying that you're wrong about the generally accepted use of the word Indian. Maybe 90% is an over reach but, the connotation isn't only people from India. In fact you know that they are generally referred to as East Indians.

Our laws that pertaining to aboriginals is called the Indian Act. That's simply a fact and the way it is and the way its been for over a hundred years. I get that you want to change it, but changing a football team's name doesn't make any real difference to the affected peoples. If you were on your soapbox saying the Indian Act needs a major revamp and a name change, I'd be totally on your side. Any legislation that needs to know what your race is to know who to apply it to is racist by definition.

Changing the common name from Indian to Indigenous People or Eskimo to Inuit doesn't do anything to change their past or current situation. It doesn't right any wrongs. It's just something that people can do that doesn't cost them anything and makes them feel like they're helping in some way. Kinda like 'Thoughts and Prayers'. 

Nice job continuing to demonstrate - blatantly and intentionally - your ignorance. Summed up perfectly with some stupid false equivalency.

[Brandon]

16 minutes ago, Stickem said:

What's in a name??? So where does this all end...Do the Cleveland Indians still retain their name....Do all of those motorcycles with the manufacturer's name Indian on them have to be removed...??? This sure can get complicated and I doubt that's going to happen

Locally... The Indian Posse gang are in the midst of a brand change and everyone will need new tattoos and jackets by the end of the year lol.  

[Stickem]

2 hours ago, Brandon said:

Locally... The Indian Posse gang are in the midst of a brand change and everyone will need new tattoos and jackets by the end of the year lol.  

A little more close to Bomber home...Whatever will we do about the name of one of our famous quarterbacks who embraced the name ...'Indian Jack Jacobs'....Whatever will we do;;;Slippery slope when you start to go down it

[TBURGESS]

2 hours ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Nice job continuing to demonstrate - blatantly and intentionally - your ignorance. Summed up perfectly with some stupid false equivalency.

Blatant and intentional? Sure, but ignorance doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean 'disagrees with you' or 'disagrees with the White Guilt movement'. I understand the issues and I know what happened in the past. I simply see no value in changing words or changing how we see the past or removing things that don't match our modern sensibilities. I see putting a 2020 filter on the past as whitewashing (I don't know or care what the politically correct term is these days) what actually happened so we can 'pretend' that it never did. I do see value in addressing the actual issues.

White Supremacists and White Guilt'ists are two sides of the same coin. The supremacists think they are superior because they're white. The Guilt'ists think they are superior because they feel guilty about what their race did in the past. Both sides think that people who don't agree with them are ignorant and are missing the point. If they'd just listen, they'd surely come to the same conclusions that each side has. I'm not on either side of that coin.

Where you're born, who your parents are, where their ancestors came from, what your race is, what your religion is, your financial situation, your sex, who you love, and many other ways we choose define ourselves and other groups to are all totally random. Mankind needs to move past being proud of any of those things and needs to stop letting the differences keep us separated, but I suspect we never will never happen.

<Puts on tin foil hat> The world has enough resources to feed, house, clothe, provide medical care, etc for everyone. The problem isn't resources. It's power and greed. 1% of people own the world. The next 9% run it. They have a huge vested interest in keeping the 90% squabbling. If we stopped, then 90% would do better and the top 10% would do worse.<Takes off tin foil hat> /endthread

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by TBURGESS

[Mr Dee]

Eskimos lose $1.1 million in 2019; release survey results about team name.

Eskimos board chair Janice Agrios released results of research conducted with the Inuit community from 2018 and 2019 in regards to their team name. Agrios says among the western Arctic community, 78 per cent opposed a name change. In Nunavut, 55 per cent opposed a name change. In the eastern Arctic where results identified “little connection to the team,” 31 per cent oppose a name change. Agrios says of those who see the name as positive, the “dominant theme” is pride.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7180842/eskimos-agm-team-name-2019-finances/

 

[TBURGESS]

[SpeedFlex27]

4 hours ago, Stickem said:

A little more close to Bomber home...Whatever will we do about the name of one of our famous quarterbacks who embraced the name ...'Indian Jack Jacobs'....Whatever will we do;;;Slippery slope when you start to go down it

Use it if you want. Or just call him Jack Jacobs. He was proud of that name. He was also a proud member of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. If he was okay with it then who are we to say we shouldn't?