Renaming Sports Teams

[TBURGESS]

13 hours ago, Floyd said:

Man, you've really slipped over the years...

So, basic logic and market forces defeated your 'Eskimos doesn't bother me and I'm a regular non-racist white guy' argument... so now you're wallowing in the dirt and calling me a 'typical social justice warrior who does nothing'... classy.

Just remember that I didn't give a flying effin eff about the name until I read how misguided your stance was - now you've twisted your argument that it was always only the 'cost of rebranding' that is the issue because it will kill the CFL...

You're a shadow of the old TBurg, I must say...  

Basic logic didn't defeat my argument. The current politically correct climate made logic irrelevant. Eskimos doesn't bother me or most of the affected folks who the Esks polled, but that point is lost on you.

I am a non-racist white guy. I couldn't care less what anyone's ancestry is. I don't treat other races as children who need to be protected. I assume they are adults. I don't take responsibility for things that my race did in the past and I don't expect anyone of any other race to take responsibility for anything that their race did in the past. I try to see things as the were seen at the time they were done. I don't put a modern filter on them and call them bad. Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

I never said it was it was only the cost of rebranding. I had no idea what the cost was until a few days back, but the cost of rebranding is a big thing especially in today's CFL economy. You're completely downplaying the costs and expecting the Esks to pay the entire cost themselves.

I see you as one of the group who is chanting in the streets:

What do we want?   CHANGE!

When do we want it? NOW!

Who should pay for it? SOMEONE ELSE!

[Bigblue204]

Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

I mean...if we've learned anything, it's that in the early to mid 1900's there was very little racism. I'm sure when the stamps called Edmonton that it was very respectful lol.

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

I mean...if we've learned anything, it's that in the early to mid 1900's there was very little racism. I'm sure when the stamps called Edmonton that it was very respectful lol.

It was easier back then the real life Eskimos had numbers too just like the football team - racism didn’t even exist... until the hippies invented it

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Basic logic didn't defeat my argument. The current politically correct climate made logic irrelevant. Eskimos doesn't bother me or most of the affected folks who the Esks polled, but that point is lost on you.

I am a non-racist white guy. I couldn't care less what anyone's ancestry is. I don't treat other races as children who need to be protected. I assume they are adults. I don't take responsibility for things that my race did in the past and I don't expect anyone of any other race to take responsibility for anything that their race did in the past. I try to see things as the were seen at the time they were done. I don't put a modern filter on them and call them bad. Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

I never said it was it was only the cost of rebranding. I had no idea what the cost was until a few days back, but the cost of rebranding is a big thing especially in today's CFL economy. You're completely downplaying the costs and expecting the Esks to pay the entire cost themselves.

I see you as one of the group who is chanting in the streets:

What do we want?   CHANGE!

When do we want it? NOW!

Who should pay for it? SOMEONE ELSE!

Sweet.  Just two weeks ago I was a trump redneck who only cared about the economy... now I’m a social justice deadbeat...

[Mark H.]

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

I mean...if we've learned anything, it's that in the early to mid 1900's there was very little racism. I'm sure when the stamps called Edmonton that it was very respectful lol.

Not only was racism alive and well, you might also want check out the rigid class system that most people lived under. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

8 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

[Eternal optimist]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwji8a_MpdzqAhWxLn0KHXOjAl0QFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fd3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2019%2F05%2F2018-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2voazgzshYcL_LztpFSPmV

For anyone else who is interested - above are the public audited financial statements (2018) for Edmonton's team, keep in mind they hosted the Grey Cup that year, so there's a boatload more revenue in 2018 because of that.

EVEN THEN though - their financials indicate cash on-hand hovers above $8 million, and that's not even including their investments. They show positive operating cash flows, and not only that, they have a rainy day fund of $12M ("stabilization fund") that could be drawn upon for dire situations .... like a pandemic. Of course, 2019 was a decent year on the field for Edmonton, they made the Eastern Final despite a losing record... there were certainly other teams (Toronto, Ottawa) that did a lot worse.

Assuming the $1M estimate to rebrand is correct, the question isn't if they have the cash to rebrand, it is if they want to.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I am a non-racist white guy.

I don't think you are a racist, most people here don't either- but you could be a bit more "tuned-in" as your First Nations, Black and White post showed. I think we can all agree that being a little more informed is never a bad thing. 

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

 I don't take responsibility for things that my race did in the past and I don't expect anyone of any other race to take responsibility for anything that their race did in the past. 

What's wrong with righting a wrong and making reparations when one is in a position of privilege and has the means to do so? Many of the privileges we have are because we inherited them from the wrongdoings from the past. Rail roads, land, slavery- all of it to build this society and the comforts you and I enjoy... so why not make amends?

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

. I try to see things as the were seen at the time they were done. I don't put a modern filter on them and call them bad. Eskimos, when the team was named, wasn't seen as derogatory or racist. That's the modern spin. 

 There's a reason why it's "Catch a tiger by the toe" and not it's original verse... They call them licorice babies now for a very good reason... The game is called telephone now and none says "Not a Ch......n's chance " anymore. First Nations... well there is still a ton of things that need to be done there. We progress and correct things as we go- as it should be, I don't see this as any different- evolve.

 

 

[Floyd]

28 minutes ago, Eternal optimist said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwji8a_MpdzqAhWxLn0KHXOjAl0QFjAAegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fd3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2019%2F05%2F2018-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2voazgzshYcL_LztpFSPmV

For anyone else who is interested - above are the public audited financial statements (2018) for Edmonton's team, keep in mind they hosted the Grey Cup that year, so there's a boatload more revenue in 2018 because of that.

EVEN THEN though - their financials indicate cash on-hand hovers above $8 million, and that's not even including their investments. They show positive operating cash flows, and not only that, they have a rainy day fund of $12M ("stabilization fund") that could be drawn upon for dire situations .... like a pandemic. Of course, 2019 was a decent year on the field for Edmonton, they made the Eastern Final despite a losing record... there were certainly other teams (Toronto, Ottawa) that did a lot worse.

Assuming the $1M estimate to rebrand is correct, the question isn't if they have the cash to rebrand, it is if they want to.

When you look at the successful teams across the league, they are almost all community-owned... with the exception of Calgary which kind of 'won the lottery' with CSE

 

[TBURGESS]

5 hours ago, Floyd said:

Sweet.  Just two weeks ago I was a trump redneck who only cared about the economy... now I’m a social justice deadbeat...

If that's the way you see yourself, it's OK with me.

5 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Not only was racism alive and well, you might also want check out the rigid class system that most people lived under. 

Sure, but that has nothing to do with Eskimo being racist or not when it was given to the club.

4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I don't think you are a racist, most people here don't either- but you could be a bit more "tuned-in" as your First Nations, Black and White post showed. I think we can all agree that being a little more informed is never a bad thing. 

What's wrong with righting a wrong and making reparations when one is in a position of privilege and has the means to do so? Many of the privileges we have are because we inherited them from the wrongdoings from the past. Rail roads, land, slavery- all of it to build this society and the comforts you and I enjoy... so why not make amends?

 There's a reason why it's "Catch a tiger by the toe" and not it's original verse... They call them licorice babies now for a very good reason... The game is called telephone now and none says "Not a Ch......n's chance " anymore. First Nations... well there is still a ton of things that need to be done there. We progress and correct things as we go- as it should be, I don't see this as any different- evolve.

I'm as informed as the next guy, especially if the next guy is Floyd. 😁 It's not that I don't know what happened, it's that I don't put a modern filter on what happened. It's not that I don't think some of the things that happened turned out horribly, because they did. I've repeatedly stated that the Indian Act is racist and that we should be treating everyone with the same level of respect no matter what their race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or any other way folks want to pidgin-hole other people who aren't exactly the same as they are.

You're blaming all white people for the wrongs perpetrated by some white people in times when they weren't thought of as being wrong. In other words, you're basing your opinion mostly, if not purely, on race. Blame the 1%. They built the railroads, owned most of the land and all the slaves (until 1833 in Canada). Blame the Catholic church for the horrible things they put Native children through in an effort to convert them and assimilate them. Blame the government of the time who made the laws, but understand that they couldn't have made the laws if they didn't have enough votes, which shows you where the majority of folks stood on the subject at the time.

There's already been a bunch of change and there needs to be a bunch more. A lot, but not all, race problems are really poor vs rich problems. Covid for example, doesn't know the race of anyone it infects, but more black and Hispanic people are getting it and dying from it in the US. That's because a lot of them live in poor neighborhoods, in crowded situations without access to the same level of healthcare that the middle and rich classes have.

Michael Jordan's kids have a hugely better chance at success than any white person in the poor parts of any town. BLM folks justify burning things down by saying they don't have those things, they'll never have those things, and therefore they shouldn't respect those things (I'm paraphrasing from a John Oliver clip). Guess what? I'm an old white guy from a middle class neighborhood, who got an education and a good job and I'll never have those things either, because they're owned by the top 10% of wage earners.

It's not just white folks. Natives, blacks or any other race for that matter enjoy the privileges this country has created too. For example: My Uncle was a west coast native who was taken away from his family at an early age and put in a school. He never talked about those times. He grew up to be a lawyer specializing in Aboriginal affairs then a judge. He didn't allow his race or his history to define him. One of the smartest and most successful people I've ever met. He lived the full Canadian dream, likely becoming a 10%'r, certainly being held in very high esteem by all who knew him and a nice guy too.

Are we all equal? Nope, not now not ever. Is it harder to make it if you're poor or a visible minority? Absolutely. Are we failing to help the poor and the minority's. Yup. Will banning words help any of this? Nope.

 

 

[Floyd]

26 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm as informed as the next guy, especially if the next guy is Floyd. 😁 It's not that I don't know what happened, it's that I don't put a modern filter on what happened. It's not that I don't think some of the things that happened turned out horribly, because they did. I've repeatedly stated that the Indian Act is racist and that we should be treating everyone with the same level of respect no matter what their race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or any other way folks want to pidgin-hole other people who aren't exactly the same as they are.

You're blaming all white people for the wrongs perpetrated by some white people in times when they weren't thought of as being wrong. In other words, you're basing your opinion mostly, if not purely, on race. Blame the 1%. They built the railroads, owned most of the land and all the slaves (until 1833 in Canada). Blame the Catholic church for the horrible things they put Native children through in an effort to convert them and assimilate them. Blame the government of the time who made the laws, but understand that they couldn't have made the laws if they didn't have enough votes, which shows you where the majority of folks stood on the subject at the time.

There's already been a bunch of change and there needs to be a bunch more. A lot, but not all, race problems are really poor vs rich problems. Covid for example, doesn't know the race of anyone it infects, but more black and Hispanic people are getting it and dying from it in the US. That's because a lot of them live in poor neighborhoods, in crowded situations without access to the same level of healthcare that the middle and rich classes have.

Michael Jordan's kids have a hugely better chance at success than any white person in the poor parts of any town. BLM folks justify burning things down by saying they don't have those things, they'll never have those things, and therefore they shouldn't respect those things (I'm paraphrasing from a John Oliver clip). Guess what? I'm an old white guy from a middle class neighborhood, who got an education and a good job and I'll never have those things either, because they're owned by the top 10% of wage earners.

It's not just white folks. Natives, blacks or any other race for that matter enjoy the privileges this country has created too. For example: My Uncle was a west coast native who was taken away from his family at an early age and put in a school. He never talked about those times. He grew up to be a lawyer specializing in Aboriginal affairs then a judge. He didn't allow his race or his history to define him. One of the smartest and most successful people I've ever met. He lived the full Canadian dream, likely becoming a 10%'r, certainly being held in very high esteem by all who knew him and a nice guy too.

Are we all equal? Nope, not now not ever. Is it harder to make it if you're poor or a visible minority? Absolutely. Are we failing to help the poor and the minority's. Yup. Will banning words help any of this? Nope.

Always fun to take a shot at me... don't ever think you are more informed or intelligent than me.  Devil's advocate is the path of the average man and you have conquered that path.

It must just be your grammar.... 

Michael Jordan's kids have a hugely better chance at success than any white person in the poor parts of any town. BLM folks justify burning things down by saying they don't have those things, they'll never have those things, and therefore they shouldn't respect those things (I'm paraphrasing from a John Oliver clip). Guess what? I'm an old white guy from a middle class neighborhood, who got an education and a good job and I'll never have those things either, because they're owned by the top 10% of wage earners.

Because, man, that is some clueless racist diatribe...  your last sentence DEFINED systemic racism - both against minorities and against the poor

Imagine that all I do for social justice is get upset about the name Eskimos if it helps you sleep at night...  but clearly I don't have to do much for it to be more than what you're doing - other than just not patting myself on the back for being a white non-racist hard workin guy.

I thought you'd stop digging your hole but instead you're now trying to kiss ass to other posters by throwing 'Floyd' under the bus... again - a sad and weak move I didn't expect from the old TBurg...

[SpeedFlex27]

7 hours ago, Floyd said:

When you look at the successful teams across the league, they are almost all community-owned... with the exception of Calgary which kind of 'won the lottery' with CSE

 

They pay the bills & that is it. They have no interest in investing in a new stadium for the Stamps. About a year ago there were rumours that a group of investors wanted to bring in a MLS team to Calgary for 2026. It would have involved building a new stadium of about 30,000 seats. Perhaps CSEC would partner with them to get a new football/soccer stadium built. Since then crickets with Covid. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is now dead.

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

They pay the bills & that is it. They have no interest in investing in a new stadium for the Stamps. About a year ago there were rumours that a group of investors wanted to bring in a MLS team to Calgary for 2026. It would have involved building a new stadium of about 30,000 seats. Perhaps CSEC would partner with them to get a new football/soccer stadium built. Since then crickets with Covid. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing is now dead.

Hmm interesting - I wonder how a CFL wide community ownership scenario would look?  If I’m the Liberals that’s how I’d structure it - bailout the community owned teams and wage subsidies for the private teams

Edited July 21, 2020 by Floyd

[SpeedFlex27]

2 hours ago, Floyd said:

Hmm interesting - I wonder how a CFL wide community ownership scenario would look?  If I’m the Liberals that’s how I’d structure it - bailout the community owned teams and wage subsidies for the private teams

I personally don't think community ownership would work in Toronto. They have some owners with deep pockets with MLSE.  Braley is a disaster in BC. He was a good owner in the 80's & he seems to be stuck in a time warp. The Lions were community owned until the 80's. It might still work there. 

[TBURGESS]

15 hours ago, Floyd said:

Always fun to take a shot at me... don't ever think you are more informed or intelligent than me.  Devil's advocate is the path of the average man and you have conquered that path.

It must just be your grammar.... 

Michael Jordan's kids have a hugely better chance at success than any white person in the poor parts of any town. BLM folks justify burning things down by saying they don't have those things, they'll never have those things, and therefore they shouldn't respect those things (I'm paraphrasing from a John Oliver clip). Guess what? I'm an old white guy from a middle class neighborhood, who got an education and a good job and I'll never have those things either, because they're owned by the top 10% of wage earners.

Because, man, that is some clueless racist diatribe...  your last sentence DEFINED systemic racism - both against minorities and against the poor

Imagine that all I do for social justice is get upset about the name Eskimos if it helps you sleep at night...  but clearly I don't have to do much for it to be more than what you're doing - other than just not patting myself on the back for being a white non-racist hard workin guy.

I thought you'd stop digging your hole but instead you're now trying to kiss ass to other posters by throwing 'Floyd' under the bus... again - a sad and weak move I didn't expect from the old TBurg...

You're the one who took it to the personal level instead of debating the issues. I'm happy to go there too because it seems like it's all you've got. No, I'm not throwing you under the bus and no I'm not kissing ass and no, making a joke at your expense isn't sad or weak.

My diatribe doesn't define systemic racism. Poor isn't a race.

I don't imagine anything about you or even think of you until I reply then I move on again until the next time.

[bearpants]

17 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

...It's not that I don't know what happened, it's that I don't put a modern filter on what happened. It's not that I don't think some of the things that happened turned out horribly, because they did. I've repeatedly stated that the Indian Act is racist and that we should be treating everyone with the same level of respect no matter what their race, religion, sex, sexual preference, or any other way folks want to pidgin-hole other people who aren't exactly the same as they are...

Here's the problem with a statement like this... what it implies (and I know you're not trying to say this) is that slavery was ok because it was deemed acceptable at the time... some things certainly need a modern filter...

BTW... the rest of this post had some good stuff but also stuff I disagree with so I decided to go too deep into it...  

[TBURGESS]

16 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Here's the problem with a statement like this... what it implies (and I know you're not trying to say this) is that slavery was ok because it was deemed acceptable at the time... some things certainly need a modern filter...

BTW... the rest of this post had some good stuff but also stuff I disagree with so I decided to go too deep into it...  

I'm not saying that, and I don't think it's implied either. It simply was what it was and it was OK when it happened. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen or try to 'fix' it now. We should learn from it and do better now and in the future.

[Noeller]

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not saying that, and I don't think it's implied either. It simply was what it was and it was OK when it happened. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen or try to 'fix' it now. We should learn from it and do better now and in the future.

it was okay to whom? To the white people. It certainly wasn't okay to the blacks who were enslaved. That's a really important point. I think what you're trying to say is that it was "socially acceptable" at the time. And that is just disgusting to even think about. 

[bearpants]

23 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not saying that, and I don't think it's implied either. It simply was what it was and it was OK when it happened. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen or try to 'fix' it now. We should learn from it and do better now and in the future.

I hate using slavery as an example because it's such a terrible black mark in our history... but sometimes it take an extreme example to explain the point...

When slavery was abolished they were not pretending it didn't happen and they did 'fix' the problem (well, eventually)... exactly like you said we should not be doing today... so based on your argument as you've clearly outline above, they should not have viewed slavery "with a modern filter" and continued to allow it...

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not saying that, and I don't think it's implied either. 

 

18 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

 

I'm as informed as the next guy, especially if the next guy is Floyd. 😁 It's not that I don't know what happened, it's that I don't put a modern filter on what happened. It's not that I don't think some of the things that happened turned out horribly, because they did.

You are right, it wasn't implied- it was just plainly stated.

You literally said that.

Edited July 21, 2020 by wanna-b-fanboy

[TBURGESS]

Slavery was socially acceptable, legal and OK at the time. That's not the same as saying slavery is OK. Taking the word 'slavery' out of the lexicon wouldn't have changed anything. They had to take slavery out of the system (Note that I don't say WE, because we had nothing at all to do with it). Looking back, it's OK to say slave owners were people of their time, but it's not OK to suggest that they were wrong for following the social norms of their time. Certainly, looking back through a modern filter, they were wrong. Quite frankly rich people who didn't own slaves when it was legal were ahead of their time.

For example: Washington, a founding father and their first president, owned slaves like most other rich men of his time. Does owning slaves at that time mean we should we ignore everything else that he did? Should we see him as a terrible person because he followed the social norms and legal rules of his time? Should his statues be removed? Social justice folks would say yes. I'd say he was a man of his time and the fact that he owned slaves should be added to every statue so people could make up their own minds. That's what I mean by trying not to put a modern filter on what happened. I don't mean ignore the past. I mean don't look at the past with today's morals include all the information about the past warts and all.

[Floyd]

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

You're the one who took it to the personal level instead of debating the issues. I'm happy to go there too because it seems like it's all you've got. No, I'm not throwing you under the bus and no I'm not kissing ass and no, making a joke at your expense isn't sad or weak.

My diatribe doesn't define systemic racism. Poor isn't a race.

I don't imagine anything about you or even think of you until I reply then I move on again until the next time.

Making a weak joke that you are 'more informed than Floyd' is actually the definition of kissing ass... but whatevs.

Name is changing, luckily we don't have to debate this anymore.

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I'm not saying that, and I don't think it's implied either. It simply was what it was and it was OK when it happened. We shouldn't pretend it didn't happen or try to 'fix' it now. We should learn from it and do better now and in the future.

However...  this is EXACTLY the argument for changing the name... ha

Making a tiny effort to change a name that has negative connotations is 'doing better now and in the future'...  

You truly are baffling.

[Floyd]

6 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Slavery was socially acceptable, legal and OK at the time. That's not the same as saying slavery is OK. Taking the word 'slavery' out of the lexicon wouldn't have changed anything. They had to take slavery out of the system (Note that I don't say WE, because we had nothing at all to do with it). Looking back, it's OK to say slave owners were people of their time, but it's not OK to suggest that they were wrong for following the social norms of their time. Certainly, looking back through a modern filter, they were wrong. Quite frankly rich people who didn't own slaves when it was legal were ahead of their time.

For example: Washington, a founding father and their first president, owned slaves like most other rich men of his time. Does owning slaves at that time mean we should we ignore everything else that he did? Should we see him as a terrible person because he followed the social norms and legal rules of his time? Should his statues be removed? Social justice folks would say yes. I'd say he was a man of his time and the fact that he owned slaves should be added to every statue so people could make up their own minds. That's what I mean by trying not to put a modern filter on what happened. I don't mean ignore the past. I mean don't look at the past with today's morals include all the information about the past warts and all.

 

[TBURGESS]

3 hours ago, Floyd said:

Making a weak joke that you are 'more informed than Floyd' is actually the definition of kissing ass... but whatevs.

Name is changing, luckily we don't have to debate this anymore.

However...  this is EXACTLY the argument for changing the name... ha

Making a tiny effort to change a name that has negative connotations is 'doing better now and in the future'...  

You truly are baffling.

I don't think that kissing ass means what you think it does.

Doing better isn't an argument for changing the name. Changing the name isn't doing better or getting rid of negative connotations. 🙄 It certainly is a tiny effort though.

Congrats to you and your kind for getting your way. Changing the name will most certainly result in the end of racism.

[Floyd]

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

I don't think that kissing ass means what you think it does.

Doing better isn't an argument for changing the name. Changing the name isn't doing better or getting rid of negative connotations. 🙄 It certainly is a tiny effort though.

Congrats to you and your kind for getting your way. Changing the name will most certainly result in the end of racism.

Me and my kind abide.