TBURGESS

Massive change or 'slight adjustment' both mean significant outlay of capital, which is really stupid when we don't even know if we get a CFL season this year and we don't know if no season will kill the CFL outright. I'd be very surprised if New Era or any other company for that matter would do anything 'pro bono'. Again, you want change without having to pay a dime yourself. Typical keyboard social justice warrior.

Easy to swap out, sure. Costs money to do so, sure. Sell off the old merch at a loss, costs money. Change all the marketing, costs money. Jersey refresh, costs money. All that plus more = A mill? Maybe. This isn't business as usual. It's a change that no one wants to pay for, especially during these pandemic times. You're kinda missing the point on purpose. It's not, 'this can't cost what they say it will', it's 'I'm not willing to pay a dime for a change that I want to see'. Put your money where your mouth is.

I doubt any team can afford to pay an extra million bucks this year. It's not the same as just changing jerseys, they have to change their entire branding, except maybe the double E. If it's best for the league then I guess all the teams should kick in for the name change. It's funny that folks who demand the change don't want to pay for it. They expect the team to pay the entire amount. Pretty easy to demand change when it doesn't cost YOU anything.

Edmonton is saying it will cost them a Million dollars to change the name. Should they be forced to do it in Pandemic times when they aren't making any money and when they will surely lose a bunch this year? How much money are the social justice keyboard warriors or the federal government willing to pay to the club to offset the cost?

Empire is also this guy...

Empire has strong connotations of colonialism and taking over by force. Canada was/is part of the British Empire. If the Eskimos are going to change their name they should use something more benign like Elk.

Greg Vavra is the one who surprises me. He was a great collage player, but his 5 year CFL career on 3 teams ended up with an overall 48.3% completion average for 3236 yards.

According to the poll (I'm guessing your the 'lets make a bad poll' guy in the cartoon), you're more upset about it than the very people who are actually affected. Maybe it's just not that big a deal to them. Maybe they are fully functioning adults who don't need to be 'protected' from 'bad words' like children. Maybe they understand that 'symbolic gestures' like changing the 'E' word or the 'I' word don't really mean anything. A symbolic gesture + $5 gets you a coffee at $tarbucks. Maybe they just polled the ignorant folks who don't agree with social keyboard warriors like yourself. I'm not 'ignoring historical facts'. The facts are that Indian is an inaccurate term that become the all encompassing English word for all the different tribes in North America centuries ago. It's connotation in Canada has changed in the last 30 years or so, but we haven't even changed the name of the Indian act yet. Most of history is on the side of using the words Indian and Eskimo. Indian and Eskimo are still used widely around the world. You know you're on shaky ground when you attack the person instead of the idea and you went there days ago. The cartoon is an example of cancel culture. Folks who disagree must be enraged. Any poll would obviously be bad because is wouldn't match the expected outcome. The second idea would obviously be wrong too. The 'why not just' guy gets thrown out the window because he has the answer that the cancel culture wants in the first place.

I'm not the angry office dude. I don't think we need to get the 'controversy' out of the news. I just thought the cartoon was funny. Maybe you should read things that you don't agree with so you wouldn't continually miss the points. FTR: The Eskimos poll results are in: Sounds like most of the affected peoples don't care as much as you think they do.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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? 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.

I'm in Calgary these days, not Vancouver. We should all agree that ***** is different from Chinese, Paki is different from East Indian, and Redskin is different from Indian. The first terms are definitely racist. The second terms have somehow morphed into becoming racist over the last few decades.

If you read what I was typing, instead of reacting emotionally, you'd understand what I'm saying. I expect you will continue to throw around the racist taunt when I disagree with you because that's your way of 'discussing' this issue. Either agree with your take or be racist. FTR: I completely disagree with judging people based on their skin colour or their race. I suspect you agree with that. The difference is, I include white people in my definition, and you don't seem to.

Indian isn't the same a the N word otherwise it would be known as the I word. The more you post the more you sound like you suffer from 'white guilt' but unless your family was part of the top 10% of earners the only thing you have in common with the Europeans who took over North America is your skin colour, which makes 'white guilt' pretty damn racist.

Not because it doesn't fit with my argument. Because no one in the Government has mentioned the Eskimos name at all. FTR: There are degrees. Redskin is like the N word or Paleface would be. Eskimo is like Indian or Black or White.

This simply has no merit. The Eskimos name doesn't prevent the Feds from giving the CFL a bailout. Personally, I'd have no problems with Whities or Palefaces. It's insane in 2020 to name teams after ethnicity, it wasn't when the Eskimos, Redskins, Braves, Indians, etc were named. If the majority of Canadian's want the names to be changed, then the names should be changed. The Fighting Irish logo shows the stereotypical racist image of a drunk Irishman wanting to fight. The Eskimos is a double E. If anything, the Fighting Irish is more racist. It would be like the Eskimo logo being a drunk Eskimo leaning against a wall. That being said, I don't have any problems with the Fighting Irish either.

According to this thread... 1. If you're against a forced name change for the Eskimos you're nothing more than a stupid racist. 2. You don't want to have a vote on it because even 50% of people who bother to vote is too high a bar. Assuming that means you're worried that more than half don't agree, you're saying more than half are nothing more than stupid racists. Sounds legit. FTR: Voting has nothing to do with right and wrong. It has to do with political will.

Your bad at guessing. We're not talking about where a football stadium is being built or a name for a new team. We're talking about a sports team changing their name after 70 years or so. I'm talking about the barest of majorities, 50%+ of those who take the time and effort to actually vote. Maybe you've heard of democracy? It's the system we're supposed to be using. It's not called minority rules ya know.

Black Lives Matter? Bar Life Matters? Bo Levi Mitchell? Which BLM is it?