Welcome to AWordOnFailure!
Here you'll find the hosts with the most on the entire interweb -- Paul and Alex. Now that we've been successful bloggers “online columnists” for months it seems prudent to put up a welcome message for you, our esteemed reader.
Before getting to out fantastic content, realize that this isn’t blog; it's an online magazine. So don't mistake this as an online diary. It’s an expression of some of our ideas, observations, and queries. The topics covered here range from philosophical puzzles and problems, to economics and politics, to everything (we feel like covering) in between.
While everyone on the interweb should be obligated to read all our posts, it isn't really necessary. In fact most of our posts are separate and distinct - so you can dive right into our gianormous archive of older posts and start with whichever one catches your eye... and then express your own view in a witty lil comment!!
And on a final note, we'd like to say our target audience is the average, reasonable, and rational, adult; the everyman everyperson. But, really, our target audience is just our fellow broken misanthropes.
Treatfest.
-------------
You wouldn't eat a Negro.
Obviously, I don't intend to do this - and I apologise profusely to anyone who may have been offended by the disgraceful racial slurs in the previous paragraph. It's interesting though, that once upon a time, it would have been socially acceptable to say that. Just as it was socially acceptable to sell this. Hell, I remember when a game of Eeny-Meeny-Miney-Mo, included the lyrics, 'Catch a nigger by the toe, if he squeals let him go...'. New Zealanders, in general, would probably like to think that in 2009, we are more enlightened than this. Well, we....aren't. In fact, there has lately been a huge public outcry over New Zealander's right to 'cherish' and 'treasure' an undeniably racist candy.
I'm referring, of course, to the Eskimo - a coloured and flavoured marshmellow bundle of deliciousness moulded into the shape of how candy-makers in the 1800's thought 'native wot lived in da cold' should look like. Read about it here, then read NZ's epic culturalrelations fail response here. In summary - Recently, an Inuit tourist to New Zealand, Seeka La VeeVee Parsons, raised the issue that the word Eskimo was no longer appropriate to describe her people, and - (it means 'eaters of raw meat') - and was now considered an offensive term in Canada and Greenland. Secondly, the shape of the candy, as a small little man in a snow suit with slitty eyes was an offensive depiction of her culture. Fair enough, I thought - while I've grown up with Eskimos and I find them delicious and had never really considered whether or not they were offensive, in hindsight, they are. Eskimos are my generation's 'golliwogs' - something that collective ignorance meant we never realised was offensive at the time , but in hindsight we will cringe that we ever found it acceptable. I thought that we should be thanking Ms. Parsons before we embarrassed our selves as a country further, and undermined our proud record on indigenous rights.
But if you take the response of the mainstream morons that have offered their comment on this issue on such auguste forums as stuff.co.nz - and more sadly, the manufacturers of the lollies themselves (Pascalls), one would imagine that Ms. Parsons urinated on the NZ flag, declared Phar Lap to be 'an Australian nag' before hitting Bronagh Key in the face with a signed picture of the crew of Alinghi. Ms Parsons has been told by the internet to 'grow up or go home' while Pascalls insists their will be no change to the design or name - and trusts that the New Zealand public will continue to enjoy Eskimos. Sigh. A number of arguments are offered in defence of the Eskimo. All suck.
The first is that 'the majority of people don't find Eskimos offensive'. True....because most people are not Inuit. A 'majority of people' have at one time or another supported slavery, a ban on homosexuality, no votes for women....the fact that a certain group of people find it offensive, and offer good, solid evidence as to why it is offensive to them should be enough to satisfy us.
The second argument is 'But we have been selling them for 64 years - it's a traditional part of the New Zealand culture!'. True, but I fail to see how this is an argument in support of the Eskimo. Just because an offensive thing has been around for ages - it doesn't follow from that that thing suddenly gains legitimacy and respect because of it's age. Take a ban on homosexuality. This was the norm for thousands of years, but that didn't make it right. It's hard for a society to admit the fact that we've been fucking up, and doing it wrong - but this doesn't mean we should keep acting in a way that is wrong or offensive, simply because its the way we have always done it, when there are no good arguments for the continuation of that practice.
Thirdly, the idea that 'We didn't know it was offensive, so that makes it ok.' I used golliwoggs earlier as an example of something that used to be socially acceptable, but now its frankly embarassing to admit that our parents had one as a toy when they were kids. (although Mr. Golly was my favourite character on Noddy, so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to call the kettle, er,black.) The fact that we, as a society, have no been made aware that Eskimos are considered offensive should mean that whatever we thought in the past is irrelevant. I mean, if I told you a 'Your Mom' joke, and you told me your mom was dead - well, I'd feel awful and I would apologise for bringing it up, but I meant no harm. But if I laughed and told another 'Your Mom' joke (cos dey heapz funni lol), well...I'd be a jerk.
Finally, there are people that concede that they are offensive, but defend Eskimos on the ground that they are delicious, which apparently transcends the shape, name,etc. These arguments are the worst. Being delicious, has never, is not, and will never be a defence to bigotry. I admit they are tasty, but I would get that delicious taste even if they were shaped as indescribable blobs. You could mould in the shape of Helen Clark's breasts and the taste would still be the same. In fact, they would be even tastier, as no Inuit would have been harmed in the enjoyment of my candy.
I'm advocating a ban on all Pascalls products until the Eskimo is pulled from the shelves of all supermarkets. But knowing the sad readership of my blog, that just means that I won't be eating lollies for long, long, long time. But some things are worth taking a stand on. The whole Western world is littered with outdated and offensive relics from an ignorant past, that present a demeaning charicature of indigenous peoples. Eskimos are just one example. Chief Wahoo, the Cleveland Indians mascot is another. And theres countless others here. If I was really principled, and really concerned - then I'd also have a problem with a certain provincial rugby team (located in a province that rhymes with Wankerbury) which is named after a series of bloody acts of agression, justified on the basis of religious intolerance, that resulted in the deaths of over 2 million innocent civilians, many in the Muslim world. But fuck it, that's a battle for my children's generation to fight.
Alex
my next post will be on kittens and sandwiches. promise.
2 comments:
Sir - This is something I've maintained for a while seeing as I've refused to eat eskimo pies for years in protest, but just because I love playing devil's advocate I thought I'd make a couple of points for you to rebut.
Eskimo is still commonly used in Alaska by 'Eskimos' mostly due to their not being Inuit but rather Yupik. Of course they're most likely just self-hating, Uncle Tom 'Eskimos'.
I know part of the dislike about being called eskimo also originated from the notion that it meant 'raw-meat eater', though i think it's now accepted to have derived from something meaning 'laces their snowshoes' (http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/inuitoreskimo.html and check etymology on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eskimo). Again though this may be white people's revisionism at work here.
Wikipedia is actually slightly insightful with regards to all this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo#Nomenclature) (and yes I know how very bad it is to consult wikipedia for arguments but whatevs)
Lastly, the edmonton CFL team is called the eskimos and they've been around since pascall's lollies have (though the edmonton eskimos suck a bit more, having come last in the west division three years in a row). Anyway, can we get both of these things changed or banned?
Not saying any of this justifies the name of the lolly or anything. I think the only real solution is if we make some lollies that are in the shape of naked white girls or something and call them 'whiteys' or 'honkies. "Mmm... could you do me a solid and pass me some 'honkies' there my good chum."
Kaps
ps. I look forward to hearing about sandwiches. Kittens not so much.
Kaps - You raised some good points. I know I've taken ages to respond, but it wasn't because I dont like you, its because I abandoned the blog for a while, so I could pull my academic career out of the fires of failure.
right, I'll try to rebut your points.
1. I don't see the Canada/Alaskan eskimo distinction as important. I mean, the lolly itself doesn't specify - they aren't called 'Alaskan Eskimos'. Therefore, we should see the fact that one particular group of Inuit find it offensive as reason to consider it offensive.
On the 'eaters of raw meat' distinction, while I don't reeeeeally think it matter what it means, whats important is that it is a name given by Anglo-Saxons that the people that were given the name do not like. Eskimo could mean 'by the power of Greyskull' and I don't see it being relevant, whats relevant is whether or not the name is approved by the people whom it was foisted upon. I suppose the reverse is Pakeha, which I think means 'white pig', but which has been embraced by the descendants of colonisers as being a pretty ok descriptor.
Lastly, I dont see evidence of the 'Edmonton Eskimos' as a reason to keep the Eskimo, but as reason to also complain about the Edmonton Eskimos (which indigenous rights activists have been doing.) Its a slightly different issue, but I think the time has come to change all team names that are in some way named after indigenous peoples - (Redskins, Braves etc) - the fact that we are supposed to associate the 'Redskins' with a noble, savage style of play is a bit...demeaning.
I wrote this reply very quickly, and they are just some spur of the moment thoughts. Feel free to tear these arguments apart as you see fit, good sir.
Post a Comment