TBURGESS

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?

If 50% or more Canadians want them to change their name, then they should certainly look into it. If not, then the majority should rule and we can all forget it for another couple of years.

I didn't say there was. I said it was in a single native language. IE not every native language. FTR: I'm no expert in native languages, I'm only going by what I've read on the subject and the etymology of the word Eskimo isn't as cut and dry as some folks think. From Wikipedia: The most commonly accepted etymological origin of the word "Eskimo" is derived by Ives Goddard at the Smithsonian Institution, from the Montagnais (see Algonquian languages) word meaning "snowshoe-netter"[15] or "to net snowshoes".[14] The word assime·w means "she laces a snowshoe" in Montagnais. Montagnais speakers refer to the neighbouring Mi'kmaq people using words that sound like eskimo[37][38] In 1978, Jose Mailhot, a Quebec anthropologist who speaks Montagnais, published a paper suggesting that Eskimo meant "people who speak a different language".[39][40] French traders who encountered the Montagnais in the eastern areas, adopted their word for the more western peoples and spelled it as Esquimau in a transliteration.[citation needed] Some people consider Eskimo offensive because it is popularly perceived to mean[15][40][41][42] "eaters of raw meat" in Algonquian languages common to people along the Atlantic coast.[14][43][44] One Cree speaker suggested the original word that became corrupted to Eskimo might have been askamiciw (which means "he eats it raw"); the Inuit are referred to in some Cree texts as askipiw (which means "eats something raw").[43][44][45][46] From Webster: Eskimo is a word that presents challenges for anyone who is concerned about avoiding the use of offensive language. Its perceived offensiveness stems partly from a now-discredited belief that it was originally a pejorative term meaning "eater of raw flesh," but perhaps more significantly from its being a word imposed on aboriginal peoples by outsiders.

It means "Eats Raw Meat" in single native language, which is more explanatory than derogatory because they ate raw seal. You shouldn't mind being called stupid then, but I won't go there. I'm not defending racism. I'm defending freedom of speech. If you don't like Eskimo, don't use it. If you don't like Indian, don't use it. If you don't like the N word, don't use it. It doesn't matter what words you don't like. Give them whatever power you want to, just don't call anyone who disagrees with your opinion stupid and don't expect everyone to agree with your definitions.

Not even all the Inuit have a problem with Eskimo or maybe we should start saying the "E" word. A portion of a group of people think that the word that's been used for that group of people for a hundred years or more is now racist. How is that enough for a forced change? If your going to use Wikipedia at least tell the whole story. The Eskimos have been the Eskimos since 1949. Formerly known as: The "Esquimaux" 1897 to 1910, the "Elks" in 1922, which is before they joined the CFL. It wasn't just Calgary media who insulted Edmonton. It also Edmonton media insulting Calgary. Eskimo refers to Inuit, Yupik and Aleut so no, they aren't all properly called Inuit. Eskimo is an all encompassing word, like Indian for all the southern tribes. (Note: 'Indian' is now considered racist by some) The word Inuit was adopted in 1977. Some Yupik in Alaska and Russia object to being called “Inuit,” which is not a word in their language, but they accept Eskimo. They use the "E" word among themselves like Black folks use the "N" word among themselves. Eskimo supposedly means "Raw Meat Eaters" in Algonquin. What's insulting/degrading in that anyway? I love tartar. In short, Eskimo is perfectly fine for a lot of people, including some of those who are called Eskimos.

If Edmonton had changed their name in the 80's, when a group of people decided that Eskimos was now a racist term, then you'd have point, but they've been the Eskimos since 1949. Your putting a 2020 filter on a name that was perfectly fine when it was given to the team. I'm all for it if Edmonton wants to change the name to match today's sensibilities, but I'm against them being forced into it.

I'm offended... OK. I'm offended, you have to change... Nope, just nope. It's the same as My religion says I can't do this... OK.. My religion says you can't do this. Nope, just nope. What it is is blatant censorship that does nothing to change peoples opinions or the way they think. It's just a waste of time, effort, and money to placate some offended folks.

People have a right to be offended and people have a right to offend. Being offended shouldn't mean the offenders should be forced to change.

BC's problems went far beyond paying too much for their QB. Too much change. First year of a major rebuild without Wally for the first time since 2003. Rookie coaches including the HC that couldn't figure out how to turn things around when they started going badly. Think back to MOS' first year for comparison. Horrible OL that suddenly got better when Kelly Bates finally replaced Bryan Chiu mid season. JJ as the OC who couldn't or wouldn't change the offence so their expensive QB didn't get killed game in and game out. Even fans know you have to have a running game and you can't throw bombs all day especially when your OL is truly horrible. A change to quick passes, adding screens and draws would have saved Reilly from getting killed, which in turn coulda changed the outcomes of some of their games, especially in the first half of the season. A defence that consistently gave up 30+ points till game 10 by which time their season was pretty much over at 1-9. Tons of injuries on a team that didn't have quality backups (This one is partly due to over paying Reilly and partly due to being the first year of a rebuild).

Doug Flutie - Best CFL QB Warren Moon - Second best Mike Pringle - Everyone in the stadium knew he was getting the ball, still couldn't stop him Jim Young - Dirty 30, shoulda been an NFL receiver Nik Lewis - Quick Nik or Thick Nik, he can play on my team any time. Larry Highbaugh - Dude could turn a game around by himself Gizmo Williams - Also turned games around by himself. James Quick Parker - Almost impossible to stop

I don't agree with Christion Jones' opinion nor do I agree with firing him for having that or any other unpopular opinion.

OK... I won't even try.

The CFL might not even exist if Braley hadn't saved the Ticats, the Lions and the Argos.

It's naive to think that the pandemic will be over in a couple of months and even more naive to think that the CFL can make any money with 5-10K fans in the stands (Ask Toronto how well it works).

If the players think they can still get their full salary while playing less than half the games, they're nuts.

The CFL Players’ Association COVID-19 season survey - https://3downnation.com/2020/06/16/the-cfl-players-association-covid-19-season-survey/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Some interesting questions being asked in this one. CFLPA files grievance, prepares for CBA negotiations: memo - https://3downnation.com/2020/06/16/cflpa-files-grievance-prepares-for-cba-negotiations-memo/ We live in interesting times.

I think I'll send in a tape where I do play by play in an Eeyore voice. I'd still be better than Rod Black.