kiwi_canadian Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 I sit on my executive committee for my current rugby club and during our meeting last night, it was brought to our attention that the Edmonton Rugby Union (ERU) will be doing an evaluation on every club's logo to see if it is offensive. What brought on this task? Well, one of the clubs here in Edmonton, the Nor'Westers Athletic Association (and my former club) has their 50th anniversary this season. They had asked the ERU board if they could put the ERU's logo on their anniversary kit for the upcoming season. The question brought on accusations that the NWAA logo is highly offensive and some people said that "their company won't sponsor the club because of their offensive logo". Tears were also shed about this logo and how offensive it is. All this information was told to my club's executive committee by our club's rep to the ERU who was at this meeting and witnessed it. I may be biased, but I don't see anything wrong with the logo and how it can be offensive (Note that the reasons why it was considered offensive were not shared). So I pose the question to the internet, is the Nor'Westers Athletic Association logo offensive? If you feel that it is, please explain. I'm genuinely curious to hear the reasons. Current NWAA logo: Club's explanation on where it got it's name: "The club takes its name from the culturally diverse group of entrepreneurs who formed the North West Company in 1779 which were known as the Nor'Westers. Men such as Sir Alexander Mackenzie and their guides, trapped and traded for furs while exploring and charting the Canadian Northwest establishing forts and the first settlements in Alberta over two hundred years ago. Many of these individuals formed the fur brigades (convoys of canoes and boats) that annually transported furs and goods by canoe across the country. Our crest honours the fur-hatted trader/explorers and their indigenous guides that travelled on a canoe through forests and mountains on a Northwest River. The crest is symbolic that to succeed you must work together." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 It depicts people who, in general, have said that they don't want to be logos. Yes, offensive on that basis. 9 1 It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 While the picture itself is not inherently degrading, the mere fact that the logo uses Native / First Nations people as mascots is enough to make the logo objectionable. The only way that such a depiction could be acceptable would be if it were initiated by Native / First Nations people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORLMagic86 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, ORLMagic86 said: I find these funny. It's as if it is supposed to trigger me as a Caucasian. It doesn't matter to me, which is entirely unrelated to how other people react to being depicted as a logo. I understand not wanting to be a logo, but this seems like a waste of time. It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 13 hours ago, kiwi_canadian said: Our crest honours the fur-hatted trader/explorers and their indigenous guides that travelled on a canoe through forests and mountains on a Northwest River. The crest is symbolic that to succeed you must work together." I have no idea of the history, but this could be read several ways, especially considering that "history is written by the winners". Were they willing guides who wanted these potential intruders on their land taking over the trading business? That's rhetorical, because I know nothing about the history, and I doubt anyone here does, but those are the kinds of questions that could go through one's mind while evaluating this. Of course, the only way would be to get an indigenous tribe's leadership to sign off on it, as it's likely they'd know more about the history and whether it's a log that's sportswashing atrocities, or if it's genuinely honoring a partnership between the natives and europeans. So basically - I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to say whether it's offensive or not. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 It’s offensive because it burns my eyes to look at such an awful logo. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infrared41 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 It's as offensive as you want it to be. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Of course it's offensive it's the current year... Everything's offensive so lets all act offended on the behalf of the people we've decided are offended by a logo they've likely never seen. 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jymp Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 39 minutes ago, Morgan33 said: Of course it's offensive it's the current year... Everything's offensive so lets all act offended on the behalf of the people we've decided are offended by a logo they've likely never seen. Perfect answer.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
officeglenn Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Aaaaaand that's why we don't talk about Indigenous naming/logo controversies. 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts