A restaurant in Stillwater, OK

[Steve 2.0]

I think everything is a sliding scale - there's very little black and white.

Is "Eskimo Joe's" the MOST offensive term in the world? Certainly not.
Is it offensive to some? Well apparently yes, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
Can I see why it would be? Definitely - look at the caricature in the logo to start with.

But maybe you still aren't seeing the connection in the same way I see it.

Maybe it's easier if we think of something worse - what if it was <n-word> Joe's with a picture of a black slave dancing with a big smile on his face. Would that be offensive? I think (certainly hope) we would all agree that it is repulsive.

So in that case let's go back to your question.

Would it be okay if a black person owned the restaurant? Well, no, it wouldn't. When someone is walking down the street and they see that sign they rightfully would feel unsafe. Regardless of who owns the restaurant.
Does it matter who would bring up an objection of <n-word> Joe's? Well no, it really doesn't matter at all. Hell I'd assume most everyone (white supremacist morons aside) would be offended by <n-word> Joe's.
How would it make someone feel unwelcome? Well I hope that now that we've gone to an extreme it is more than obvious.

But you might say, well it's not <n-word> Joe's, it's Eskimo Joe's. And you are correct. But as I started off this post by saying, it's a sliding scale. And we're *somewhere* on that scale clearly. The only question remaining is how far we are down that scale. And at that point, I question whether any of us are qualified to tell someone else how offended they are by depictions of their race. So I'd hesitate to ever say it's *not* offensive. Clearly someone thought it was.

And, based on having several of these discussions with others in the past, your next questions may start posing "are we going to rename everything"? And the answer is obviously not. That's a defensive mechanism. Lets just look at this one. And what's so wrong with change anyway?

Anyway, just my 2c, YMMV

Ken answered this better than I ever could, Gregg.

[heyelander]

I think it's more analogous to Oriental or Indian. It's an outsiders term that conflates multiple cultures into one historical characterization of inferiority and otherness.

https://uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php

Inuit or Eskimo: Which name to use?

by Lawrence Kaplan

Although the name "Eskimo" was commonly used in Alaska to refer to Inuit and Yupik people of the world, this usage is now considered unacceptable by many or even most Alaska Natives, largely since it is a colonial name imposed by non-Indigenous people. Alaska Natives increasingly prefer to be known by the names they use in their own languages, such as Inupiaq or Yupik. "Inuit" is now the current term in Alaska and across the Arctic, and "Eskimo" is fading from use. The Inuit Circumpolar Council prefers the term "Inuit" but some other organizations use "Eskimo".

Linguists believe that "Eskimo" is derived from a Montagnais (Innu) word ayas̆kimew meaning "netter of snowshoes." The people of Canada and Greenland have long preferred other names. "Inuit," meaning "people," is used in Canada, and the language is called "Inuktitut" in eastern Canada although other local designations are used also. The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut." Alaska includes the Inupiat, literally "real people", and other groups that are included under the overall designation of "Inuit".
"Inuit" is often used to encompass all Inuit and Yupik people, although I often speak of "Inuit and Yupik people" or “Inuit and Yupik languages". "Inuit" is the plural of "inuk" meaning "person", and "Yupik" is a singular word meaning "real person" based on the root word "yuk” meaning "person".

Note that mainland Yup’ik people prefer the spelling with p’, which indicates a long or geminate p. Yupik without the apostrophe refers to the people of St. Lawrence Island and the nearby coast of Chukotka in Russia. The inhabitants of Kodiak Island call themselves Alutiiq, while the closely related people of the southern Kenai Peninsula prefer the name Sugpiaq. The people of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands prefer to call themselves Unangax̂ rather than Aleut.

[Sour Masher]

Heylelander's point about conflation of cultures made me think of this clip. One of my favorites from the show:

[GwynnInTheHall]

I think it's more analogous to Oriental or Indian. It's an outsiders term that conflates multiple cultures into one historical characterization of inferiority and otherness.


https://uaf.edu/anlc/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php

This is how I see it, whenever white folks came to a new land (I know it wasn't always white folks, but in the US, yeah Mostly White folk), the names the native citizens in the manner they chose, some derogatory, some not--However, they never took the time to find out what the locals called themselves--so redskin, eskimo, etc came about. That might have been understandable 150+ years ago, but now--it's easy to ascertain how people want to be referenced. Be it using the right cultural reference or correct gender pronouns--all you have to do is ASK if you're unsure and then respect that persons request--It's simple consideration.

Hope that helps--

[Gregg]

You seriously don't see how being a minority surrounded by racist iconography could be damaging to one's sense of belonging? That's pretty basic stuff.

You seriously are missing the whole point of the thread as well as the questions about the restaurant.

[Gregg]

Ken answered this better than I ever could, Gregg.

So you are Ken evetS?

[Gregg]

I think everything is a sliding scale - there's very little black and white.

Is "Eskimo Joe's" the MOST offensive term in the world? Certainly not.
Is it offensive to some? Well apparently yes, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
Can I see why it would be? Definitely - look at the caricature in the logo to start with.

But maybe you still aren't seeing the connection in the same way I see it.

Maybe it's easier if we think of something worse - what if it was <n-word> Joe's with a picture of a black slave dancing with a big smile on his face. Would that be offensive? I think (certainly hope) we would all agree that it is repulsive.

So in that case let's go back to your question.

Would it be okay if a black person owned the restaurant? Well, no, it wouldn't. When someone is walking down the street and they see that sign they rightfully would feel unsafe. Regardless of who owns the restaurant.
Does it matter who would bring up an objection of <n-word> Joe's? Well no, it really doesn't matter at all. Hell I'd assume most everyone (white supremacist morons aside) would be offended by <n-word> Joe's.
How would it make someone feel unwelcome? Well I hope that now that we've gone to an extreme it is more than obvious.

But you might say, well it's not <n-word> Joe's, it's Eskimo Joe's. And you are correct. But as I started off this post by saying, it's a sliding scale. And we're *somewhere* on that scale clearly. The only question remaining is how far we are down that scale. And at that point, I question whether any of us are qualified to tell someone else how offended they are by depictions of their race. So I'd hesitate to ever say it's *not* offensive. Clearly someone thought it was.

And, based on having several of these discussions with others in the past, your next questions may start posing "are we going to rename everything"? And the answer is obviously not. That's a defensive mechanism. Lets just look at this one. And what's so wrong with change anyway?

Anyway, just my 2c, YMMV

Thank you for your post. This is the right way to have a conversation. I like to think I was doing the same by my questions concerning the OP request:

I'd like to hear the Sports Bar's opinions on this one.

(I think they should change it....just to be clear up front)


Teenwolf on the other hand is not the right way to engage in conversation. It is more of an example of what makes people leave or at the least not engage. And Teenwolf this is not an attempt to silence you, or make you leave. We are a better site with you here.

Ken, I do plan on replying to your comments a little later today. Thanks.

[Gregg]

I think everything is a sliding scale - there's very little black and white. agree

Is "Eskimo Joe's" the MOST offensive term in the world? Certainly not. agree
Is it offensive to some? Well apparently yes, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. this is why I asked who
Can I see why it would be? Definitely - look at the caricature in the logo to start with. The questions were not about the logo but the name of the restaurant. Logo is another topic.

But maybe you still aren't seeing the connection in the same way I see it.

Maybe it's easier if we think of something worse - what if it was <n-word> Joe's with a picture of a black slave dancing with a big smile on his face. Would that be offensive? I think (certainly hope) we would all agree that it is repulsive. logo was not what I was referring to but agree logo is bad. I personally do not think the n word should ever e used by anybody ever. But I have been told I am wrong and Black People can use it. It is one of the reasons I asked the first question about the Inuits.

So in that case let's go back to your question.

Would it be okay if a black person owned the restaurant? Well, no, it wouldn't. When someone is walking down the street and they see that sign they rightfully would feel unsafe. Regardless of who owns the restaurant. [COLOR="#FF0000" base on my previous answer no. But if a black person can use the n word than couldn't a case be made yes on the restaurant name? Again to be clear I am not for it and sliding scale may come into play here.][/COLOR]
Does it matter who would bring up an objection of <n-word> Joe's? Well no, it really doesn't matter at all. Hell I'd assume most everyone (white supremacist morons aside) would be offended by <n-word> Joe's. I would be agreement with this except I am told that this particular example while offensive to me should not be if the correct person is using it.
How would it make someone feel unwelcome? safe and unwelcome do not have much to do with it. You would probably feel safer and welcome in a biker bar than my wife would. Well I hope that now that we've gone to an extreme it is more than obvious.

But you might say, well it's not <n-word> Joe's, it's Eskimo Joe's. And you are correct. But as I started off this post by saying, it's a sliding scale. And we're *somewhere* on that scale clearly. The only question remaining is how far we are down that scale. And at that point, I question whether any of us are qualified to tell someone else how offended they are by depictions of their race. So I'd hesitate to ever say it's *not* offensive. Clearly someone thought it was.To this I agree and why I asked the questions I did.

And, based on having several of these discussions with others in the past, your next questions may start posing "are we going to rename everything"? And the answer is obviously not. That's a defensive mechanism. Lets just look at this one. And what's so wrong with change anyway?and this is where you are veering off the road. Not my next question. Comfortable to stay with this.

Anyway, just my 2c, YMMV

Tried to answer as best I could. Thanks for the dialog.

[Teenwolf]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Gregg.

You said, and I quote "I do not see how the name would make people feel unwelcome in society."... you then respond to Ken's exact opposite statement by saying that you agree.... again, quoted from Ken: "I question whether any of us are qualified to tell someone else how offended they are by depictions of their race. So I'd hesitate to ever say it's *not* offensive. Clearly someone thought it was."

Slight difference between "offensive material", and that which makes someone feel unwelcome, but the point is the same. When your ethnic background is treated as a JOKE, your sense of self is severely damaged. Whatever joy is found by the patrons of Eskimo Joe's is not equivalent to the pain caused by being made a caricature.

Enjoy your Cleveland Baseball Club, and all the rest. Know that it made some minorities feel more included and maybe saying the name will make you feel good. Replace some of the joy the old racist name used to provide.

[Ken]

Is it offensive to some? Well apparently yes, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.

this is why I asked who

But why does it matter who?

Can I see why it would be? Definitely - look at the caricature in the logo to start with.

The questions were not about the logo but the name of the restaurant. Logo is another topic.

I guess... For me they are intertwined. When I think of the name Eskimo Joe the first thing that pops into my head is that logo.

But that aside, Heye posted some good information on the name Eskimo itself if you are interested.

Would that be offensive? I think (certainly hope) we would all agree that it is repulsive.

logo was not what I was referring to but agree logo is bad. I personally do not think the n word should ever e used by anybody ever. But I have been told I am wrong and Black People can use it. It is one of the reasons I asked the first question about the Inuits.

Personally I don't see the correlation. Whether it is offensive for you, as white person, to use a particular word, vs whether a person of that race can use it isn't related to whether it's appropriate for a business to use that name. While not equivalent, usage of inflammatory language like curse words is generally accepted in every day speech, but as a business it is off limits.

As an aside, I don't know that this is the place to get into the question of whether it's appropriate for a black individual to use that word, but I do know that I'm not the right person to make that decision.

Would it be okay if a black person owned the restaurant? Well, no, it wouldn't. When someone is walking down the street and they see that sign they rightfully would feel unsafe. Regardless of who owns the restaurant.

base on my previous answer no. But if a black person can use the n word than couldn't a case be made yes on the restaurant name? Again to be clear I am not for it and sliding scale may come into play here.

Does it matter who would bring up an objection of <n-word> Joe's? Well no, it really doesn't matter at all. Hell I'd assume most everyone (white supremacist morons aside) would be offended by <n-word> Joe's.

I would be agreement with this except I am told that this particular example while offensive to me should not be if the correct person is using it.

I don't see how those are related. When I look at a place of business I don't see who owns it. Nor is my decision on whether that name is appropriate dependent on who *owns* the place.

How would it make someone feel unwelcome?

safe and unwelcome do not have much to do with it. You would probably feel safer and welcome in a biker bar than my wife would.

Not following you here. You understand that common usage of slag terms is hurtful to people. If we just decide that it's okay to use those slag terms everywhere, including business names, you don't see how that is harmful and makes those of the race in question feel unsafe? Would you feel safe living in a city where there were businesses with swastikas prominently displayed in their logo? I know I would not.

Tried to answer as best I could. Thanks for the dialog.

Thanks Gregg - while we disagree, I do appreciate the back and forth.

[Gregg]

Ken, I am not so sure we disagree much at all.

I was not aware that there was an .....Joes at all. I had no knowledge of the logo.

I read Steve's comment and invitation to give an opinion. As you suggested it is a bit of a sliding scale. I decided to ask Steve for some clarification so I could give a straight honest answer.

Of course comments on my comments ensued. I rather liked the way you took the time to comment and believe this is the way we should dialog on all tough subjects. Then again I am not the only voice in here. But I can pick and choose who i want to dialog with.

I do plan on staying with this another round. I am interested to see if I can clear up any misconceptions and see if we are in more agreement than it looks like. I like to think I am teachable.

I will post later.

Thank you.

[Teenwolf]

I cant help it.

Why should Black people be disallowed to use the n-word? That sounds super fucked up to me, policing the language of the subjects of literal enslavement.

I understand why Black people using the word would make white people uncomfortable. Because white people were the slave owners, this history is unsettling to hear thrown back in our faces, with the former slaves co-opting the language of their oppressors. I accept my discomfort, and I recognize it as miniscule in comparison to the daily discrimination faced by POC. For that reason, I think its appropriate and even necessary for Black people to use the word as a reminder of our shared history.

[Sour Masher]

I cant help it.

Why should Black people be disallowed to use the n-word? That sounds super fucked up to me, policing the language of the subjects of literal enslavement.

I understand why Black people using the word would make white people uncomfortable. Because white people were the slave owners, this history is unsettling to hear thrown back in our faces, with the former slaves co-opting the language of their oppressors. I accept my discomfort, and I recognize it as miniscule in comparison to the daily discrimination faced by POC. For that reason, I think its appropriate and even necessary for Black people to use the word as a reminder of our shared history.

It also isn't really the same as naming your business the N-Word. There is a difference in the privilege an individual has to use the word and the offense it would cause a larger population if said individual chose to brand a business with it.

[heyelander]

It's the same thing as I can talk shit about my family but no one else can. That's a pretty simple concept.

[Gregg]

It's the same thing as I can talk shit about my family but no one else can. That's a pretty simple concept.

With all due respect, comparing family to a whole race is not a simple concept nor is it accurate in any way.