A restaurant in Stillwater, OK

[Steve 2.0]

The joint is named Eskimo Joes. Recently some people called for the name to be changed. Eskimo is considered an outdated, racist term. The joint has decided to NOT change their name based on the large number of people who indicated they wanted them to keep the name. I have no idea of the reasoning....although, I saw one person post online that she had a lot of their t-shirts and did not want them to change the name because of that. I'll let you look up their logo.

I'm reminded of the old saying "What's right is not always popular and what's popular is not always right".

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)

[heyelander]

Eskimo Joe would be a great name/schtick for a male stripper

[Kevin Seitzer]

Eskimo Joe's T-shirts were a cultural icon when I was growing up. But yeah, the logo is...not good.

[Gregg]

If the owner was Inuit and wanted to call the place Eskimo Joe's would that be OK?

Who are the people complaining about the name?

There is an easy remedy; just don't go there if it is offensive to us.

[Sour Masher]

If the owner was Inuit and wanted to call the place Eskimo Joe's would that be OK?

Who are the people complaining about the name?

There is an easy remedy; just don't go there if it is offensive to us.

But what about if the fact that it does not offend others and so the place continues to be called that is offensive to a larger segment of society than that which is offended that it might change? And why is it offensive to non-Inuits to change the name? Why would those who enjoy the place care or stop coming if they changed the name and logo to something unoffensive? Do you find it odd that this business let market forces determine if they should change the name and they decided/feared that the customers would stop coming with a different name? Would that be an issue at all if they were called something that wasn't divisive politically? Have you every stopped liking a restaurant that is exactly the same in food and service because of branding? What does it say about the customers that insist an offensive name must be kept or they won't go to the establishment? What does it say about the people who won't buy the liquid sugar once called Aunt Jemima when it gets a new name, when it will literally be the same product?

A separate question is when is it appropriate for government intervention in such cases? Rand Paul, for instance, has argued against the government stepping into to force desegregation in businesses. He has said the markets should determine such things and that the government should not force a business to serve AAs. That is consistent with his worldview, but most in our society do not agree with it. Most people would agree that market force alone should not determine such things. But, again, where is the line? Is it here, with a logo and a name? Would it be with a different logo and name? Would you say the solution is simply not going to the business if it was called N-word Joe's?

I get the sentiment--there are things that offend others that perplex me, and I feel it may be a product of aging, because you can remember a time when something did not offend, and you wonder if people have run out of real fights and are now going too far. But it may be, many times, that it is just that people who had no say are now trying to get it, and maybe some of this stuff really is offensive and should be changed. Caricatures and labels for people applied to them externally by conquering forces are rarely flattering and are often dehumanizing. If you look up the logo, I think that is the case here.

[Steve 2.0]

But what about if the fact that it does not offend others and so the place continues to be called that is offensive to a larger segment of society than that which is offended that it might change? And why is it offensive to non-Inuits to change the name? Why would those who enjoy the place care or stop coming if they changed the name and logo to something unoffensive? Do you find it odd that this business let market forces determine if they should change the name and they decided/feared that the customers would stop coming with a different name? Would that be an issue at all if they were called something that wasn't divisive politically? Have you every stopped liking a restaurant that is exactly the same in food and service because of branding? What does it say about the customers that insist an offensive name must be kept or they won't go to the establishment? What does it say about the people who won't buy the liquid sugar once called Aunt Jemima when it gets a new name, when it will literally be the same product?

A separate question is when is it appropriate for government intervention in such cases? Rand Paul, for instance, has argued against the government stepping into to force desegregation in businesses. He has said the markets should determine such things and that the government should not force a business to serve AAs. That is consistent with his worldview, but most in our society do not agree with it. Most people would agree that market force alone should not determine such things. But, again, where is the line? Is it here, with a logo and a name? Would it be with a different logo and name? Would you say the solution is simply not going to the business if it was called N-word Joe's?

I get the sentiment--there are things that offend others that perplex me, and I feel it may be a product of aging, because you can remember a time when something did not offend, and you wonder if people have run out of real fights and are now going too far. But it may be, many times, that it is just that people who had no say are now trying to get it, and maybe some of this stuff really is offensive and should be changed. Caricatures and labels for people applied to them externally by conquering forces are rarely flattering and are often dehumanizing. If you look up the logo, I think that is the case here.

Well put.

[Steve 2.0]

Eskimo Joe's T-shirts were a cultural icon when I was growing up. But yeah, the logo is...not good.

I had a shirt or two back in the day. Frankly, I was not aware that the term was derogatory at the time, but I've since learned more. You are right....the logo is problematic.

[Steve 2.0]

If the owner was Inuit and wanted to call the place Eskimo Joe's would that be OK?

Who are the people complaining about the name?

There is an easy remedy; just don't go there if it is offensive to us.

1) I do not think that would be OK.
2) Not sure....does it matter?
3) Easy fix for the individual, I guess. But shouldn't people feel welcome in society?

[harmon]

Not that many of you care about anything Canadian but the Edmonton Eskimos football team has dropped their 100 year old nickname and is for now known as the Edmonton Football Club.

[Steve 2.0]

Not that many of you care about anything Canadian but the Edmonton Eskimos football team has dropped their 100 year old nickname and is for now known as the Edmonton Football Club.

I actually wondered about that the other day but forgot to look it up.
Good for them.

[Steve 2.0]

Not that many of you care about anything Canadian but the Edmonton Eskimos football team has dropped their 100 year old nickname and is for now known as the Edmonton Football Club.

Oh....and I think that the CFL plays a much more exciting version of ball than the NFL does.

[Gregg]

1) I do not think that would be OK.
2) Not sure....does it matter?
3) Easy fix for the individual, I guess. But shouldn't people feel welcome in society?

1) Why do you not think it would be OK?
2) It does matter.
3) I do not see how the name would make people feel unwelcome in society.

[Teenwolf]

1) Why do you not think it would be OK?
2) It does matter.
3) I do not see how the name would make people feel unwelcome in society.

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.

[Ken]

1) Why do you not think it would be OK?
2) It does matter.
3) I do not see how the name would make people feel unwelcome in society.

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

[umjewman]

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

If we're renaming stuff, let's start with your salad dressings, Ken.