Results 1 to 25 of 66
Thread: Yeti Tribe is no more
-
07-14-2020, 12:02 PM #1
Yeti Tribe is no more
-
07-14-2020, 12:07 PM #2
Read that this morning.... I was scanning down the email just waiting for them to refer to themselves as "Yeti Nation".
-
07-14-2020, 01:05 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,896
I like the bike but i never considered my self part of a tribe or anything like that
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
07-14-2020, 01:18 PM #4
Yeti Americans?
-
07-14-2020, 01:56 PM #5
I've owned a yeti for 15 years. don't GAF what they call themselves.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
07-14-2020, 03:35 PM #6pura vida
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The bottom of LCC
- Posts
- 5,750
ok
-
07-14-2020, 04:21 PM #7
“ Recently, we’ve learned our use of the term “Tribe” can be offensive to indigenous people, due to the violent history they have endured in the United States. The word “Tribe” is a colonial construct that was used to marginalize Native Americans and its continued use by non-indigenous people fails to accurately recognize their history and unique status as Tribal Nations.”
Recently?! Come on.
-
07-14-2020, 04:42 PM #8
I find the unnecessarily excessive skidding in all their marketing vids more offensive than any name they might apply to their little bro-cult.
-
07-14-2020, 05:57 PM #9Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Location
- Southeast New York
- Posts
- 11,767
The 12 tribes of Israel predate the North American natives by a few years. Who the fuck gives a shit about using the word tribe other than some triggered white folk...
-
07-14-2020, 08:44 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- United States of Aburdistan
- Posts
- 7,281
-
07-14-2020, 09:19 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
-
07-14-2020, 10:59 PM #12Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,896
From the day it was built I hung out at Simon Fraser U ( Simon Fraser was a scotish fur trader ) where they are trying to get the name of the sports teams changed from " the Clansman " because some folks equate Clansmen with Klansmen and the whole white beds sheets and cross burnings thing
I think tribe or Clan could mean different things depending on how you spin it
but Klan is pretty obviousLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
07-14-2020, 11:07 PM #13
I've never heard tribal members (Indian tribes, not yeti tribe) complain about it, but that doesn't mean they haven't. Just because the word "tribe" predates its application to the indigenous people of North America doesn't mean its use can't possibly be offensive to them. I'm not sure I see how it is offensive, but then it's not really the point, whether I understand why they may find it offensive
I don't know, and honestly I don't care, maybe it is only triggered white folks complaining. But I also don't see why I should get worked up by Yeti voluntary changing the name of the Yeti Tribe to something else."fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
07-14-2020, 11:16 PM #14Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,896
its pretty easy to leave " tribe " out of the marketing, zero fucksgiven cuz it doent affect you but at what point it this issue too close to corporate trademark infringement ?
Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
07-15-2020, 07:09 AM #15
I somewhat thought that this was coming, with the name changing of the Redskins, Indians (haven't been following if this one is happening) one was to assume they would do this. At this point its all just white(can i say that) noise in 2020, the most "woke" year ever....
-
07-15-2020, 07:45 AM #16Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,612
-
07-16-2020, 10:49 AM #17
This is stupid. I'm all for tearing down statues and renaming the Redskins... but tribe? Really?
If they decided not to use it anymore and just simply did that, fine, but the press release wreaks of bullshit opportunism.
-
07-16-2020, 12:31 PM #18
-
07-16-2020, 03:13 PM #19
At first I thought this was stupid. My initial reaction is the ongoing 'white guilt' of over-privileged, overindulged yappers signing on from their mothers' basements. However, in thinking further about it and personally knowing several Tribal members, I changed my mind. In native terms, Tribe signifies their status as sovereign nations sharing the continent with us. For a company to use that description for fans of their products does seem to lessen its higher stature as signifying their status as proud, independent entities. So, I think it's probably the right thing to do in honor of and in respect to the plight of the native people and their survival as sovereign nations.
As for me, I don't ride a Yeti so really don't give a shit about that microcosm of the universe and my world won't notice the change.
-
07-16-2020, 03:22 PM #20
In my professional world, some products have been changing the database "master"/"slave" terminology, and there have been similar debates (github will also be replacing "master" branch with "main"). I kinda had the same thought progression on it as you. At first I was like yeah, it's probably not offending anyone and anyway this is trivial, who cares, and the like. But I don't think it hurts to change it, nor does it hurt in general to proactively try from time to time to use more inclusive or better verbiage. In software at least we often end up with objectively better names anyway (in many cases "master"/"slave" are now "primary"/"replica" which is a more accurate and thus superior set of terms).
-
07-16-2020, 03:44 PM #21
Out of curiosity, I Googled whether the word Tribe, as used in marketing or other purposes is offensive. First, by Webster's definition, tribe can describe any of a number of groups:
"A social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader."
By stretch, this could apply to a group of bikers who commonly support a specific brand, I guess.
My second query was whether the use of Tribe was defamatory in certain situations. This actually surprised me a bit as many of the responses from the link below were not only deriding the use of the word in broader contexts but even in reference to the Tribes themselves. It seems they don't like being described as Tribes, even in formal recognition but much prefer Nation. This is somewhat counter-intuitive to me as, around here, their formal organizational names contain the word Tribe.
https://hownottotravellikeabasicbitc...ive-americans/
I don't know about native Tribes in other parts of the country but around here, they refer to themselves as Tribes, even in their official capacities as organized sovereign nations, i.e. The Spokane Tribe of Indians and their Spokane Tribe Casino. The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, etc.. This is interesting to me. The Chief Operating Officer for the Kalispels lives across the street from me, I think I'll ask him about this when I see him. The varying takes from various elements of society and geography make this a somewhat confusing issue.
-
07-16-2020, 03:44 PM #22
I agree that it reeks of opportunism, but I don't know what info they have that we don't. Is your finger on the pulse of how Indian tribes feel about it? And why is it stupid that a private corporation chose to change a part of their marketing campaign?
Again, is your finger on the pulse of how Indian tribes feel about it? Do y'all have any sense of how tiresome it must be for POC to see white people telling them what they should and shouldn't be bothered by? I have seen so much of that lately and it is getting tiresome for me as a white male, I can't imagine what it is like for them.
Yep. I know a lot of tribal members but haven't had this discussion, so I have no idea if they would care, or whether they had any input into it. But I don't see why people should be objecting to something a private company did as part of an effort to be more inclusive, even if the effort is misguided (I have no idea if it is or not).
exactly, it doesn't hurt to change it, it doesn't hurt to sometimes reevaluate how you do things and how you name things. Word usage and meaning changes over time, so even if it was adopted without ill intent, why not occasionally consider how times and words and attitudes change?"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
07-16-2020, 03:50 PM #23
I have spent a lot of my professional career working with tribes, and often get asked questions about what tribes think or what tribes will do or whatever. My first response is always something along the lines of there are over 500 federally recognized tribes, and generalizing what they believe as a collective group is a bad idea. So yeah, maybe some of them have no issue with the word, maybe some of them want the word for themselves and have issue with white folks coopting it, maybe some of them hate the word (I know the Navajo Nation has adopted "Nation", and does not want to be identified as "Navajo Tribe").
People on this board have occasionally called me out for using the word Indian, but IME Indian is the accepted term (regardless of its origins). That doesn't mean there isn't some tribal member out there who thinks I should say American Indian or Native American. Expecting homogeneity from a very diverse group of cultures is a mistake."fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
07-16-2020, 04:49 PM #24
So, skimming the back and forth, I ya know, took a look around. This is way long for most of you, but just read the first few paragraphs.... it's from tolerance.org
Invite your students to investigate the history and hidden meanings of the word "tribe."
For many people in Western countries, the subject of Africa immediately calls up the word "tribe." Few readers question a news story describing an African individual as a "tribesman" or "tribeswoman," or the depiction of an African's motives as "tribal." Many Africans themselves use the word "tribe" when speaking or writing in English about community, ethnicity or identity in African states.
Yet today most scholars -- both African and non-African -- who study African states and societies agree that "tribe" promotes misleading stereotypes. The term "tribe" has no consistent meaning. It carries misleading historical and cultural assumptions. It blocks accurate views of African realities.
At best, any interpretation of African events that relies on the idea of tribe contributes no understanding of specific issues in specific countries. At worst, it obscures the reality that African identities and conflicts are as diverse, ambiguous, complex, modern and dynamic as those found anywhere else in the world.
What's wrong with "tribe"?
"Tribe" promotes a myth of primitive African timelessness.
The general sense of tribe as most people understand it is associated with primitiveness. To be in a tribal state is to live in an uncomplicated, traditional condition.
Most African countries are economically poor and often described as less developed or underdeveloped. Westerners often conclude that these societies have not changed much over the centuries and that African poverty mainly reflects cultural and social conservatism. Interpreting present-day Africa through the lens of tribes reinforces the image of timelessness.
The truth is that Africa has as much history as anywhere else in the world. It has undergone momentous changes time and again, especially in the 20th century. While African poverty is partly a product of internal dynamics of African societies, it has also been caused by the histories of external slave trades and colonial rule.
In the West, "tribal" often implies "savage."
When the general image of tribal timelessness is applied to situations of social conflict between Africans, a particularly destructive myth results. Stereotypes of primitiveness and conservative backwardness are also linked to images of irrationality and superstition. The combination leads to portrayal of violence and conflict in Africa as primordial, savage and unchanging. This image resonates with traditional Western racist ideas and can suggest that irrational violence is inherent and natural to Africans. Just as particular conflicts elsewhere in the world have both rational and irrational components, so do those in Africa.
The vast majority of African ethnic conflicts could not have happened a century ago in the ways that they do now. Pick almost any place where ethnic conflict occurs in modern Africa. Investigate carefully the issues over which it occurs, the forms it takes, and the means by which it is organized and carried out. Recent economic developments and political rivalries will loom much larger than allegedly ancient and traditional hostilities.
Ironically, some African ethnic identities and divisions now portrayed as ancient and unchanging actually were created in the colonial period. In other cases, earlier distinctions took new, more rigid and conflictual forms over the last century. The changes came out of communities' interactions within a colonial or post-colonial context, as well as movement of people to cities to work and live. The identities thus created resemble modern ethnicities in other countries, which are also shaped by cities, markets and national states.
If "tribe" is so flawed, why is it so common?
"Tribe" reflects widespread but outdated 19th-century social theory.
As Europeans expanded their trade, settlement and military domination around the world, they began trying to understand the different forms of society and culture they encountered. Social scientists in the 19th century viewed societies as "evolving" along a sequence of organizational stages. One widespread theory saw a progression from hunting to herding to agriculture to mechanical industry. By this account, city-building -- the root of "civilization" -- arose from agriculture, and all forms of social organization and government that "preceded" this stage were considered tribal.
Over the course of the 20th century, scholars learned that such images tried to make messy reality neater than it really is. While markets and technology may be said to develop, they have no simple correspondence with specific forms of politics, social organization or culture. Moreover, human beings have proven remarkably capable of changing older identities to fit new conditions, or inventing new identities (often stoutly insisting that the changed or new identities are eternal). Examples close to home include new hyphenated American identities, new social identities (for example, gay/lesbian), and new religious identities (for example, New Age).
Social theories of tribes resonated with classical and biblical education.
Of course, most ordinary Western people were not social theorists. But theories of social evolution spread through schools, newspapers, sermons and other media. The term "tribe," which comes from the Latin tribus, was tied to classical and biblical images. The ancient Romans used tribus to denote segments of their own population, as well as the Celtic and Germanic societies with which many 19th- and early-20th-century Europeans and Americans identified. Latin and English Bibles adopted the term for the 12 lineages of Hebrews who settled the Promised Land. This link of tribes to prestigious earlier periods of Western culture contributed to the view that tribe had universal validity in social evolution.
The concept of tribe became a cornerstone for European colonial rule in Africa.
This background of belief, while mistaken in many respects, might have been relatively benign. However, emerging during the age of scientific rationalism, the theories of social evolution became intertwined with racial theories. These were used to justify, first, the latter stages of the Atlantic slave trade (originally justified on religious grounds) and, later, European colonial rule.
Some people who believed that Africans were a primitive, lower order of humanity saw this as a permanent condition that justified Europeans in enslaving and dominating them. Others held that Africans could develop but needed to be civilized by Europeans -- which often meant in "exchange" for their freedom, labor, land and resources.
This reasoning was used to support the colonization of the whole continent of Africa after 1880, which otherwise might more accurately have been seen as a naked exercise of power. Thus, all Africans were said to live in tribes, whether their ancestors built large trading empires and Muslim universities on the Niger River, densely settled and cultivated kingdoms around the great lakes in east-central Africa, or lived in much smaller-scale communities between the larger political units of the continent.
Calling nearly all African social groups "tribes" and African identities "tribal" in the era of scientific racism turned the idea of tribe from a social science category into a racial stereotype. By definition Africans were supposed to live in tribes, preferably with chiefs. The colonizers proposed to govern cheaply by adapting tribal and chiefship institutions into European-style bureaucratic states. If they didn't find tribes and chiefs, they encouraged people to identify as tribes and appointed chiefs.
www.dpsskis.com
www.point6.com
formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
Fukt: a very small amount of snow.
-
07-16-2020, 04:49 PM #25
and.. it's too long so here is the rest:
In some places, like Rwanda or Nigeria, colonial racial theory led to favoring one ethnic group over another because of supposed racial superiority (meaning White ancestry). In other places, emphasis on tribes was simply a tool of divide-and-rule strategies. The idea of tribe we have today cannot escape these roots.
Common Arguments Reconsidered
In the United States no one objects to referring to Native American "tribes."
Under U.S. law, "tribe" is a bureaucratic term. For a community of Native Americans to gain access to programs, and to enforce rights due to them under treaties and laws, they must be recognized as a tribe. This is comparable to unincorporated areas' applying for municipal status under state laws. Away from the law, Native Americans often prefer the words "nation" or "people" over "tribe."
Historically, the U.S. government treats all Native American groups as tribes because of the same outdated cultural evolutionary theories and colonial viewpoints that led European colonialists to treat all African groups as tribes. As in Africa, the term obscures wide historical differences in way of life, political and social organization, and culture among Native Americans. When we see that the same term is applied indiscriminately to Native American groups and African groups, the problem of primitive savagery as the implied common denominator only becomes more pronounced.
Africans themselves talk about tribes.
When Africans learn English, they are often taught that "tribe" is the term that English-speakers will recognize. But what underlying meaning in their own languages are Africans translating when they say "tribe"? In English, writers often refer to the Zulu tribe, whereas in Zulu the word for the Zulu as a group is isizwe. Zulu linguists translate isizwe as "nation" or "people." Isizwe refers both to the multi-ethnic South African nation and to ethno-national peoples that form a part of the multi-ethnic nation. When Africans use the word "tribe" in general conversation, they do not draw on the negative connotations of primitivism the word has in Western countries.
Avoiding the term "tribe" is just political correctness.
To the contrary, avoiding the term "tribe" is saying that ideas matter. If the term "tribe" accurately conveyed and clarified truths better than other words, even if they were hard and unpleasant truths, we should use it. But "tribe" is vague, contradictory and confusing, not clarifying. For the most part it does not convey truths but myths, stereotypes and prejudices. When it does express truths, there are other words that express the same truths more clearly, without the additional distortions.
Given a choice between words that express truths clearly and precisely, and words that convey partial truths murkily and distortedly, we should choose the former over the latter. That means choosing "ethnic group," "nation," "people," "community," "chiefdom," "kin-group," "village" or another appropriate word over "tribe," when writing or talking about Africa. The question is not political correctness but empirical accuracy and intellectual honesty.
Most scholars already prefer other terms to "tribe." So, among the media, does the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). But "tribal" and "African" are still virtually synonyms in most media, among policy-makers and among Western publics. Clearing away this stereotype is an essential step for beginning to understand the diversity and richness of African realities.
This essay was adapted with permission from "Talking About 'Tribe': Moving From Stereotypes to Analysis," originally published by the Africa Policy Information Center in 1997. The principal author was Chris Lowe, a historian of Africa who lives in Portland, Ore. Additional research was provided by Tunde Brimah, Pearl-Alice Marsh, William Minter and Monde Muyangwa.www.dpsskis.com
www.point6.com
formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
Fukt: a very small amount of snow.
Bookmarks