QuoteEdmonton Eskimos must change offensive name, Inuit leader says
Derogatory term criticized as symbol of past colonial policies
CBC News Posted: Nov 27, 2015 8:45 PM MT Last Updated: Nov 29, 2015 10:21 AM MT
There are growing calls for the Edmonton Eskimos to change their name.
On Friday the Ottawa Citizen published an editorial calling the name offensive to Canada's indigenous community.
On Sunday the Eskimos play the Ottawa Redblacks in Winnipeg for the Grey Cup, the Canadian Football League championship.
"If I was called an Eskimo or introduced as an Eskimo by anyone else, I would be offended by that," he said. "It is something that was acceptable at one time but now just isn't.
"It's time for the team to change its name. And it's time also for all sports teams to change their names if they continue to use indigenous people as their mascots."
It doesn't appear that will happen soon, though. A spokesman for the Edmonton Eskimos said the organization has no plans to change the name.
CFL commissioner Jeffrey Orridge didn't appear eager to discuss the issue when approached by CBC News at a Grey Cup event in Winnipeg.
Relic from the past
"The team has focused on diversity its entire history," Orridge said.
"And they have a great relationship, as I understand it, with the native Canadian community. I don't know anything more about that [other] than the Eskimos organization and the incredibly progressive and incredibly substantial people there."
J.C. Sherritt
Eskimos linebacker J.C. Sherritt says the team name is an issue worth talking about. (CBC )
However, Eskimos linebacker J.C. Sherritt thinks the issue may be worth discussing, especially in light of the controversy over the name of Washington's team in the National Football League.
"I know the Redskins name back home is something that is constantly talked about and needed change," he said.
"When things like that happen, conversation is always a good thing and if we need to talk about it we'll talk about it."
Obed says it's a conversation that should happen. He played junior hockey and was a member of a hockey team in university, so he understands how fans can be passionate about a team name. But he hopes society can move beyond a term that is a relic from the past.
"I think we can have this discussion without having an uproar about being overly politically correct or trying to defame a proud organization," he said.
"I think we just have to talk about what is right in 2015 for the relationship between the indigenous people of Canada and the non-indigenous portions of our population."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-eskimos-football-name-change-1.3341466
So, Edmonton's CFL franchise is called the Eskimos. While there have been long controversies about using aboriginal names and symbols for sports franchises, Edmonton always had a ready response when asked about their name - "we've never had any complaints".
But that ended last week, with a major Inuit organization called on the Eskimos to change their name.
I'm not quite sure what to think, as the Eskimos situation is a bit different than other sports franchises. For starters it's not a blatant slur like Redskins is. For second the Eskimos do not rely on any Inuit or aboriginal characters or symbols. Their logo is a simple Double E, and their mascot is a polar bear.
Even the word Eskimo has a curious history. It's true that "eskimo" is not how the far northern aboriginal people call themselves. Their own preferred term (at least in Canada) is "Inuit". Supposedly, the term eskimo comes from the Cree word for "raw meat eater". It's like calling a Hungarian a Hungarian, even though their own term is Magyar.
So what do you think Languish?
And for discussion purposes, here is the team mascot:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcfl.uploads.mrx.ca%2Fedm%2Fimages%2Finside%2F2011%2F07%2FNanook_Headshot4125.jpg&hash=03c102909de87e0a1fae204d9fa66e645dea14df)
The team logo:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Edmonton_Eskimos_Logo.svg)
I think the answer can be found in the Truth and Reconciliation report which expressly recommended that such names should not be used.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
I think the answer can be found in the Truth and Reconciliation report which expressly recommended that such names should not be used.
I just went through all 94 recommendations of the TRC and see no such recommendation.
http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
Now Justice Sinclair, who headed up the TRC, did say on his own that they should change their name. But that wasn't a recommendation of the commission.
No, they shouldn't.
From the Truth and Reconciliation Report:
Quote92. We call upon the corporate sector in Canada to
adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to
apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate
policy and core operational activities involving
Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.
If you look at the United Nations Declaration it states, in part:
QuoteArticle 15
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity
of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be
appropriately reflected in education and public information.
2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation
with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice
and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding
and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments
of society.
QuoteArticle 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect
and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional
cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their
sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic
resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna
and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional
games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to
maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property
over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional
cultural expressions.
QuoteArticle 43
The rights recognized herein constitute the minimum standards for
the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the
world.
I am not sure how the Edmonton football team could, in good conscience, suggest they are following the recommendations in the Report if they keep the name.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
I think the answer can be found in the Truth and Reconciliation report which expressly recommended that such names should not be used.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "expressly recommended" than the rest of us. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 02:05:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 01:22:08 PM
I think the answer can be found in the Truth and Reconciliation report which expressly recommended that such names should not be used.
Perhaps you have a different definition of "expressly recommended" than the rest of us. :hmm:
Yes, it is not as simplistic as "The Edmonton Eskimos should mend their ways"
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
It's not their IP.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
But it's not "their name" - it's a name that others gave to them.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
But it's not "their name" - it's a name that others gave to them.
By that logic there is nothing wrong with the name Redskin. Are you really going to try to argue that point?
Of course not.
If those kind of names are too offensive for modern times, they should be able to convince people to boycott the team and make them voluntarily change it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 02:21:58 PM
Of course not.
If those kind of names are too offensive for modern times, they should be able to convince people to boycott the team and make them voluntarily change it.
I think that is what the Inuit will do next. But for now they have made a request to the team to change the name.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
But it's not "their name" - it's a name that others gave to them.
By that logic there is nothing wrong with the name Redskin. Are you really going to try to argue that point?
Ownership of the IP of the name is not the only criteria that we should examine this by.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 01, 2015, 02:23:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:21:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
But it's not "their name" - it's a name that others gave to them.
By that logic there is nothing wrong with the name Redskin. Are you really going to try to argue that point?
Ownership of the IP of the name is not the only criteria that we should examine this by.
I agree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
I think that is what the Inuit will do next. But for now they have made a request to the team to change the name.
Well, should they change it and should they have to change it are different questions.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 02:28:29 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:22:43 PM
I think that is what the Inuit will do next. But for now they have made a request to the team to change the name.
Well, should they change it and should they have to change it are different questions.
I am not sure what point you are making. If the name is offensive (and the Inuit say it is) they should change it. I am not sure what you mean by " should they have to change it"
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
The whole point of their complaint is that "Eskimo"
isn't their name. It is hard to argue that they own the IP rights to it.
It is more in the nature of an inadvertent slur, and ought to be avoided for this reason.
IP? That's a bit of a stretch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
I am not sure what point you are making. If the name is offensive (and the Inuit say it is) they should change it. I am not sure what you mean by " should they have to change it"
I mean the government should not step in.
"Eskimo" is the proper term used by the US Census Bureau, Inuit is not proper term since it does not describe the people's in Alaska. It has nothing to to with idea of "eater's of raw meat". It is simply an exonyme.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:37:34 PM
"Eskimo" is the proper term used by the US Census Bureau, Inuit is not proper term since it does not describe the people's in Alaska. It has nothing to to with idea of "eater's of raw meat". It is simply an exonyme.
I think Alaskan Eskimos are not bothered by the name of a CFL team.
Canadian Inuit, on the other hand...
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
The whole point of their complaint is that "Eskimo" isn't their name. It is hard to argue that they own the IP rights to it.
It is more in the nature of an inadvertent slur, and ought to be avoided for this reason.
Article 15 doesn't deal with IP ;)
If the name describe a people they aren't, what grounds to they have to complain?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:46:35 PM
If the name describe a people they aren't, what grounds to they have to complain?
:huh:
For the same reason indigenous people complain about the name Redskin.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 02:36:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
I am not sure what point you are making. If the name is offensive (and the Inuit say it is) they should change it. I am not sure what you mean by " should they have to change it"
I mean the government should not step in.
Its not :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:46:35 PM
If the name describe a people they aren't, what grounds to they have to complain?
:huh:
For the same reason indigenous people complain about the name Redskin.
Not the same though. This refers to one group of indigenous people. A team took on the name "the Seminoles", would the Sioux have any grounds to complain?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:46:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:19:56 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
I read all that commentary, and it doesn't exactly leap out at me what in means to a team name. Though I do think that if the Innuit are of the opinion it's a slur, then to err on the side of politeness and change the name is proper. Probably in the modern world any name using an ethnicity really ought to be avoided, even if it is traditional.
Which is essentially the point of Article 15 of the UN declaration ;)
Added to the declaration about indigenous people's controlling their own IP - which includes their names...
The whole point of their complaint is that "Eskimo" isn't their name. It is hard to argue that they own the IP rights to it.
It is more in the nature of an inadvertent slur, and ought to be avoided for this reason.
Article 15 doesn't deal with IP ;)
Article 15 contains one right, and one state requirement.
Quote1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the dignity and diversity
of their cultures, traditions, histories and aspirations which shall be
appropriately reflected in education and public information.
2. States shall take effective measures, in consultation and cooperation
with the indigenous peoples concerned, to combat prejudice
and eliminate discrimination and to promote tolerance, understanding
and good relations among indigenous peoples and all other segments
of society.
Neither of these appear particularly applicable here. :huh: The "right to the dignity and diversity of their cultures, histories and aspirations" is not impacted by the name chosen for a football team, and the second point is a state requirement. Or is the argument that the state should step in and ban the use of the name as an "effective measure"?
To my mind, this isn't a matter for such undertakings, but of politeness and managing of the team's own PR.
PC gone mad. So I guess yeah they should change their name.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 03:02:17 PM
PC gone mad. So I guess yeah they should change their name.
Gone mad? You can't ask people to change things you don't like?
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 03:40:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 03:02:17 PM
PC gone mad. So I guess yeah they should change their name.
Gone mad? You can't ask people to change things you don't like?
wut
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 01, 2015, 02:47:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:46:35 PM
If the name describe a people they aren't, what grounds to they have to complain?
:huh:
For the same reason indigenous people complain about the name Redskin.
Eskimo is a slur?
Anyway have to is a bit strong.
They probably should though. Do the Inuit have any recommendations?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:42:58 PM
They probably should though. Do the Inuit have any recommendations?
Polar Bears. They wouldn't even have to change the mascot.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 03:46:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:42:58 PM
They probably should though. Do the Inuit have any recommendations?
Polar Bears. They wouldn't even have to change the mascot.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/25/72/9b/25729b9c83fbe00adf0bafdcd98df822.jpg)
Damn. You are right they are already the Polar Bears.
Well hell Edmonton Football Team that is a no brainer. I mean only the most suicidally stubborn and idiotic business man in the world would wage this fight.
That's an awfully white bear. How about being a bit inclusive for a change?
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:49:15 PM
Damn. You are right they are already the Polar Bears.
Did you miss the mascot in the OP, Tim? :P
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 03:51:50 PM
That's an awfully white bear. How about being a bit inclusive for a change?
White Bear Power!
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:49:15 PM
Damn. You are right they are already the Polar Bears.
Did you miss the mascot in the OP, Tim? :P
Looks more like an albino crocodile.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:49:15 PM
Damn. You are right they are already the Polar Bears.
Did you miss the mascot in the OP, Tim? :P
Yes. Images and websites hosted in foreign countries are blocked on my government computer so all I see is a broken link.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:54:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 03:49:15 PM
Damn. You are right they are already the Polar Bears.
Did you miss the mascot in the OP, Tim? :P
Yes. Images and websites hosted in foreign countries are blocked on my government computer so all I see is a broken link.
Better that way. Lest you, a valued government employee, be infected with Canadian-ness. :D
"Bar down?" :unsure:
Local pronounciation of bear down?
Of course they should.
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2015, 04:06:24 PM
Of course they should.
They should have to? I don't know. Strikes me as censorship.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2015, 04:06:24 PM
Of course they should.
They should have to? I don't know. Strikes me as censorship.
It's only censorship if "should have to" means mandated by government action, no?
If "should have to" means "by dint of public opinion and good taste" then it wouldn't be censorship, right?
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2015, 04:06:24 PM
Of course they should.
They should have to? I don't know. Strikes me as censorship.
It's only censorship if "should have to" means mandated by government action, no?
If "should have to" means "by dint of public opinion and good taste" then it wouldn't be censorship, right?
True but then they wouldn't have to. It would just be tacky and stupid if they didn't. But no football club would be that stupid.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2015, 04:12:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:07:09 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on December 01, 2015, 04:06:24 PM
Of course they should.
They should have to? I don't know. Strikes me as censorship.
It's only censorship if "should have to" means mandated by government action, no?
If "should have to" means "by dint of public opinion and good taste" then it wouldn't be censorship, right?
I agree - I think they
ought to change the name, out of basic politeness and in the interests of good PR.
if the edmonton eskimos can't bother/don't want to pay off the eskimos so they keep quiet, then sure - change it
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 04:32:32 PM
if the edmonton eskimos can't bother/don't want to pay off the eskimos so they keep quiet, then sure - change it
It's the CFL. The Eskimos are perhaps the richest team in the league, but they don't have money to go running around and buying people off.
And the Edmonton Eskimos football club dates all the way back to 1910 (and the usage of Eskimo / Esquiamo for rugby teams from Edmonton goes back even earlier).
I wonder when the Roman Curia complains about St. Louis Cardinals...
The Vikings offend me deeply.
Meh, Cardinals and Vikings are job descriptions, not ethnicities. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:42:29 PM
I wonder when the Roman Curia complains about St. Louis Cardinals...
I hope this kind of thing only applies to colonized indigenous peoples. I don't want Japan complaining about teenage mutant ninja turtles.
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:46:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:42:29 PM
I wonder when the Roman Curia complains about St. Louis Cardinals...
I hope this kind of thing only applies to colonized indigenous peoples. I don't want Japan complaining about teenage mutant ninja turtles.
That's cultural appropriation.
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 04:44:18 PM
The Vikings offend me deeply.
You should. They have never managed to win the Super Bowl.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 04:37:05 PMIt's the CFL. The Eskimos are perhaps the richest team in the league, but they don't have money to go running around and buying people off.
And the Edmonton Eskimos football club dates all the way back to 1910 (and the usage of Eskimo / Esquiamo for rugby teams from Edmonton goes back even earlier).
has there never been an agreement between the edmonton eskimos and the canadian eskimos re: the name? while that's possible, i'd be kinda surprised if that were the case. any $$ amount wouldn't need to break the edmonton eskimo bank account. why would the canadian eskimos demand an unreasonable amount?
times change. UND's sioux dated to around the 1930s. i don't see time as a factor for keeping a sports team name.
There are no such people as Canadian Eskimos. Eskimos only live in Alaska it seems.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 04:48:10 PM
UND's sioux dated to around the 1930s. i don't see time as a factor for keeping a sports team name.
But...TRADITION!
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:50:03 PMBut...TRADITION!
right? it's one of the bigger non-issues today. people like/dislike the
organization, not its name
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
the analogies are false analogies because the thing is, catholics don't care about the cardinals and scandinavians don't care about the vikings. irish don't care about the celtics, etc.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
I'm sure Languish can come up with a suitable name for the country currently known as "Poland" ... :shifty:
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
They can but most countries are not insisting on other countries using their "original" name. For example Germany does not go around telling English or French to call them "Deutschland".
Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2015, 04:56:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
I'm sure Languish can come up with a suitable name for the country currently known as "Poland" ... :shifty:
Yes, well, you are not calling it "Polska" though.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
:huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:58:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
They can but most countries are not insisting on other countries using their "original" name. For example Germany does not go around telling English or French to call them "Deutschland".
That's fair. Though it has always struck me as odd that we change country names. Most normal people don't insist on changing people's first names or cities (though there are clearly some examples for cities).
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 05:00:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
:huh:
Got keep at it you want to raise that post count. :showoff:
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 04:48:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 04:37:05 PMIt's the CFL. The Eskimos are perhaps the richest team in the league, but they don't have money to go running around and buying people off.
And the Edmonton Eskimos football club dates all the way back to 1910 (and the usage of Eskimo / Esquiamo for rugby teams from Edmonton goes back even earlier).
has there never been an agreement between the edmonton eskimos and the canadian eskimos re: the name? while that's possible, i'd be kinda surprised if that were the case. any $$ amount wouldn't need to break the edmonton eskimo bank account. why would the canadian eskimos demand an unreasonable amount?
times change. UND's sioux dated to around the 1930s. i don't see time as a factor for keeping a sports team name.
I thought it a shame that the Fighting Sioux are no more. Their depiction is quite different from that of the Redskins, or the Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves. From what I recall 2 out of 3 Sioux bands supported UND keeping the name, and the third one couldn't make up its mind one way or another.
And you perhaps don't realize how small the CFL is. The salary cap in the CFL is $5 million - for the entire team.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 04:54:07 PM
Countries shouldn't get to decide their own name? :huh:
It does make them appear a bit insecure when they freak out what foreigners speaking other languages call them though. So no, I would recommend they give themselves an official name and chillout. Do I know what the United States of America is called in Chinese? No. Should the USA decide that? Nope.
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 05:00:10 PM
They can but most countries are not insisting on other countries using their "original" name. For example Germany does not go around telling English or French to call them "Deutschland".
That's fair. Though it has always struck me as odd that we change country names. Most normal people don't insist on changing people's first names or cities (though there are clearly some examples for cities).
[/quote]
There's tons of examples for cities.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:58:05 PMThey can but most countries are not insisting on other countries using their "original" name. For example Germany does not go around telling English or French to call them "Deutschland".
the rule you allege exists is that "only [shithole countries] get to insist" on name changes. one example that goes against this is the the republic of hungary changing to hungary. and don't forget the byzantine empire changed its name to the ottoman empire, etc. you can see a list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_country_and_capital_changes
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 04:56:11 PM
the analogies are false analogies because the thing is, catholics don't care about the cardinals and scandinavians don't care about the vikings. irish don't care about the celtics, etc.
The objections to aborigine names is justified in part by the assertion that the names and depictions "foster negative stereotypes." This should in theory apply just as much to the names you mentioned, regardless of Boston Irish not giving a shit.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
An aunt of mine does volunteer work among christian refugees from Myanmar (she is a retired teacher, and teaches the adults english and tutors the children). She reports they are bitterly opposed to using the name "Myanmar" and insist on calling the country "Burma". I don't know why.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 05:00:56 PM
I thought it a shame that the Fighting Sioux are no more. Their depiction is quite different from that of the Redskins, or the Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves.
The depiction of the Washington Redskin is completely unlike the Cleveland Indians. The Washington Redskin is a total badass.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 05:00:56 PMI thought it a shame that the Fighting Sioux are no more. Their depiction is quite different from that of the Redskins, or the Cleveland Indians or Atlanta Braves. From what I recall 2 out of 3 Sioux bands supported UND keeping the name, and the third one couldn't make up its mind one way or another.
And you perhaps don't realize how small the CFL is. The salary cap in the CFL is $5 million - for the entire team.
UND couldn't make an agreement work, so now there's no sioux nickname.
OK, so if edmonton eskimos don't want to pay the price, then they don't get the name. seems fair to me.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2015, 05:07:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
An aunt of mine does volunteer work among christian refugees from Myanmar (she is a retired teacher, and teaches the adults english and tutors the children). She reports they are bitterly opposed to using the name "Myanmar" and insist on calling the country "Burma". I don't know why.
Burma is also retarded. We call it Birma. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 05:06:58 PMThe objections to aborigine names is justified in part by the assertion that the names and depictions "foster negative stereotypes." This should in theory apply just as much to the names you mentioned, regardless of Boston Irish not giving a shit.
do no indian groups complain of the cleveland/washington names? i don't know those controversies.
the "names and depictions 'foster negative stereotypes'" might be one justification, but it's not the only justification. it's not a requirement for a team to change its name and/or mascot.
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2015, 05:07:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
An aunt of mine does volunteer work among christian refugees from Myanmar (she is a retired teacher, and teaches the adults english and tutors the children). She reports they are bitterly opposed to using the name "Myanmar" and insist on calling the country "Burma". I don't know why.
Because the name change to Myanmar was brought by the military government.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
Isn't that because you'd never even pay attention to a sports team?
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 05:13:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
Isn't that because you'd never even pay attention to a sports team?
Yes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
Edit 2: Admittedly though, it is much easier to blame the shit in your life on prejudice and discrimination than it is on not having your shit together. ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on December 01, 2015, 05:07:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:47:05 PM
No, the answer is that you only get to complain if your culture is retarded. It's the same with country names - you only get to insist you should be called Myanmar or Moldova if you are a shithole.
An aunt of mine does volunteer work among christian refugees from Myanmar (she is a retired teacher, and teaches the adults english and tutors the children). She reports they are bitterly opposed to using the name "Myanmar" and insist on calling the country "Burma". I don't know why.
The country's name was changed by the military junta in power, the same one that no doubt made them refugees.
Ostensibly the reason was, in part, to make the name more inclusive of minorities (the "Burmese" are the ethnic majority). However, the name "Myanmar" is simply the name of the majority ethnic group in 'literary' Burman (I guess it is like a highfalutin' way of saying "Burma" ;) ), and ironically, most actual ethnic minorities in the country - who do not speak much Burman - see this as an imposition by the Burmese majority: they prefer the English "Burma" that they are used to.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:11:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 05:06:58 PMThe objections to aborigine names is justified in part by the assertion that the names and depictions "foster negative stereotypes." This should in theory apply just as much to the names you mentioned, regardless of Boston Irish not giving a shit.
do no indian groups complain of the cleveland/washington names? i don't know those controversies.
the "names and depictions 'foster negative stereotypes'" might be one justification, but it's not the only justification. it's not a requirement for a team to change its name and/or mascot.
No idea about Cleveland.
Native Americans have been complaining about the Redskins since...awhile. I saw my first demonstrators during Super Bowl XXVI and it was a weird realization that my beloved and favorite football team did, in fact, have a racist name. It had never occurred to me before since I had never heard that word ever used outside of football.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PMYes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
i thought it was because you're shifting toward conservatism
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PM
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
It is called getting older. As time goes on you just have fewer and fewer fucks to give about what other people think.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 05:13:15 PM
Because the name change to Myanmar was brought by the military government.
Well this sucks.
If I call it "Burma", I sound like a right wing reactionary.
If I call it "Myanmar", I offend refugee groups and endorse the actions of a military government.
Thankfully, this country that comes up in conversation approximately never.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2015, 05:13:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
Isn't that because you'd never even pay attention to a sports team?
Yes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
Edit 2: Admittedly though, it is much easier to blame the shit in your life on prejudice and discrimination than it is on not having your shit together. ;)
Of course, prejudice and discrimination have less of an effect on a person if say...you're a highly paid lawyer. ;)
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:18:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PMYes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
i thought it was because you're shifting toward conservatism
Nah, I guess it's about becoming less insecure when you get older. For example, we have a shitty conservative government back in Poland right now but I am much more relaxed about it than I was 10 years ago. I have seen it all already - no point getting all worked up about it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 05:17:14 PMNo idea about Cleveland.
Native Americans have been complaining about the Redskins since...awhile. I saw my first demonstrators during Super Bowl XXVI and it was a weird realization that in fact my beloved and favorite football team did, in fact, have a racist name. It had never occurred to me before since I had never heard that word ever used outside of football.
and that makes sense. an organization of sufficient size complaining seems like a requirement to these name controversies. no one is complaining about the catholic/scandi/irish names. so, they remain
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:18:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PMYes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
i thought it was because you're shifting toward conservatism
Nah, I guess it's about becoming less insecure when you get older. For example, we have a shitty conservative government back in Poland right now but I am much more relaxed about it than I was 10 years ago. I have seen it all already - no point getting all worked up about it.
Yeah, you're confident that whatever shit they fling, the impact on you personally is likely going to be minimal. Other, more vulnerable, people may suffer but you'll be alright.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 05:17:14 PMNo idea about Cleveland.
Native Americans have been complaining about the Redskins since...awhile. I saw my first demonstrators during Super Bowl XXVI and it was a weird realization that in fact my beloved and favorite football team did, in fact, have a racist name. It had never occurred to me before since I had never heard that word ever used outside of football.
and that makes sense. an organization of sufficient size complaining seems like a requirement to these name controversies. no one is complaining about the catholic/scandi/irish names. so, they remain
THis is only coming up now for the Eskimos because, until now, no large organization had ever complained about the name.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 05:27:03 PMTHis is only coming up now for the Eskimos because, until now, no large organization had ever complained about the name.
this goes back to what i said earlier. is this because no large organization had ever complained or because any large organization had an agreement with the edmonton eskimos until now? if it actually is the former, then, like my earlier point about time, why is time a factor? maybe the canadian eskimo organization felt a little uneasy about the whole thing but let it slide, until it saw team name changes occurring everywhere else.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
No alliteration but at least you have Green Bay Packers.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:21:00 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:18:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:14:12 PMYes.
Edit: Also I noticed that since I became more at peace with myself, I have been less bothered by stuff like that.
i thought it was because you're shifting toward conservatism
Nah, I guess it's about becoming less insecure when you get older. For example, we have a shitty conservative government back in Poland right now but I am much more relaxed about it than I was 10 years ago. I have seen it all already - no point getting all worked up about it.
You are also becoming a more decent person. :)
Quote from: The Brain on December 01, 2015, 05:31:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 05:12:10 PM
I wouldn't freak out if there was a team called Fergusson Faggots or Philadelphia Pollacks. The alliteration trumps all. :sleep:
No alliteration but at least you have Green Bay Packers.
I think I have heard that team called the "Fudge Packers" almost as often as just the "Packers".
Why not change the name of the team to the Inuit?
It doesn't have the fearsome ring that "Eskimo" does.
Quote from: LaCroix on December 01, 2015, 05:11:48 PM
do no indian groups complain of the cleveland/washington names? i don't know those controversies.
the "names and depictions 'foster negative stereotypes'" might be one justification, but it's not the only justification. it's not a requirement for a team to change its name and/or mascot.
The only thing that would constitute a requirement to change a name or mascot would be a law or a court order.
I maintain that in fact it is the only justification. The starting point is that Indian groups find these names and mascots offensive, and when asked how they are offensive they continue that they foster negative stereotypes.
The real tragedy about this whole situation is that teams adopted Indian names and mascots to associate their team with positive values like courage and fortitude. The paratroopers dropped over Normandy didn't wear Mohawks and shout Geronimo because they were trying to foster negative stereotypes. They did it because they wanted to show how tough they were.
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 02:43:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 02:37:34 PM
"Eskimo" is the proper term used by the US Census Bureau, Inuit is not proper term since it does not describe the people's in Alaska. It has nothing to to with idea of "eater's of raw meat". It is simply an exonyme.
I think Alaskan Eskimos are not bothered by the name of a CFL team.
Canadian Inuit, on the other hand...
You would be wrong, try calling folks up here eskimos and see what happens.
Quote from: katmai on December 01, 2015, 07:52:04 PM
You would be wrong, try calling folks up here eskimos and see what happens.
What are we supposed to call them?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2015, 07:53:36 PM
Quote from: katmai on December 01, 2015, 07:52:04 PM
You would be wrong, try calling folks up here eskimos and see what happens.
What are we supposed to call them?
Depends where they are from, eskimo only applies to the Yupik folks and they would rather be called Yupik, then when you consider considering there are also the Aleuts, Haida, Tlingit, Inupiat. It is annoying as when you assholes call Timmay a mexican <_<
"What do you want to be called?"
"Yupik"
"Ok, you're an Eskimo."
Ok how did we end up using the word the east coast Algonquians used for people who seem to live hundreds of miles away? Must be a story there.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 09:04:35 PM
"What do you want to be called?"
"Yupik"
"Ok, you're an Eskimo."
Fuck, what do you expect from us? We showed up in this hemisphere in 1492 and thought we were in India, so we called the locals Indians. Made sense, no offense was intended, we realized we were wrong in a year or so and this wasn't actually India. But you know what? 500+ years later we are still calling them Indians, the same as people actually from India.
Indians? Do you mean Injuns?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 01, 2015, 06:37:40 PM
Why not change the name of the team to the Inuit?
This is a joke, right? Korean humor?
Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2015, 01:13:45 PM
So, Edmonton's CFL franchise is called the Eskimos. While there have been long controversies about using aboriginal names and symbols for sports franchises, Edmonton always had a ready response when asked about their name - "we've never had any complaints".
But that ended last week, with a major Inuit organization called on the Eskimos to change their name.
I'm not quite sure what to think, as the Eskimos situation is a bit different than other sports franchises. For starters it's not a blatant slur like Redskins is. For second the Eskimos do not rely on any Inuit or aboriginal characters or symbols. Their logo is a simple Double E, and their mascot is a polar bear.
Even the word Eskimo has a curious history. It's true that "eskimo" is not how the far northern aboriginal people call themselves. Their own preferred term (at least in Canada) is "Inuit". Supposedly, the term eskimo comes from the Cree word for "raw meat eater". It's like calling a Hungarian a Hungarian, even though their own term is Magyar.
So what do you think Languish?
And for discussion purposes, here is the team mascot:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcfl.uploads.mrx.ca%2Fedm%2Fimages%2Finside%2F2011%2F07%2FNanook_Headshot4125.jpg&hash=03c102909de87e0a1fae204d9fa66e645dea14df)
The team logo:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Edmonton_Eskimos_Logo.svg)
Next time, name your teams for birds, animals or better yet: climate. These will never complain ;)
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 01:36:58 PM
Next time, name your teams for birds, animals or better yet: climate. These will never complain ;)
Tell it to the late 19th / early 20th century.
Clearly no one would name a team this way now. But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Unless it has become a racial slur, like "Savages" or "Negro", which were used by everyone, without malice, to designate indians and blacks, I would tend to agree with you. But I am not the one being offended here, so it's hard for me to judge.
I'd say the team should discuss the issue with those concerned, hear them at the least, in a one on one dialogue.
Also, Edmonton Inuits, EI, would be problematic for French speakers, as it's the french version of ISIS (État Islamique)
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 01:36:58 PM
Next time, name your teams for birds, animals or better yet: climate. These will never complain ;)
Tell it to the late 19th / early 20th century.
Clearly no one would name a team this way now. But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Not according to garbon. Time to purge any historical figure that does not conform to today's exacting standards.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 02:27:24 PM
Also, Edmonton Inuits, EI, would be problematic for French speakers, as it's the french version of ISIS (État Islamique)
So don't abbreviate it.
Anyway, don't expect ISIS to survive forever.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 02:27:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Unless it has become a racial slur, like "Savages" or "Negro", which were used by everyone, without malice, to designate indians and blacks, I would tend to agree with you. But I am not the one being offended here, so it's hard for me to judge.
I'd say the team should discuss the issue with those concerned, hear them at the least, in a one on one dialogue.
Also, Edmonton Inuits, EI, would be problematic for French speakers, as it's the french version of ISIS (État Islamique)
Zero chance they'd ever name it the Edmonton Inuits. Like I said, they don't use any Eskimo/Inuit figures or imagery.
I'm sure they'd want to keep the "Double E" and pick some other name starting with E.
Edmonton Enraged Polar Bears
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2015, 02:43:02 PM
Edmonton Enraged Polar Bears
Let's see how it works with the Fight Song.
QuoteWe're cheering fight, fight, fight on Enraged Polar Bears
We're marching right, right, right on Enraged Polar Bears
We're charging down the field for all to see
And shouting rah, rah, rah, fight on to victory
We're fighting on 'til every game is won
The green and gold is bold and when we're done
We'll tell the world we're proud of Edmonton
And the Edmonton Enraged Polar Bears.
:hmm: Needs work.
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 01:36:58 PM
Next time, name your teams for birds, animals or better yet: climate. These will never complain ;)
Tell it to the late 19th / early 20th century.
Clearly no one would name a team this way now. But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Since the injustice the Inuit point to is historical I am not entirely sure it would be wise to rely on the name being grounded in that unjust historical context. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 02:38:44 PM
I'm sure they'd want to keep the "Double E" and pick some other name starting with E.
The Edmonton Excessive Cold Warnings!
Edmonton Ex-Eskimos?
Edmonton Edmontoners. Because they're as uncreative as Philadelphia.
The Edmonton Emigrants
As a veiled threat to move unless granted a new stadium paid for by taxpayers.
Edmonton Exoskeletons!
Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2015, 03:39:33 PM
The Edmonton Emigrants
As a veiled threat to move unless granted a new stadium paid for by taxpayers.
:lol:
Here's one of the great things about the CFL - the Eskimos (along with the Blue Bombers and the Roughriders) are community owned. There's no way they'd ever move.
And although Commonwealth Stadium is starting to show it's nearly 70 years of age, its still one of the nicest (and definitely the biggest) CFL stadium in Canada.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2015, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2015, 01:58:00 PM
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2015, 01:36:58 PM
Next time, name your teams for birds, animals or better yet: climate. These will never complain ;)
Tell it to the late 19th / early 20th century.
Clearly no one would name a team this way now. But can some leeway not be given to historical names?
Not according to garbon. Time to purge any historical figure that does not conform to today's exacting standards.
That doesn't even make any sense. If you are going to make up stances for me, can you at least point out that it is fictional in your posts? Thx.
How about the Edmonton Emos?
They could specify that the Emos they are naming the team after are the Inuit that want them to change the name. Not all Inuit, and not historical Inuit. Just the people complaining today. The current mascot could be replaced by a mascot that is physically weak, overweight, whiny, and constantly flanked by lawyers.
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2015, 04:58:05 PM
They can but most countries are not insisting on other countries using their "original" name. For example Germany does not go around telling English or French to call them "Deutschland".
Germany changed its official name from Deutsches Reich to Bundesrepublik Deutschland in 1949 and would get really annoyed if it was called Deutsches Reich (or e.g. German Reich) by official or even non-official communication. So it's just that our last name change is a while ago and was actually greeted by other countries as it signified breaking with the past.