MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Hardly the same level as the dog in Dambusters is it now..
https://bikepacking.com/news/yeti-cycles-drops-the-word-tribe/
(yes I know I spelt the title wrong)
Private company makes a marketing decision about a name. Struggling to be that bothered to be honest, not sure its cancel culture or a great step to equality really.
Edit to add, it's not like a/the government has banned anyone using or saying "tribe", I honestly can't see why anyone would care.
Their call they can change the brand name if the wish.
Of course.
I'm sure the 1000 name petition and general air of zero tolerance around anything that can be remotely construed as unwoke had nothing to do with it.
I'm surprised that the use of the word "tribe" in this context (to mean a group of people with something in common) is offensive to indigenous communities - but every day is a school day I guess?
As with a lot of language, I don't get to tell people that they cannot consider a term offensive. What I *do* get to do is either accept their concerns and modify my behaviour accordingly, or decide that their concerns don't matter enough to me to change what I say or do.
Same as using "girl" as a pejorative term - "you throw like a girl", "you punch like a girl" etc used to be commonplace but is now, thankfully, decreasing (in my experience).
Yeti seem happy to drop the term so it obviously isn't seen as that big a deal to them.
Si
I’m sure the 1000 name petition and general air of zero tolerance around anything that can be remotely construed as unwoke had nothing to do with it.
It was still up to the company and they decided to drop the name, I’m not seeing an issue.
This stuff makes me feel really old. Can we still say "Clan" or is that racist against Scots and/or people with ginger hair?
FWIW people use the word "tribe" all the time in Kiwiland - or just as frequently "ngati" in the Maori.
Maybe I will just start saying "Ngati Ranald" when the need arises.
Their reasoning:
When Yeti Cycles started thirty-five years ago, the founders felt strongly about building a community that was founded on racing and the belief that mountain bikes make us better people. We shared this with our friends at the races, at festivals and ultimately at Yeti Tribe Gatherings, where hundreds gather each year to ride epic trails, and enjoy the camaraderie of post ride beers and stories together.
We’ve referred to this crew as the Yeti Tribe – a community of people who love to ride mountain bikes. The notion of tribe was appealing to us because it was community-centric, familial, and had strong social values.
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.
After discussion with members of the indigenous community, studying accurate representations of our shared history, and reflecting on our values as a company, Yeti Cycles has decided we will no longer use the term “Tribe” in our marketing.
The community we have built will move forward and thrive. Yeti Gatherings will continue to be our most valued events of the year. We have walked away from a word, but the soul of our community remains intact. We ask you all to join us in embracing this change.
Thanks to the mountain bike community for your guidance and especially to the members of the indigenous community for educating us on this issue.
See you on the trail.
After discussion with members of the indigenous community, studying accurate representations of our shared history, and reflecting on our values as a company, Yeti Cycles has decided we will no longer use the term “Tribe” in our marketing.
Up to them. Let the anti-woke faux-outrage and (highly profitable if you play your cards Right) clickbait begin.
Can we still say “Clan”
Evidently not.
You just did. Evidently yes.
Looks like continued usage of it wouldn't be worth the risk of bad PR for them.
Pinkbike comments are interesting.
Now, about those Northwave Clan shoes... Oh and they have a Tribe model as well.
Ahh, surely they mean "people who self-identify as members of the indigenous community".
I am outraged.
At least it has assuaged the feelings of hurt for all those people whose Celtic ancestors were subjugated by the Romans.
I’m surprised that the use of the word “tribe” in this context (to mean a group of people with something in common) is offensive to indigenous communities – but every day is a school day I guess?
I was surprised as well... but then I have literally never met anyone from an indigenous community from North America... and the culture we import from over there hasn't really given me any insight to their position either... so more than happy to accept what they're saying, and the change in name, without thinking it all just a joke (or pretending there is something to be outraged about) because I'm personally unaffected either way.
How about Klan? Is that still OK?
Poor spelling is never OK.
At least it has assuaged the feelings of hurt for all those people whose Celtic ancestors were subjugated by the Romans.
Yeah, the first thing I associate with the word Tribes is the various groups of Celts. I guess there will be the same local effect the world over. Yeti, being a North American company would likely have been influenced in their choice of the word by the indigenous Americans.
How about Klan? Is that still OK?
Nope, as you will be offending fans of Polish soaps.
Cheers!
I.
Poor spelling is never OK.
Well, that Klux.
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.
So a word that was a useful term for grouping people but became associated with negative connotations when used on other groups of people?
Personally I feel it's unnecessary as the term in which it was used was positive and self-referencing. Interestingly i was listening to A Tribe Called Quest this very afternoon. Although maybe a white person listening to hiphop is cultural appropriation, ooh-er...
Mrs BigJohn does a bit of dressmaking and makes curtains. She's upset that Yeti have appropriated "gathering".
But I guess I should refer to her a "the person who chooses to be the life partner of 95kg John".
I, personally, didn't think the news was worthy of a thread on here. Hey ho.
Endura better hope they’ve not offended anyone either....
I can't believe they are getting away with Yeti quite frankly. None of the company seem to identify as an 8ft hairy mythical creature with size 24 feet yet here they are brazenly assuming its identity like it was nothing.
As a fairly long-time Yeti owner, I kind of liked being in a 'tribe'. But it's really not a big deal if they change the name, is it? Some of the responses from Yeti owners in the groups I follow on various social media are almost rabid. Toys back in prams, people.
If it really is an issue for some indigenous people, fair play to Yeti for changing it.
My ignorance/lack of contact with indigenous groups means I have no idea either way.
total cancel culture. Tribe just means a community of which there have been 000's in history.
Well clan is a perfectly acceptable word in this household full of members of a clan.
Well, that Klux.
Don't start mocking dyslexic poultry as well!
Tribe just means a community of which there have been 000’s in history.
I think it is one of those which depends on the primary market. Being a US company the understanding may vary from here. Since I am British and have a liking for ancient European history the use of tribes doesnt have any negative connotations but can understand why it might be viewed different in the US where our ancient terms were applied to various groups.
I’m confused about the Wu-tang Clan now.
The First Nations in North America had their land stolen, and their culture largely erased (i.e. the Residential School system in Canada), so it's not surprising that an American company has had a re-thinking of the way it brands itself.
Re. what Dissonance said above, I'm a Brit who's relocated to Canada. I had to sit through 'sensitivity' training at work a year or so ago. Basically a 101 on how not to offend anyone. So I found it somewhat hilarious when the ultra-woke person used the word 'bummer' right at the end of the training. As a Brit who went to school in the 80's, she ruined her whole mission with one word ha ha.
It occurred to me over the weekend (I'm a very slow thinker) - wouldn't the word Tribe have been an English word applied to the Native Americans by the settlers? Why would the word be offensive used in another context if that was the case?
I mean, did they call themselves tribes?
wouldn’t the word Tribe have been an English word applied to the Native Americans by the settler
Comes from the latin word Tribus
wouldn’t the word Tribe have been an English word applied to the Native Americans by the settlers? Why would the word be offensive used in another context if that was the case?
Isn't the fact that it's an English word applied to the Native Americans by the settlers be the very thing that makes it offensive? (I'm guessing here).
Trying to put myself in someone else's shoes here... If I was a native Gaelic Scot who referred to my extended family as my Clan and then heard it being described in the language of a oppressive invader and occupier as Tribe then that word would have connotations I might not be happy with.
wouldn’t the word Tribe have been an English word applied to the Native Americans by the settlers? Why would the word be offensive used in another context if that was the case?
I mean, did they call themselves tribes?
I can’t and won’t speak for the (Indigenous/American?) consultants/advisors that Yeti chose to take on board when making the decision to discontinue the word in a campaign, but here’s a piece from twenty years ago (I skimread and selected an extract that may or may not partly answer to DezB’s question)
https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/spring-2001/the-trouble-with-tribe
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.
I think the whole tearing down statues and renaming roads is one thing, and we can argue the toss about whether that's right. That's not what's happening here.
MTB (in fact, bikes in general) isn't very diverse. That's not a problem per se but it does perhaps make it harder for us to do anything meaningful for BLM. It's a just cause and if we can be seen to support it in whatever small way, that's a good thing.
It seems like Yeti are just making a sensible decision, because they don't want to denigrate an oppressed minority. They've looked at their media and decided that there was a change they could easily make that a) removed the risk of alienating some people and b) shows that they are a progressive company with, y'know, inclusive values.
Good for them.
The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the term 'tribal' has become politically important with the rise of populism. Tribal politics meaning people voting along ingrained party lines. Tribalism in that context implies a certain backwards-focussed narrow-mindedness. Sort of parochial. Irrespective of BLM connotations, Yeti may not want their brand associated with that.
There's a discussion with some more enlightened comments here:
https://theradavist.com/2020/07/yeti-drops-the-use-of-tribe-from-their-marketing/
Gammons on this thread, I wouldn't bother reading it, it'll just get you fuming even more.
tricky - as a smallish company I wonder if they could even afford a rebrand, or afford not to.....
Malvern Rider's quoted text is exactly what I meant in my wondering.
Still, if I cared enough I'd read the petition doc, but I don't really, tbh.
Gammons on this thread, I wouldn’t bother reading it, it’ll just get you fuming even more.
To every one achingly-inclusive rainbow-unicorn snowflake there’s an avalanche of purple-faced ones who most loudly care that you know that they care more about not caring.
It’s anti-PC gone mad I tell you.
Favourite one today was a FB comment/rant on an NGO/fundraising page - comment from some Nigel saying we be ‘sucked in’ by stories about raging famines/locusts plagues + Covid19 combo currently threatening millions of lives in Africa because ‘that PC ATTITUDE is why Greggs are destroying their company selling vegan sausage rolls THAT NO-ONE WANTS’
(Yes he was serious as far as I could make out from his other contributions)
I swear, you can’t make it up. I seem to remember the rolls imitially selling out very quickly, almost like hot cakes? Yet maybe Greggs should instead have employed Nigel as product-manager? I bet he’d be a hit with his Piers. Nothing like faux-outrage to sell some porkies.
To every one achingly-inclusive rainbow-unicorn snowflake there’s an avalanche of purple-faced ones who most loudly care that you know that they care more about not caring.
It’s anti-PC gone mad I tell you.
I don't know if you came up with that, but I'm totally stealing it. Brilliantly encapsulates the whole the fake-outrage.
^ cheers, yes u can steal - it’s all my own words and everyfin 🤣
On the back of this thread I’ve done a little reading and can see how it could be conveyed negatively. Oddly I think I have exclusively used it in the way Yeti has to describe a collective of likeminded folk, always in a positive manner about people I like, respect and have an affinity with. “I have found my tribe” etc.
Sounds like I might need to find a new shorthand to describe to same sentiment. Suggestions?
‘that PC ATTITUDE is why Greggs are destroying their company selling vegan sausage rolls THAT NO-ONE WANTS’
*points* Haaaaa-ha -
Greggs’ vegan sausage roll drives bumper 58% rise in profits
Bakery chain hails 'best sales growth yet' following popularity of meat-free snack amid Brexit fears
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/greggs-profits-vegan-sausage-rolls-rise-growth-a9027356.html
Sounds like I might need to find a new shorthand to describe to same sentiment. Suggestions?
Clan? Family?
Should the Dirty Kanza change its name? Kanza means Kaw Nation so it's basically called the Dirty Kaw Nation.
As the Washington Redskins are changing their name, it's time Glasgow Celtic did likewise. I don't think there are any Celts in the team these days.
I grew up being called a ****ing paddy, as a result I get tetchy when people use paddy to describe the Irish.
It doesn't take a genius to understand that certain words in certain contexts can cause offence. There may be no intent, but it always makes sense to check if you are in doubt.
Should the Dirty Kanza change its name? Kanza means Kaw Nation so it’s basically called the Dirty Kaw Nation.
Pay a bit more attention, looks like that is already happening, in part because the original organiser got fired for some questionable opinions.
Pay a bit more attention
Wow, sorry I posted. I missed that thread and did have a quick google and didn't see anything about it altering its name.
finbar
MemberThere’s a discussion with some more enlightened comments here:
https://theradavist.com/2020/07/yeti-drops-the-use-of-tribe-from-their-marketing/
Gammons on this thread, I wouldn’t bother reading it, it’ll just get you fuming even more.
I’m assuming that you don’t see the irony of what you just wrote? I’ll give you a clue - you seem to suggest support for Yeti’s move, then you go and use a pejorative term to stereotype a group of people; these things cut both ways.
The problem people don’t seem to see here is that there is a stifling of debate with the sudden desire to be overly sensitive to whatever minority group shouts the loudest. Not good.
JP
jj,
I'm assuming you don't see the irony of what you just wrote?
You accuse people of stifling the debate when what they are actually doing is raising issues that begin a debate about something that has been stifled for centuries.
For a century American sports teams and organisations have appropriated Naive American names and employed terms deemed derogatory by Native Americans, without permission or consideration.All the while Indigenous peoples concerns have been ignored. but those addressing it now are somehow stifling the debate?
Has it occurred to you that you may be a member of an over sensitive minority group yourself? Namely that of the Purple Faced Snowflakes (Gammom is so last year)
And what is not good about listening to the concerns of those who have been oppressed for generations pray tell?
I’m assuming that you don’t see the irony of what you just wrote? I’ll give you a clue – you seem to suggest support for Yeti’s move, then you go and use a pejorative term to stereotype a group of people; these things cut both ways.
Good point. I never thought of that when gammons, after several years of relishing using the term 'snowflake', turned out to be similarly sensitive about a few things...
there is a stifling of debate
There is?!?
The problem people don’t seem to see here is that there is a stifling of debate with the sudden desire to be overly sensitive to whatever minority group shouts the loudest. Not good
You're literally contributing on a thread specifically created to discuss the very debate you say has been stifled.
One thing the world is not lacking in at the moment is "debate". Every bit of news is now surrounded by debate, social media is 90% debate and 10% cats, every ill informed bozo on the planet has an opinion and is more than happy to share it.
JJP - where is this haven from debate you seem to have found?
There’s a very good profit to be made from claiming that ‘debate can’t happen because leftist gulag’.
1. Create Youtube clickbait. ie ‘Joe Rogan cancelled by cancel culture’
2. Profit via ad revenue and Patreon
3. Rub hands in glee that you and thousands of channels like yours ensure that the Overton window is getting smashed and ‘debate’ now consists of a wretched insult match between hordes of angry simpletons who can’t and won’t fact-check, can’t and won’t debate with each other. ‘Smash the left’. ‘Smash the right’.
‘Soyboy libcuck Commie femtard‘
‘Fascist Nazi Rapist racist’
^ ‘Debate’
Yep, I’d say it’s ‘stifled’. Spend 30 mins in any popular social-media comment-stream should quickly disabuse you of any notions to the contrary. STW is a rare gem where debate can sometimes happen, largely thanks to mods? Ironic?
I’m an old grump who very well remembers the beginnings of the internet’s ‘anti-Marxist’ wars. Was living in the US at the time. The birth of popular Internet-fora coincided with/was accelerated by the events of 9/11. The libertarian/RW tabloid tone was set from the start by initial talk radio format/styles and the more popular ‘boards’ such as Free Republic set the tone and it stuck. Many of those ‘libertarian’ boards (ironically) wielded the ‘banhammer’ with a Soviet-style efficiency to maintain the far-right ideological purity to the ‘discussion’
‘freedom/patriarchs/white Americans vs commies/feminists/terrorists/dark-skinned invaders/baby-killers ‘
Since the explosion of social-media they no longer ‘owned’ the platform, TOS meant had to change tack and so they went with ‘victimhood/freedom of speech’ narrative, but to push exactly the same theme, ie:
‘freedom/patriarchs/white Americans vs commies/feminists/terrorists/dark-skinned invaders/baby-killers ‘
They (far right) had a massive head-start in the debate-wrecking ‘meme-wars’, ably-assisted by right-leaning ‘anarchists’ (most often misanthropic yet highly-motivated trolls from the sewers of the interwebs)
For some balance - there ARE actual hardline communists and/or LW radicals out there, but not remotely in the same ballpark or numbers as the ‘opposition’ who are in actual power. In fact anŷ (social justice) protester is instantly cast as ‘the enemy/terrorist/rioter’. We’re now living in a tabloidesque false-narrative which began manufacture since 9/11 by ideologues and bad faith actors who exploited (and continue to exploit) the internet for influence and profit.
Now actual countries have become their playground, complete with lying, narcissistic, (literally!) fluffy-headed and unaccountable human wrecking-balls as heads of state served by a gleefully fact-free electorate who fully believe the ‘memes’ just as they believe/d the tabloid headlines. There has probably never been so much room and free platform for debate, but the narrative is that it’s Orwell’s 1984 and you’re the enemy.
‘Orcs vs Goblins’? Discuss...
You've said a lot there Malvern Rider and its all true.
As for 'Orcs vs Goblins, There's a great IQ2 debate on youtube pitting 1984 against 'Brave New World. Will Self advocates on behalf of Aldous Huxley's novel, pointing out how Orwlel's novel sees ideology as a driving force, where Brave New World cites technological changes as the most influential factor.
24 hour news had been about for a few years before 9/11 but had failed to garner much of an audience. After 9/11 the news cycle never stopped. We became addicted. This primed us quite well for the Social Media age as an Orwellian narrative began to be spun more vigorously than before, methods that had previously been the preserve of the tabloid press became omnipresent within all forms of media, both traditional and social.
Back to the present. As you say, any social justice protester is instantly cast as a Marxist/ terrorist by those on the Right, Whilst it is trus that many on the left advocating for social justice do lean towards Marxism and radicalism, their numbers arent large enough to explain the size of the BLM and other social justice movements.
What we are seeing now is not so much a battle of political ideas, it's more a battle for basic humanity and a proper and unprejudiced observance and application af the law, both in terms of policing and other areas such as land ownership. Consider Mount Rushmore in The Black Hills, that land was stolen from first peoples then returned to them in a treaty signed at the end of the 19th Century, only to be stolen again when gold was found there, new ownersip being asserted with a monstrous piece of graffiti in the shape of the faces of four presidents carved into it's edifice.
Problem is too much debate and not enough genuine discussion.
Not sure about the choice of "dialogue" as the name of the better option - just means two people talking, doesn't it?
That aside, the points here describing debate do underline what's going wrong in the way a lot of things are being talked about and commented on.
That’s a good point Ned Thanks for the clarification and distinction.
I am offended by Yeti, it should be Sasquatch surely?
If BLM are just the latest trendy bandwagon to jump on. If they are so concerned about slavery why are they not protesting about slavery happening today in places like Leicester? The only logical conclusion is that they aren’t interested because it the wrong community being enslaved.
The only logical conclusion
I'll guess at you pretending that is the only logical conclusion.
The only logical conclusion is...
...a lazy cliché which clearly doesn't apply in your example.
Unless you are very hard of thinking.
If these "woke" people are so in tune and not wanting to offend the Native americans surely the only proper thing to do is give the country back to them.
If these “woke” people are so in tune and not wanting to offend the Native americans surely the only proper thing to do is give the country back to them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Yeti done this (quite trivial thing) in response to discussions with Native Americans? Not "woke people" generally.
If these “woke” people…
Who?
give the country back to them
Not sure Yeti own ‘the country’… they are making a small easy change. The baffling thing is that so many people seem to care, or are affronted by, or pretend to be affronted, by such a small change. [avoid PinkBike]
I’m with chrismac to whatever percentage his generalisations are true. I have no clue how to verify those percentages.
Maybe you have nearly every supporter (?) of BLM marked as a flakey, privileged, hypocritical/self-interested sap?
Although I strongly disagree that BLM is all simple ‘posturing’, there is I think a GREAT case to be made for it to increase focus on today’s (global and local) slavery. In the case of Leicester’s workers - chrismac do you think that the current focus on BLM has had the effect of highlighting these matters in general where at other times they may have just been buried?
Yes there will be hypocrisy but how you measure it is another thing. If you wish to generalise and slam BLM wholesale (sic, sic, sic!) for ‘hypocrisy‘ because ‘their’ focus/cause has primarily been on police brutality/profiling/racism towards people of African descent and ‘what got us here’ - then that’s your call. If you think it’s all fake posturing and hypocritical then that may say a lot more about you and your projecting views than it does about ‘their’ views/experience. It may not. Only you know that. Anyway here’s a piece that should hit all of your buttons:
(Useful idiot link to dodgy website deleted, with thanks to Kelvin for the heads up)
Again, I find it frustrating. Sort of 50/50 agree/disagree. I’m not on the fence I just think see the generalising is shortsighted, even dishonest. Whether or not it’s helpful to paint the entire of BLM with the ‘just fashionable victimhood’ brush....er..wow?
If these “woke” people are so in tune and not wanting to offend the Native americans surely the only proper thing to do is give the country back to them.
There are people that try to make the BLM movement ‘wider’ in scope, and are slammed for it… often by the same people disingenuously claiming that people who support BLM do so without also being against all sorts of other ingrained and damaging injustices in our societies.
Why has the BLM movement even been mentioned in this thread?
Oh, and don’t post links to that site… it makes you a useful idiot, I’m afraid.