Vancouver '10 Olympics logo offends some

[Renew Deal]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia -- The newly unveiled logo for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics has upset some Canadian aboriginal people.

The multicolored "inukshuk" -- based on traditional Inuit stone figures used to point traveling Inuit to safety and symbolize friendship -- is composed of blocks in the colors of the Olympic rings. It's called "Ilanaaq" (pronounced ih-lah-nawk), the Inuit word for "friend."

It was denounced by Edward John, the grand chief of Canada's First Nations Summit.

He said the logo, unveiled Saturday in Vancouver, didn't reflect the indigenous people of Canada's western coast. The Inuit are natives of Canada's northern and Arctic Circle territories.
<snip>

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2048505

[Egalitariat]

1. Some people are only happy when they're unhappy

Giving them something to complain about is like a free gift.

To Edward John, the Canadian Olympic Committee should only respond with a hearty "You're Welcome".

[iverglas]

6. charming

And this would constitute a rebuttal to what was said ... how?

"Some people are only happy when they're unhappy"

Yeah. Especially those whiny Indian types.

Never satisfied, them.

So nice to see someone in Florida taking such an informed interest in First Nations affairs in Canada.

[Renew Deal]

7. You notice the hypocrisy in saying that right?

"So nice to see someone in Florida taking such an informed interest in First Nations affairs in Canada."

You're a Canadian on an American political message board. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[iverglas]

8. yeah

You notice the hypocrisy in saying that right?

You noticed the actual words I used in saying it, right?

So nice to see someone in Florida taking such an informed interest in First Nations affairs in Canada.


You're a Canadian on an American political message board.

And I'm informed, on matters on which I choose to speak.

On a possible other hand: on a "liberal" discussion board, I don't make a practice of saying illiberal things.


I'm not sure which problem a comment like Egalitariat's about the reasoned response of First Nations people in Canada to this matter, might reflect, and I was being rather charitable in my initial assessment.


(edited to remedy mix-up of names)

[Renew Deal]

9. I know.

You weren't bad. I wasn't even implying that. I just thought it was funny. And you don't know how "informed" the other person is.

[iverglas]

11. like I said ...

And you don't know how "informed" the other person is.

... I was being charitable.

I find dismissive comments about concerns expressed by First Nations people (or any oppressed and exploited group), e.g. about appropriation or misrepresentation of their culture, offensive.

Attributing such comment to lack of information is giving the benefit of the doubt.

[iverglas]

12. hadn't seen this one before

With the demise of Frank Magazine ...

http://www.thehammer.ca/content/view.php?news=2005-04-28-olympic-mascot-criticism
(emphasis mine)

Get "Ready" for "Reddie the happy Indian".

... After receiving numerous complaints from various native organizations about the selection of Ilanaaq --a stylized, multi-coloured Inuit Inukshuk--as the official logo for the games, the Games' braintrust attempted to respond the outcry this morning by unveiling a new "associate" mascot for the Games.

... Henry McCracker, a spokesperson for the IOC, didn't understand what all the fuss was about. "We designed this new mascot as a means to demonstrate our respect for Canada's native people. I don't understand what's so offensive about this. Some people you just can't please. I mean, look at him, all smiling and happy. He's saying, 'Vancouver is ready for the games.' Get it? Ready?"

"He's like that Cleveland Indians guy there, you know...don't you think he'll look great on a baseball hat?"

I'll let you go there to see the pic. ;)

[achtung_circus]

2. See also here:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x4787>

The inukshuk as logo sucks.

[Spazito]

3. The indigenous people of Canada's western coast have been

represented much more than those of the northern and Artic Circle territories so I don't find much merit in the complaint, to be honest.

I kind of like the new symbol, it is different to be sure but the Ilanaaq means friend which is the message we want to send those visiting Canada for the Olympics.

[iverglas]

10. well, except that ...

The indigenous people of Canada's western coast have been
represented much more than those of the northern and Artic Circle territories so I don't find much merit in the complaint, to be honest.

... the Olympic games are held by cities, not countries:

http://www.aafla.org/6oic/primer_text1.htm

The right to host an Olympic Games is awarded to a city chosen by the members of the IOC. Only cities, not countries, may host an Olympic Games. In other words, the 2004 Athens Games will be hosted by the city of Athens, Greece, not by the country of Greece.

The city holding these games is Vancouver; they are the Vancouver Games.

The Inuit are not indigenous to any part of British Columbia, let alone Vancouver.

I can see how one might find the logo selected attractive. It does speak of Canada's First Nations, and it is distinctive in terms of being Canadian (well, except that they're built in Greenland, too), and I find it reasonably appealing myself, visually and conceptually. I imagine it will be appealing to the international public, and successfully imprint an image of the games that is readily identifiable and pleasing.

But it is bad in two ways:
- it is not representative of the city holding the games;
- it appropriates a people's imagery and symbols for a purpose having nothing to do with them.

If the Vancouver games are like the Sydney games, the indigenous people will be involved in the ceremonies and their cultural practices and products will be highlighted. What is seen during the games will have nothing to do with the logo image, however. So that makes the logo misleading, in a sense; it actually creates a "disconnect", rather than representing the games.

Offhand, I might have thought of the raven/trickster as something more specific to West Coast First Nations (although not just Canadian) and at the same time to Canada's first nations more broadly, and in fact pretty universally to a lot of the world's cultures. Something along the lines of:



maybe. Just strikes me as a bit livelier and more useful in terms of what could be done with the image/theme. Trickster on a snowboard ...

[Spazito]

14. The logo for the Calgary Olympics were not specific to Calgary

or even to Alberta but to Canada as a whole as per this from CBC:

• Mascots for the 1988 Winter Games were "Howdy and Hidy" — a pair of brother and sister polar bears. Their names were chosen to embody the warmth of Canadian hospitality: "Hidy" being an extension of "hi" and "Howdy" being slang for "hello."
• THe official logo for the 1988 Winter Games consisted of a snowflake above the Olympic rings. It also resembled a stylized maple leaf. The logo was composed of different "C" letters to represent Canada and Calgary.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-41-1322-8076/sports/calgary_olympic_games/clip3

(click on the Did You Know tab on the right hand side)

How is a snowflake representative specifically of Calgary?

Another article on the symbol needed to reflect Canada as opposed to a specific city or area:

British Columbians are still trying to get comfortable with the colourful Inukshuk named Ilanaaq. If you haven't seen it yet, the modern interpretation of the ancient Inuit symbol is going to be the emblem of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Many people are asking, what's it got to do with Vancouver and the Games? It was loved at the official unveiling on Saturday night, but it's a different story on the street. One man says he likes the symbol, but doesn't think it's right for the 2010 Olympics. He says it's not distinctive of the West Coast or Vancouver. The fact the Olympic Games guidelines have been getting stricter and it has to be something Canadian is not enough to convince most people the symbol is the right choice. However, most do agree the colourful Inukshuk with a name that means friend shows a little more creativity than the snowflake used in Calgary's olympic logo.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article.jsp?content=20050425_093503_1740


I was able to find the Montreal Olympics logo at this site, I do not see anything that specifies within the logo the city of Montreal to the exclusion of Canada as a whole:

http://www.olympic.ca/EN/youth/multimedia/index.shtml

(click on Olympic logos then on 1976 to see the logo chosen)

Edited to add this:

I did not know the artist who won re the logo was not Inuit, that seems to me to be a very legitimate complaint made by the First Nations Summit Chief:

"John said First Nations people have supported the Olympic bid. He questioned why a design by a First Nations artist wasn't used.

"The person who put this together is not Inuit," he said."

http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/ogames/050425/o042502A.html

[iverglas]

15. wrong questions ;)

How is a snowflake representative specifically of Calgary?

How is a snowflake *not* representative of Calgary at all?

That's the thing; the non-inukshuk isn't representative of Vancouver at all.


quoted: The fact the Olympic Games guidelines have been getting stricter and it has to be something Canadian is not enough to convince most people the symbol is the right choice.

It has to be something "Canadian" vs. something more general that could be from anywhere -- *not* vs. something more specific to the city holding the games.

The non-inukshuk isn't not-something-Canadian, obviously; that isn't the objection.


I was able to find the Montreal Olympics logo at this site, I do not see anything that specifies within the logo the city of Montreal to the exclusion of Canada as a whole

And as you pointed out, the guidelines have got stricter and the symbol has to be more specific. ;) The Mtl logo doesn't specify much of anything. (What was it supposed to be? I'm old enough to remember, if I ever knew, but I don't.)

And "to the exclusion of Canada as a whole" isn't the point either; something that relates to a part of Canada couldn't really be "to the exclusion of Canada" anyhow. It's a matter of rather than to Canada as a whole -- or, more to the point here, rather than to a completely different part of Canada.

[Spazito]

16. My point was to point out that the logo is not to be specific to any

city but rather Canada as a whole where as this quote from your previous post seems to imply otherwise:

"The city holding these games is Vancouver; they are the Vancouver Games.

The Inuit are not indigenous to any part of British Columbia, let alone Vancouver."


As to the Calgary snowflake symbol, your response:

"How is a snowflake *not* representative of Calgary at all?"

is a hoot. I would ask how is a snowflake more representative of Calgary than, say, Ottawa, Whitehorse, Sydney, Wawa? I believe all the cities I listed plus SO many more could lay equal claim to the snowflake, lol.

BTW, on the snowflake logo, if one were to take a magnifying glass to it, there are teeny weeny cowboy boots attached to it, lol, unfortunately those who designed it didn't take into consideration that the logo, when reduced in size, would be too small to see the boots.

Now, a snowflake with teeny, tiny little cowboy boots certainly comes closer to an identifier to the City hosting for sure, it is just too bad the boots disappeared from the logo unless printed in it's original size.

[iverglas]

17. not answering the questions

My point was to point out that the logo is not to be specific to any city but rather Canada as a whole where as this quote from your previous post seems to imply otherwise

My point was to ask where you're getting that point.

I don't know of any authority for the claim that "the logo is not to be specific to any city but rather Canada as a whole". That's my point.

I imagine that a logo that was representative of Canada as a whole would be fine with the Olympic Committee (and this one obviously is). It still isn't representative of Vancouver, and is in fact non-representative of Vancouver.

And my point was correct: these are the Vancouver Games, not the Canada Games. The Olympics are held by a city.


I would ask how is a snowflake more representative of Calgary than, say, Ottawa, Whitehorse, Sydney, Wawa?

And my point was to ask how the non-inukshuk is at all representative of Vancouver. It isn't "more" or "less" representative of Vancouver -- it is not representative of Vancouver.

Calgary wasn't "laying claim" to the snowflake, it was simply using a thing that is characteristic of Calgary. The non-inukshuk is not characteristic of Vancouver. In any event, it has as much of a claim to the snowflake as any other city in Canada, and more than many: there are lots of snowflakes in Calgary lots of the time. And enough to go around for anyone who wants to lay claim to 'em.

And hey -- aren't they all supposed to be unique? So, you see, Calgary just laid claim to *that* snowflake. ;)

A snowflake is representative of Calgary; the fact that it's also representative of lots of other places, in Canada and elsewhere, doesn't mean that it's not representative of Calgary.

Vancouver has no claim to the non-inukshuk. The non-inukshuk is not representative of Vancouver, even a teeny tiny bit.


This issue itself probably isn't something it's worth getting divorced over ... but I might divorce somebody who persistently responded to things I hadn't said.

[Spazito]

18. Again, I will post what I felt was an 'implication' of the need to be

Vancouver specific:

"The city holding these games is Vancouver; they are the Vancouver Games.

The Inuit are not indigenous to any part of British Columbia, let alone Vancouver."

That is where I am getting the 'implication' from. I never said you said directly but did say you implied which holds true.

As to divorce, I, too, might divorce someone who assumes I said someone SAID something when I actually said they IMPLIED something so I guess we aren't that different after all.

[iverglas]

19. aaaargh

It is a FACT that Olympic games are held by cities, not countries.

Yes, I DID say:

"The city holding these games is Vancouver; they are the Vancouver Games.
The Inuit are not indigenous to any part of British Columbia, let alone Vancouver."

That does NOT imply that the logo should be Vancouver specific.

It implies that the logo should not have NOTHING to do with Vancouver.

I did not imply that the logo should be Vancouver-specific.

I have SAID, repeatedly, that the logo should not have nothing to do with Vancouver.


A snowflake is not "Calgary-specific", but it DOES have something to do with Calgary.

In the two most recent games:

The Sydney logo did have the opera house -- the most internationally recognized aspect of Sydney -- on the horizon.

The Salt Lake City logo's symbolism was:

http://www.olympics.org.uk/thegames/future/saltlakecity3.asp#Logo

The emblem of the Olympic Winter Games represents the theme of:

- Contrast - this is a land of contrast; mountain and desert, sun and snow.
- Culture - this is a unique culture. Ancient marks are woven into the heritage.
- Courage - this is about a legacy of courage. At the very heart of the Games are the athletes, the true heroes.
- The colours are yellow, orange and blue symbolising the earth colours found in Utah's landscape.

Not specific to Salt Lake City, but representative of the Salt Lake City region.

The non-inukshuk has nothing to do with Vancouver!!!

I didn't imply that the logo had to have something to do with something unique to Vancouver; I said that it should not have nothing to do with Vancouver!!!

And that's why my objection to your own statement:

My point was to point out that the logo is not to be specific to any city but rather Canada as a whole where as this quote from your previous post seems to imply otherwise

was that you are making a claim -- "the logo is not to be specific to any city but rather Canada as a whole" -- that there is no authority for!!!

The "otherwise" that I "implied" was not that the logo should have to do with something unique to Vancouver, but that it should not have to do with something that has nothing to do with Vancouver.

If the Salt Lake City logo had been a stylized Empire State Building, would that have seemed reasonable? If the Sydney logo had been Ayer's Rock?

*That* is how the non-inukshuk seems to me. It may be a recognizable national symbol to the outside world, but it does nothing to identify or represent Vancouver, and Vancouver is the site and host of the games!!!


Of course, I also object to it on the basis that it is an appropriation of an important cultural symbol of a living people's culture. Yes, Canadians as a whole feel "part of" the Vancouver games, but the unique status of the First Nations as nations, and peoples, makes it inappropriate for the country of Canada to use their cultural symbols for a purpose that really has nothing to do with the nation/people in question.


I think I'd rather poke sticks at you about that odd approach you have to voting in the BC election ... demain, perhaps ...

[Spazito]

20. LOL re B.C. election

I relish such a stick poking attempt at any time, my political oddities at the ready!

[V. Kid]

4. I always thought it was offensive...

...but not towards the first nations, but towards anyone with any taste. To have to look at that stupid multi-coloured thing is offensive. Oh btw, it looks like a three year old designed it, and Inukshuks don't look like that.


This is an inukshuk:



There shouldn't be spaces in between the rocks, it's rather bleh and meh at best.

I'd be more impressed with something more stylized, and "futuristic". Anyhow that's my prefrence.

[Renew Deal]

5. I know you might not get it now

but wait until the games start. Here are the Mascots from the Athens games:



They were incredibly popular in the games. Every kid had something with the mascot. The colors of the mascots were an important part of the games. So you might not see it yet, but that mascot will probably be very popular. Then again, this is only a logo and not the mascot.



http://www.athens2004.com/en/OlympicMascots

[V. Kid]

21. That's part of the problem....

...mascots are supposed to be tacky. That way they're "loveable". Whereas logos are supposed to be cutting edge.

[iverglas]

13. and for an actual explanation

of the negative responses:

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_inukshuk20050426

Peter Irniq, a former Nunavut commissioner, said Tuesday the emblem, called "Ilanaaq" (which means friendship in Inuktitut) should not be called an Inukshuk.

... He says every Inukshuk has a meaning and a reason why it was built in a certain location. He says building the figures should not be taken lightly.

... Irniq says the Olympic committee should have consulted with the elders of Nunavut before they chose the design.

... Chief Stewart Philip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, was also outspoken in his criticism.

"The First Nations community at large is disappointed with the selection. The decision makers have decided not to reflect the First Nations and the Pacific region in the design of the logo."

[HEyHEY]

22. The problem is that it represents ZERO of Vancouver's culture

Because it's an Inuit symbol.

We may as well have used a Leprechaun. Er wait, considering there is a substancial amount of Irish in Vancouver, that would have been more representative.