It seems that Dirty Kanza has now become Unbound Gravel! You heard it here first!
After all the name controversy, they have renamed the race.
So that said… who is applying for the lottery?
1 Like
Awesome! I think in this day and age any type of name that could be considered offensive to a group of people should be changed.
8 Likes
That depends on what you would consider offensive and what you consider a “group of people”. Some members of the Kaw Nation felt offended ( but only once theyd been encouraged to by non-tribe members with no interest in these people’s welfare) but other members did not.
You also need to look at the intent behind a name/phrase etc. There was clearly no ill will in naming the event the Dirty Kanza. What if i choose to be offended by the new name?
Regardless of all this I hope the event continues on as strong as ever. I’d love to take part one day
3 Likes
I always thought they should have just changed it to Dirty Kansas and called it a day…but regardless, they did the right thing by changing the name. Good for them.
3 Likes
I’m offended by the reference to BDSM. Would you sign my petition?
jk
3 Likes
Right, and some Native Americans were never offended by the NFL of Washington but others were. It was a name that never should have stuck around. I have had a problem with the Chief Wahoo mascot for awhile too.
Once getting more of an understanding of the background of the US Eurocentric based racism within our country I started questioning what was considered the “norm” within our country.
A race that says dirty before a group of people doesn’t sit right with me. It’s easy to sit back as part of the majority pushing that people are too sensitive nowadays, but that comes from a system that’s existed for a long time.
15 Likes
I’m with you on that, seems like they would want to tie it to the region in some way. I guess Kansas is still too closely associated with the Kansa tribe maybe, but it seems like using the state name would be a pretty safe choice.
Maybe they want to leave future options open to move the start point to another state or use this to create an “unbound gravel” series of races with related qualifier events. Lifetime has some precedent with the Leadville race series and you could argue they have backed themselves into a corner on that brand if they ever want to move away from leadville as the lead race.
2 Likes
pretty uninspired name IMO. I was never gonna shell out the cash it takes to go to that event regardless of the name though. Now it’s the UG(h)200!
1 Like
Why? Can you differentiate the celebration/representation of something from the offensive nature?
It feels to me as if the people who want to promite diversity and equality also think every time the white man (except themselves) celebrates/represents a minority that it MUST be offensive.
This restriction on language is becoming stifling. Suggesting that the word “dirty” somehow HAS to be offensive and theres no alternative reasoning (even when given by the organisers) is valid is so unnecessarily restrictive.
3 Likes
That’s a pretty weak name.
2 Likes
Why is Viking acceptable?
I believe if you looked at the political cartoon you can obviously see the difference between celebrating a culture and direct racism. The overblown nose, the large white teeth brand, the feather in the hair, the bright red skin.
That mascot is clearly built on a stereotype. This is what I mean by something has existed for so long that you believe it to be right. My wife who is Native American understands why that is racist. With her having a larger nose, and it red hint to her skin she is aware that is something they are specifically over inflating.
Additionally it is one group over another who is using someone as a mascot. Another reason why I would say that it is not OK.
6 Likes
Because the Viking logo is a person with a helmet, while Washington football team is named directly after the color of someone’s skin.
I didn’t think I would need to defend against racism here on trainer Road. But it’s 2020 and I know where some people‘s political motivations align.
9 Likes
Those images are caricatures. The very nature of which is to overstate a persons features. Would images of white people in this style be racist?
As for the vikings, so its the image you are against, not the name?
I havent seen any racism here
2 Likes
Me saying the DK name was racist. Me giving examples of everyday racism, and saying that is wrong, then needing to explain why that is wrong, and a couple has pushed back. I am happy to explain more. I haven’t had all of my coffee yet.
6 Likes
I think we must remember that it is impossible for the Majority (normally an oppressive majority) to say what is and what is not racism. Its like the mom of a bully saying this is not bullying its just child play. Only the victim can say what is oppressive and racism against them.
I think its okay to name something after a culture, ie. the Vikings but not okay to portrait that culture in a negative way, such as the Cleveland Indians or the Dirty Kanza. It just doesn’t have the best intention of representing that culture. The Vikings or even the Kansas City Chiefs, its not an oppressive way to represent that culture.
Again… only people from that culture can tell us if it offends them.
5 Likes
You wouldn’t…the fact that you say those cartoons are “caricatures” but can’t recognize the inherit racism driving those caricatures is evidence of that.
11 Likes
Here is a drawing/caricature of Jim Crow, a fictional African American, used to push a certain agenda within the South after the Civil War. Not racist?
1 Like
I think this is dangerous because it strips all control from the person being accused. Their intent is deemed invalid in favour of how someone else chooses to interpret it.
Your suggestion sounds nice in theory but imagine being on the receiving end of it. I.e. your child branded a bully and treated as such, because they said something benign that someone else chose to be offended by.
1 Like