Reply to comment

July 22, 2020, 3:06 p.m. -  Peter Carson

I was trying, although poorly I admit, to simply state that most of the internet has no idea of why the request was made. If Yeti thought it was legitimate who are we to condemn them for it. What I find fascinating about this is the outrage about Yeti saying they were going to change their marketing because they wanted to do something for a small interest group in their region. It barely sounds news worthy to me but some people obviously are very connected to Yeti's marketing and that I find much more interesting. Out of interest I just read the actual petition. The group felt that their status as Tribal nations is being trivialized by the use of the word to describe groups that like the same stuff (obviously my words here not theirs) and that companies, mainly Yeti, were making money off the term while doing so. You could say they are being overly sensitive but they also have survived a genocide so I can understand where they may have a thinner skin with this stuff. A direct quote: "It also diminishes and dishonors the unique political status of Indigenous people in the United States as tribal nations, that pre-date the United States and have inherent political sovereignty and the right to self-governance." I think the importance of that word to these specific people is much more than we can understand and even using it in a positive way does not honour that word in their minds. I will not understand this for sure but I can respect that they seem to feel very connected to the term and feel the need to protect it. I don't see why what Yeti did should be condemned.

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.