I've mentioned before that I love stories where both sides of an argument are ridiculous. One of the lead stories on last night's TV news, appearing merely on page A2 of the Herald today, is the harrowing tale of Canadian tourist Seeka Parsons who was shocked to discover Eskimo lollies on sale in New Zealand:
The word Eskimo was unacceptable in her country and carried with it negative racial connotations, she told the Taranaki Daily News.The correct term was Inuit, Ms Parsons said. "I was taken aback. When I was a little girl white kids in the community used to tease me about it in a bad way. It's just not the correct term," she said.
She also believed the shape of the lolly was an unfair stereotype of her people.
Oh dear. There's a point here, obviously - we probably wouldn't think that some liquorice shapes called 'Gollolliewogs' were particularly appropriate. Or, I don't know, 'Jewbes', chewy, expensive Semitic shapes marketed by Hitler Sweets Ltd. So why does it seem to me like Ms Parson's complaint is a bit frivolous? I don't even really like the lollies. Perhaps because New Zealanders really know nothing about the inhabitants of the Arctic region and their culture, they're not like real people who get offended by things. Or perhaps 'Eskimo' just really isn't up there with World's Worst Insults.
For such a stupid issue, a lot of the debate seems quite wrong-headed.
But Cadbury Australia and New Zealand communications manager Daniel Ellis said Cadbury/Pascall did not intend to rename or remove the product.
"Pascall Eskimos are an iconic New Zealand lolly and have been enjoyed by millions of New Zealanders since they first hit shop shelves way back in 1955," he said.
"They continue to be incredibly popular today. Last year, we produced almost 19 million individual Eskimos."
Because that means they're not racist, right? Sigh.
Anyway, guess where this 'debate' ended up. It actually produced one of the
most enlightening and informative YV debates of recent times:
Good idea, that'll fix everything.
Oops - your fly's undone and your racism is showing.
:
Yeah, that's right, Stuart. You love the cone.
[...]
How does it become racist? It's easy. Ching Chong Chinaman icecream. Lazy Gummi Dole-bludging Maoris. Now you try.
Well remind me not to visit Opawa any time soon.
:
Sasha's criteria for whether or not an issue is worth discussing: Will it stop the crime in the worlds? If not, she'll be offended that you wasted her valuable crime-solving time by bringing it up.
:
Thank you for your valuable contribution, 'Block of Cheese'. I don't know you, so it doesn't bother me if a husky Uzbek attaches electrodes to your testicles and administers a hearty shock.
I know that I would be very offended if I went to Canadia and the Pakeha lollies were shaped anything like Tracey Thomson.
Not only are New Zealanders not racist, we're not condescending either.
:
Luigi, the dirty wog who should be fixing my plumbing, is sick of the PC brigade. You know, the PC brigade who are demanding that Pascall's change the name of the lollies? And when I say 'brigade', I mean 'one tourist'.
:
He's right. I lived in Glasgow for quite a while, and if you call a Scottish guy in the street Scottish, he will
stab you in the
mouth.
:
I have my suspicions that this poster may not be all that he seems:
- He misspells Nunavut.
- His name is clearly Welshjerry, not Inuitjerry.
- He claims to live both in Huntly and on Waiheke.
- He refers to Huntly as 'beautiful'.
As such, I reject his hypothesis that the lollies are too delicious to be racist.
I could go on - this is without doubt the most hilarious YV I have ever read. I suspect that, because I don't really care about the issue, I can better recognise the innate idiocy of the comments. So much joy from such a stupid story - I'm far too amused to even get angry at why the Herald reported this and then courted its redneck demographic by putting it on "Your Views". To finish up, here is celebrity actor Roger Moore, now ensconced in charming Te Atatu, sharing his two incomprehensible cents:
"The first thing that ought to be said is that one's chances of being murdered are (and were even at the peak) pretty microscopic... murder probably deserves far less of the front page than it gets for that fact alone."
I see. Should newspapers across the world ignore them then, cos they don't happen that often? Should we have more stories about people going to the shops, because that happens quite a bit? Should all stories be given prominence based on 'how often they happen'?