What a revoltin’ development this is.
First, Target bans clothes with the ‘Eighty-Eight’ logo. And now there won’t be any Zyklon athletic shoes.
What’s the well-outfitted racist running in the next White Supremacist Games to do???
For the record, I wouldn’t have found the shoe name offensive. On the other hand, I’m not one of the folks still living who carry concentration camp tattoos. Or a close relative of such people.
Why use it if it has such shitty connotations? Yeah a sneaker’s brand name doesn’t mean much as it relates to the holocaust, but ferchrissakes, it’s not like there aren’t a million things they could choose, which doesn’t cause a stink.
Unintentional crap that has no signifigance … great I guess I can look forward to the Nike Sirhan Cross Trainer, or the Vans Osama Skate Board shoes.
Why use it if it ruffles so many feathers? It doesn’t make sense from a marketing standpoint.
I’m suprised they didn’t recognize the word immediately.
That’s like making it through high school, and not recognizing the word ‘Guillotine’ as the main intrument of murder of the French revolution. And we still have a many survivors of the WWII generation, it’s much, much more recent.
That isn’t about not realizing because you aren’t Jewish, or that only people with an agenda would recognize it. (:rolleyes: at Apos) it’s just parading your ignorance of perhaps one of the most significant (and horrific) events of the last century. Hell, it re-drew the map of eastern europe, created the iron curtain, and was the direct impetus to creating the nation of Israel, which is something anyone who’s been watching CURRENT events should be aware has had a rather significant impact on that area of the world. I could go on, but everyone here knows this, and if they don’t they should hie themselves to a history text posthaste, because they’re inexcusably ignorant of the world they live in.
Since it got as far as actually trying to market the name (again, how could they miss this?!? Proof that advertising kill brain cells?) yes, the only thing was to apologize deeply and immediately change it.
I was on the fence about this, until someone pointed out that “zyklon” is German for cyclone.
Now, from a business perspective the company made a bad move. But I can’t see this as offensive at all. Although I was aware that Zyklon B was a gas used by the Nazis to kill, it’s obvious that Umbro didn’t intentionally select the word for that reason. They just called it Cyclone, but with a foreign word to make it sound cool.
If they had called it Zyklon B it would be offensive because it would be refering to the gas. Zyklon refers to an impressive meteorological occurance.
Perhaps they should have called it Zyklone with that “e” on the end, to keep the “cyclone” connotation. That would have been acceptable, I imagine.
Anyway, I happened to know what Zyklon B was, but it took me a few seconds when I read the thread title to remember it. I don’t think it’s common knowledge. If the group hadn’t made a big deal about it, I imagine most people never would have noticed. A few people, myself included, would have remembered the connection and thought, “hmmmm, that’s a little odd, they should have checked that name out first.” I don’t think many people would have reacted with such hostility.
Yeah, it’s a morbid connection to make. For people who recognize the word, it might lead to a disturbing memory of watching that gruesome French documentary (that’s what I thought of.) But lighten up. As Apos said in his post, some people are simply determined to take great offense to anything that could possibly be tangentially linked to the holocaust. I suspect that product names with oblique connections to even more murderous actions, like Pol Pot’s regime, Stalin’s purges, or Mao’s purges would be ignored.
—Yeah, the reactionary fuckers! And don’t get me started about all the Nagasaki whiners! And the WTC bombing crybabies!—
The point is how not to be so totally obsessive about something (especially something horrible) that you start demanding that no one use words that are related to words that were involved in your experience. It’s one thing to give a horror the respect it deserves: it’s quite another to proudly give into the hysteria that horror causes, and then to inflict it on completely harmless people and products and words.
My take on the OP:
Was the use of this name intentional?
No. No business wants to alienate current or potential customers by offending them through a poor choice of product names.
Was the use of this name a poor choice?
Absolutely. Whoever heads their marketing department needs a slap round the head. Whether or not the term is inherently offensive, a halfway competent marketing team should be constantly on the look-out for product names that might possibly cause offence to particular groups.
Is the word ‘Zyklon’ inherently offensive?
Theoretically, no. It’s a common, neutral word in its own right (unlike, say, racial epithets used as insults). However, the issue of context is all-important in practice. In the context of German meteorological discussions there may be no reason to take offence. In the context of marketing a product to non-German-speaking countries the user should check to see how else the word is used and decide accordingly.
That doesn’t imply that the word has become inherently offensive, but that some groups believe it has and that you should modify your communication based on who you want to reach (and whether you’re prepared to offend some).
And heck, at least it’s not as bad as that Taiwanese company that used a miniature Hitler character to sell heaters.
I don’t imagine that Umbro deliberately set out to offend anyone, but that doesn’t dispose of the issue. A statement is offensive if people take offence at it, regardless of the intentions of the person making the statement. (I had great difficulty persuading my father that the term “Paki”, when applied to a person from Pakistan, was offensive, and did not cease to be so merely because, as the diminutive name of a good friend of his, it had positive associations for my father.)
Of course people may take offence unreasonably or unexpectedly, but not in this case. Outside the German-speaking world “Zyklon” has only one primary meaning and, while not everybody is familiar with that meaning, many are. I was familiar with it, and I am by no means an expert in the holocaust, or especially interested in it. For those who are familiar with the word, it calls to mind extremely distressing matters, and it is entirely reasonable that they should not wish to see it publicly displayed across advertising hoardings, shopfronts, magazines and shoes.
I am sure that Umbro was ignorant of all this although, as has been pointed out, less than five minutes research would have revealed it. Nevertheless they are quite right to withdraw the name once this issue has been pointed out to them. Those who object to the word being used by Umbro are not behaving unreasonbly. Its use in this way does give offence, and those who feel offended are not being oversensitive. The word does not cease to give offence merely because the offence was unintended.
Huh? How’s they do that?
What, show Schickelgruber in Hell saying and saying they were the brand used there?
Salon: Taiwan ad uses cartoon Hitler
The German manufacturer of the heaters was not amused, and immediately ordered the Taiwanese trading form to pull the ads.
Firm. Not form. Sorry.
—Those who object to the word being used by Umbro are not behaving unreasonbly.—
On the contrary: and they are in addition trying to spread their unreasonableness. Luckily for them we live in a corporate world that is quick to cater to unreasonableness as long as it even marginally hurts sales.
—Its use in this way does give offence, and those who feel offended are not being oversensitive.—
I’m not sure what COULD be called oversensitive, if not something like this.
I disagree. Outside the German-speaking world the word “Zyklon” has only one meaning; it is a meaning that will be instantly understood by millions and millions of people, and which will call to mind horrifying associations. There are no positive associations which it might be expected to call to mind.
“Zyklon” is an instrument of mass murder; it has no other meaning outside the German-speaking world. It is entirely foreseeable that people will be distressed by it, and it is in the worst possible taste to use it as a brand name for sports shoes.
How is it unreasonable to object to its use in this way?
Of course! Because the second something like this happens, something like this happens. Dig?
Well, we’re in a bit of a circle here. Currently, the word “Zyklon” has only one meaning in English, and that’s highly offensive. It’s so offensive, in fact, that the word is not going to get used and so develop other meanings. Hence it will always be offensive (or at least will be offensive for a very long time, until through lack of use and the passage of history it ceases to have any meaning at all to English-speakers).
So what? I don’t see that this is a problem. Umbro can find some other Zy- word to use for their shoe. Umbro is no worse off, and nobody need be upset.
Consider the word “coffin”. Originally it meant any kind of a basket. In time it came to mean the container in which a human corpse is placed, and now all its uses (e.g. “coffin-shaped”) call to mind this association. Nobody would now read the word without this association coming to mind.
Should I complain that I cannot now use the word “coffin” in any context without this association coming to the hearer’s mind? Of course not; that would be ludicrous. If I don’t want to evoke that association, I should use a different word.
So it is with “Zyklon”. The difference between “Zyklon” and “coffin” is that the associations called to mind by the former are very distressing.
—How is it unreasonable to object to its use in this way?—
I don’t think there’s much wrong with simply not buying the shoes because they creep you out and you personally can’t get past the association. But complaining about it? Demanding it be changed because that’s your exclusive word to use only when and how you see fit? That crosses the line.
That was the whole point of the rest of my post, Dave. Clearly you would not accept the argument of “it was the evil, not the symbol” in defending a company’s choice to overtly incorporate a swastika into its product’s logo. Therefore “it was the evil, not the tools used” cannot be an acceptable argument for Umbro’s use of the word Zyklon on its shoes.
Well, we could look at it from a different, more concrete perspective. Swastikas don’t wave over German state or official buildings anymore because of the direct connection with Nazism. Is Zyklon B still manufactured and sold as an insecticide under that name in Germany? My guess is no, because the company that manufactured it probably wouldn’t want the extremely negative publicity associated with the use to which the Nazis put it. I would also hazard a guess that there probably aren’t any comsumer products marketed in Germany with the brand name Zyklon for the same reason - though I would certainly be interested in seeing cites that prove otherwise. So, thus I put it to you - if the Germans themselves don’t market any products bearing the Zyklon name because of its associations with the Holocaust, then the grievance voiced against Umbro is more than justified for the same reason.
I asked my wife and brother in law about this last night. They did not know what Zyklon meant they did not know what Zyclon-B meant. They are educated people so I think that Zyclon is not as well known as some people on this thread think.
Well, it isn’t the Jews’ fault that the Nazis chose to use Zyklon B as their Jew-killing gas of choice. They just have to live in a world where that’s the fact. I suppose some, I don’t know, home networking company might start using “Arbeit macht frei” as a slogan, but it would be monumentally stupid of them to do so.