Triumph has now agreed to go to Canada to get spayed.
Think of it this way Wabbit. I’m sure you are happy you have the ACLU fighting for your rights no matter how trivial it seems. You wouldn’t say “oh don’t worry about that issue, were not nearly as bad off as China”. You start ignoring the smaller issues, they will acumulate, and that’s a road none of us want to go down.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t really trying to equate the tensions between Canada with the 9/11 attacks. I know that the 9/11 attacks were much worse than anything that’s happened in Canada. I was trying to think of a subject that just wouldn’t be joked about in a certain way in the United States and that’s the first thing that came up.
Do I really have to prove that the terror in Canada is equal to the horror of the 9/11 attacks (it isn’t) for my point to be valid? The argument I had a problem with was the “Triumph makes fun of everything and everybody and is a asshole, that’s basically why it’s funny and we shouldn’t take it personally” one. If Triumph made 9-11 jokes in the United States, would the argument still apply? Why not? What factor, exactly, makes the situation different? The number of deaths?
Can I try a different analogy? Say there’s a blind man walking in the street and Triumph starts making comments about him sleeping with transvestites and not knowing about it. That could be considered funny, I guess. But what if instead Triumph kept poking the guy in his back and then “running” away? The blind guy has no idea what’s going on and it kind of makes the thing more cruel than funny.
That being said, when I heard about Triumph’s comments, I just kind of shrugged and thought it was more rude then funny. I understand Conan O’Brien might not have really understood, or cared about, the reaction some of the dialogue might have on Canadians. That’s fine with me. I just really, really hate the “well, he makes fun of everything so it’s all right” argument. Because it isn’t true. Is it?
quite simply, no. But even if it was, it was made clear to us that the reason it was returned was that we had put canada on the label.
My boss received a phone call and I received a stern talking to.
Wow! That’s crazy, I’ve never heard of anything like that. You must’ve fallen on some of the greatest idiots ever. Please don’t think it’s common, though. I mean… woa.
Well, he may have been a crazy idiot, but he was also the CEO of one of the largest real estate investment firms in Montreal. So it’s not like he was some kook in a basement.
Nope, same things happened when I lived there.
Good points, but (at least from my perspective) it looks like the Separatists are going out of their way to create problems where there were none. In other words, they’re trying to create a Bosnia on the North American continent. I realize there are two sides to the story, however, but we rarely get the Separatist side of things in the States. That’s one of the problems of insisting on using French when you’re the only major group in North America that’s fluent in it. 
This fiasco also occurred awfully soon after the whole Don Cherry thing …
[another lesson in Canadiana, for those who need it]
Don Cherry is a loudmouthed obnoxious sports commentator, employed by the CBC and thus paid by the taxpayer, who has in the past showed (arguably) pretty racist tendencies and quite open anti-Francophone tendencies. Like Triumph he is enormously popular, partly because of his “No BS, tell it like it is” kind of attitude.
Last week (on the heels of Boobygate, when we were all hypersensitive to shit on the airwaves) he made another anti-French comment, which caused a major uproar.
(Personally I thought the comment was rather tame, but I understand that there are some things you really shouldn’t joke about).
Anyhoo, after howls for his job, and waves of support from the public, Cherry’s weekly, live show is now on a 7-second delay so he can be cut if he crosses the line again.[/Canadiana]
I find this similar to the Triumph thing because initially it seems like over-the-top reaction to an innocuous comment, but the context just means it’s a Bad Idea. (In other words, public figures should have the sense to recognize that not only are there “Things You Can Say” and “Things You Can’t Say,” but also “Things that May Be Okay to Say in Another Context, but to Say it Now would be a Very Bad Idea.”
I imagine that sensitivities were raised after the Cherry incident, and I would have hoped that O’Brian would have paid enough attention to what was actually happening in Canada to have realized how inappropriate the timing was. (I mean, if he had picked up a newspaper during the week that he was here, he would have learned all about it.)
In other news, Cherry was offered the chance to appear on Conan but turned it down for patriotic reasons - ‘why shouls I participate in this love-fest for an imported American?’
Can I just be the first Canadian to point out how awful that sounds?
This isn’t a ‘separatist’ issue. There are plenty of federalist French-Canadians and anglophone Canadians who work very hard for respect for the French-Canadian language, culture, and self-determination under the federal model inside and outside Quebec. I am proud to share a party with a great many of them.
This isn’t a ‘separatist’ issue. There are plenty of federalist French-Canadians and anglophone Canadians who work very hard for respect for the French-Canadian language, culture, and self-determination under the federal model inside and outside Quebec. I am proud to share a party with a great many of them.
[Hijack]This is the same Don Cherry who lambased Ron MacLean for not supporting the war in Iraq because we have to support our friends?
I swear that man needs a continuity checker in his staff.[/hijack]
Why is it awful?
What I’m trying to say is this:
When you are a public figure, you should be aware that you have the potential of offending a lot of people with a carelessly spoken word.
There are some things that you could say that your audience will never be able to agree is ‘racist’ or ‘innocuous,’ whether we should call in the military or learn to chill out.
You would be best advised to refrain from saying these things if you want to avoid causing a shitstorm.
(If your goal is to cause a shitstorm, well, that’s a whole nother story.)
People need to be offended at times. At times it does kick up a shit storm but by revisiting the issue you can move through it, reexamine it and weigh its merits. If it has none then the idea is discarded. But to come out and say that some thing should never be discussed, some things are too dangerous, to controversial, too sacred only plays into the hands of those who believe in or enjoy the status quo.
I don’t think we disagree on this. I agree that difficult topics need to be discussed, and I personally am quite upset that these kinds of discussions always seem to take place in black/white kinds of contexts:
He is racist and therefore must be fired.
-or-
He is not racist and anyone who is offended needs to chill out.
There are many, many shades of gray, and they must be approached with tact. If you really wanted to talk about French/English relations, or separatism, or the impact of saying ‘learn to speak white,’ you must approach it carefully, because you should be aware of the context in which you’re speaking.
If you don’t, then sensibilities will be upset and panties will be snarled. If this is your goal, then you can’t say to people “Geez, it’s only a puppet, people!” because you should have known the reaction it would get.
If you didn’t know, then I guess that’s what my point is: when treading on sensitive ground, you should know that it’s sensitive.
I just stumbled on this thread, so excuse me if I repeat what others have said.
As far as I’m concerned, the producers knew exactly what they were doing. They knew (or supected) Quebec-bashing would get a positive responses from a Toronto audience, and French-bashing is a generally acceptable practice, so American audiences, for whom French is French no matter where they live, would enjoy that as well. Had Triumph gone to a hockey game and insulted the Maple Leafs, or Don Cherry, it would have been another story. Besides, all this publicity doesn’t hurt; MSNBC had the story prominently displayed on their website. No one is going to lose sponsors either since the target of the insult does not watch American television.
Yep. One and the same.
Well, I don’t want to keep this hijack going so let me end with this.
Would you have preferred that David Ahenakew keep his views to himself, or speak them openly despite their offensive nature? I’d rather have the views, both good and bad, be out in the open were they can be debated and lanced if needed.
Mind you in that case I don’t think the meeting was government funded as opposed to Cherry’s air time and, in a round about way, Conan’s.
It’s almost as if we’re considering Conan a visitor to our country when really he’s a paid for mercenary doing his job.
That’s the one where he had them sing into his audio-meter to measure their singing ability. It had three readings - Gay, Really Gay, Clay Aiken