Whilst I fully understand the shape and name of the lolly has upset the lovely Inuit lady visiting here, and those whom have been sent packets of the lolly, I don't really understand why they would want the lollies banned. I don't mean to be culturally insensitive, I just truely don't understand.
There were a few parts of the article I found to be particularly confusing/amusing. Number One:
'She believed it was also offensive because food shortages had been an issue for
Inuit people in the past. "The notion of cannibalism is a real thing."'
It's a lolly people. It has many purposes, perhaps including being an effective parental bribing tool, decorations for a cake, and something one has at kid's parties. I think it's a long stretch to suggest it's purpose is to encourage cannabilism. Or to indeed suggest it's some kind of tool of mockery directed towards those people in the past that leant towards consuming people.
The second part which caught my interest was;
'A Christchurch academic has also called the sweets offensive saying Inuit
friends in Canada likened the popular sweet to "eating white people".'
Really? Like in the same way eating jelly babies is like eating rainbow coloured people? I'm quite confused by all these references to cannabilism. Why is eating an Eskimo lolly any different to eating jelly babies? Gummy bears (those bears are endangered, bad people eating bear shaped candy), or chocolate shaped easter bunnies for that matter? Perhaps I just can not grasp this issue due to the fact these lollies have been around since I was a kid. Actually, since my Dad was a kid and they have never before caused quite a stir. If we're going to ban Eskimo lollies, why stop there? We better ban all things that look or could be construed to look like something.
Like those carmello Koalas and Kiwis for one.
No comments:
Post a Comment