I don't particular care for the name, but i'm also just "meh" about it either way. Not because of some political statement, i just think the name is boring. It is, however, descriptive.
I actually like this name more than Native Americans because they weren't native here either. They migrated over the land bridge and were the first settlers of the land, but they didn't just pop into existence here. So First Americans (with the term America covering North/Central/South American and not just the U.S.) seems to be a more accurate representation to me. Similarly, First Nation is a pretty good accurate description. But that's just me.
What i would like to see, is the place freaking open already!!!!!!!
Because you’ve seemingly become part of the subset of the population that has found a way to be offended by far more issues than the average person and engaging/acknowledging everything that part of the population takes an issue with has become incredibly tiring. Have to high grade the grievances that are worth taking seriously and dismiss over the top complaints like this and being offended by our flagship university’s mascot. Stay woke my friend.
I like the name and logo... Big improvement
It's an unfortunate name all things considered.
The outrage about Dan's supposed outrage far exceeds his, it seems. All he did was mention some historical context from Indigineous scholars about why some may feel it isn't a great name, and he's met with sarcasm, mockery, and hysteria about needing to leave the United States, political correctness, allegedly being forced to take responsibility for past grievances one had nothing to do with, and other really over-the-top responses. RIP interest in nuanced discussions, I guess.
On that note, I do wonder how much of the difference in interpretation comes down to thinking of the "United States" when hearing "Americans" vs. "people who reside in the American continents (south + north)".
Branding is the game these days and like it or not the FAM thing is super marketable and you just know we're about to have an onslaught of marketing about this place.
It is what it is. Someone or group of people signed off on this signature. There does appear to be a central color theme that blends in with the Scissortail Park and the new convention center.
Really like the coordination and complementary color blend. It's short and precise.
If they want to tie in with the other properties, then they need a different logo. Like a circular design that mimics the layout of their building.
The "Oklahoma" instead of "Oklahoma City" bit of the branding is surprising
Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of white people on this message board are outraged that Dan might bring up the idea to be sensitive to Native feelings in the name of a museum that purports to be "for" Natives. This is white privilege at its finest.
Just who is this place for and why does it exist?
I assume it is intentional. I've got some friends in the design industry that have been working with the state in a program to completely rebrand all aspects of the state in terms of image, marketing, etc. I would guess this might be part of that effort.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks