they’ll have to explain this over and over again to the rest of the world, but that’s not a bad thing either.
Will they remember? Years ago a local team received the same kind of grant when there was question of its branding being an inappropriate appropriation. As time marched forward people came and went, and the people involved in attaining the original grant were no longer around so the same question inevitably surfaced again. At that time they decided to change the branding rather than seek approval (again).
That’s precisely why explaining it over and over again is a good thing.
It keeps the story of how multiple groups in a community can work together to do something that benefits everyone fresh, so the lone narrative isn’t community groups refusing to work with local indigenous groups for fear of being branded racist.
It’s a nice idea, but tough to keep going as hands change. The people who were involved in the aforementioned agreement still talk about it to this day, but they are not involved in the organization anymore, so you have a disconnect.
Will they remember? Years ago a local team received the same kind of grant when there was question of its branding being an inappropriate appropriation. As time marched forward people came and went, and the people involved in attaining the original grant were no longer around so the same question inevitably surfaced again. At that time they decided to change the branding rather than seek approval (again).
That’s precisely why explaining it over and over again is a good thing.
It keeps the story of how multiple groups in a community can work together to do something that benefits everyone fresh, so the lone narrative isn’t community groups refusing to work with local indigenous groups for fear of being branded racist.
It’s a nice idea, but tough to keep going as hands change. The people who were involved in the aforementioned agreement still talk about it to this day, but they are not involved in the organization anymore, so you have a disconnect.