According to the Canada’s National History Society, the Inuit constructed eyewear from caribou antlers, bone, leather or wood. Carved to fit the natural curve of the face, with a divot for the bridge of the nose and two slits for the eyes, it was held in place with sinew, the first snow goggles date back to the Thule Inuit, two thousand years ago. The slits allowed them to see, but blocked enough light to prevent snow blindness. As technology advanced, this Inuit design gradually evolved into the sunglasses and protective eyewear of today.
What is wrong with people??? Who thought this was a good idea and HOW?
You know what hurts most about this?
A whole buncha people had to drop the cultural-awareness/common sense ball for this product to become a reality. That’s a LOTTA racism at product development meetings, working lunches, happy hours, etc.
Not only is it incredibly racist, it’s not even descriptive…there’s nothing “slanted” about these--it’s all parallel lines. It’s pretty bad when the *only* reasonable explanation for a product name is a racist stereotype. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
Stupid no. 2: Using a stereotype that doesn't match the product. (The slits aren't slanted.)
Don't the Inuit have enough stereotypes without having to borrow a stereotype about Asians? Sheesh. If I were an Inuk, I don't know if I'd be mad or glad that some stupid marketer can't even stereotype me correctly.
If you want a stereotypical name from the right culture, how about Icies ("I see" or "eye-see")? Or Eye-Glues (like igloos)? Better yet, how about something nonstereotypical like Slitties or Snowgogs?
Comment: For more on the subject, see Eskimos: The Ultimate Aborigines.