NHL Chicago on team nickname re cultural/political changes UPD: bans costume headdresses

[LadyStanley]

Chicago Blackhawks release statement defending name, logo - TSN.ca

Team explains the proud history of what/who their name/logo represents and have no plans to make changes. And will engage in respectful discussions about cultural issues

Click to read more...

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm glad they are taking a thoughtful approach and not overly politicizing this in either direction.

Given that the name is not a direct caricature of Native Americans, there's an opportunity to leverage it for education and inclusiveness. It would be a shame to lose that opportunity thoughtlessly, given the general lack of representation for Native history and culture in the mainstream.

 

[cutchemist42]

I'm fine with the name, but have said if there is a spectrum for cartoony to serious logos/depictions of First Nations, I find the current logo to be closer to a cartoon caricature.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm fine with the name, but have said if there is a spectrum for cartoony to serious logos/depictions of First Nations, I find the current logo to be closer to a cartoon caricature.

cartoony =/= insulting or racist.

its simply a style choice, and pretty common for logos. No different than the cartoon logos of the Vikings, Celtics or Notre Dame for example.

 

[StreetHawk]

In NA pro sports after Redskins, there are still Indians, Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks plus Eskimos. See how many of them retain the team name in the next few years.

Chiefs and Braves no image of a person, but use a spear and tomahawk in their logo. Indians got rid of the logo on their caps but the logo apparently still appears on licensed merchandise which seems odd.

Eskimos, no image either just a double E for their logo.

Blackhawks, can’t really say I’ve heard them come under fire that much in the past with their name. But they use an image of a Native.

 

[Warden of the North]

In NA pro sports after Redskins, there are still Indians, Chiefs, Braves, Blackhawks plus Eskimos. See how many of them retain the team name in the next few years.

Chiefs and Braves no image of a person, but use a spear and tomahawk in their logo. Indians got rid of the logo on their caps but the logo apparently still appears on licensed merchandise which seems odd.

Eskimos, no image either just a double E for their logo.

Blackhawks, can’t really say I’ve heard them come under fire that much in the past with their name. But they use an image of a Native.

Eskimos will likely change their name. The word itself is problematic.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Eskimos will likely change their name. The word itself is problematic.

There actually seems like a fair bit of support amongst Inuit people for the name Eskimos though. Check out the comments on this news article from the Nunatsiaq News, a weekly paper published in Nunavut.

Edmonton football club responds to new calls for a name change | Nunatsiaq News

 

[Stumbledore]

Eskimos will likely change their name. The word itself is problematic.

Whether a word is problematic or not depends upon not only what decade you live in but also what region you live in. And perhaps how many languages you speak.

I was in Gallup, NM where a sign over the entrance to an excellent Applebee's proudly announced it was the Indian Capitol of America. In Manitoba, using the word Indian will get you labelled as a racist.

At least two sports franchises (Utes, Seminoles) are named after tribes who proudly share their name and also some financial underwriting.

I've been in parts of the U.S. where the word negro is considered highly offensive and I've also driven past the Washington HQ of the Negro College Fund.

Those of us who were taught Latin in school will always remember discovering the adjective for black is niger.

And don't get me started on the phrase "coloured people" (very bad) versus "people of colour" (quite acceptable).

Given how fluid the offensiveness of words has become, and the astonishing sensitivity of anyone who can type even a little, perhaps sports teams should choose a name for a particular decade and operate with a plan to rename the team and replace its logos on a regular basis. It would provide even more marketing possibilities than just the third jersey gimmick.

And who knows, given how idiotically spasmodic the cancel culture is growing, maybe new team names won't last even a full decade...

 

[DarkHorse2]

If they switched to that sweet concept that's been around online for a while, they could probably keep the name with no problem.

Respectful of heritage, without risking caricature.

Tomahawks on shoulders would likely have to go though.

I don't understand why teams with questionable or downright problematic names don't want to change. The opportunity to gain goodwill and sell their fanbase an entirely new wave of merchandise seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Whether a word is problematic or not depends upon not only what decade you live in but also what region you live in. And perhaps how many languages you speak.

While true, but what's your point?

Whether or not a name like the Redskins was offensive or not in the past doesn't mean anything - it's considered offensive now.

 

[Stumbledore]

While true, but what's your point?

Whether or not a name like the Redskins was offensive or not in the past doesn't mean anything - it's considered offensive now.

My point is in the last two paragraphs of my posting.

 

[Yukon Joe]

My point is in the last two paragraphs of my posting.

[MOD]

Here were your last two paragraphs:

Given how fluid the offensiveness of words has become, and the astonishing sensitivity of anyone who can type even a little, perhaps sports teams should choose a name for a particular decade and operate with a plan to rename the team and replace its logos on a regular basis. It would provide even more marketing possibilities than just the third jersey gimmick.

And who knows, given how idiotically spasmodic the cancel culture is growing, maybe new team names won't last even a full decade...​

Which is, frankly, stupid. The issue is naming sports teams after indigenous people. This isn't a particularly fluid question: people have been questioning these names for decades now. This goes well beyond today's "cancel culture".

Maybe in 50 years people will find something else to be offended about - well let people 50 years from now worry about that. The important thing is that people are offended now, in 2020.

And I'm certainly not saying that all teams linked with indigenous people should change their names! I think the Redskins definitely should. I'm surprised that the Seminole people support their name being used by Florida State, but as long as they do then it's fine. I think if indigenous people actually support a team name, that should be as respected as if they don't.​

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

If they switched to that sweet concept that's been around online for a while, they could probably keep the name with no problem.

Respectful of heritage, without risking caricature.

Tomahawks on shoulders would likely have to go though.

I don't understand why teams with questionable or downright problematic names don't want to change. The opportunity to gain goodwill and sell their fanbase an entirely new wave of merchandise seems like a no-brainer.

The problem is a lot of this uproar is from white people. I've talked to man First Nations people in Canada that couldn't give a shit about it.

White guilt is a real thing. Although the Redskins is a name that should definitely change. Blackhawks? No.

 

[MeHateHe]

The problem is a lot of this uproar is from white people. I've talked to man First Nations people in Canada that couldn't give a shit about it.

White guilt is a real thing. Although the Redskins is a name that should definitely change. Blackhawks? No.

We hear this a lot: Indigenous person X says this, or Y% of Indigenous persons say this, and I agree with this, so that settles it. It's not a small number of Indigenous people, and it's not a fringe group saying that they aren't comfortable with the iconography of the Hawks. It's a significant number and there are credible figures raising these concerns. See the Athletic article for the full context.

Is it time for the Chicago Blackhawks to drop their Native...

I think there's a moral imperative to change these names and, in the case of Chicago, the iconography. But I can accept others don't have those qualms. But given that this is the business forum, I'll put it in a business context. If you are excluding a portion of your potential customer base, is that good business? It might be annoying to current fans to change the logo, for example, but potential fans are citing actual harm from the current visuals, which is a lot more damaging from a business standpoint than some fans being annoyed at the change of the logo.

It's fair to say that on the range racist iconography, the Blackhawks logo is a lot more tame than, say, Chief Wahoo, and given the history of the name, it doesn't rise to the standard of the Washington football club.

But again, irrespective of your intent, exclusion is exclusion. If you own a business and you move into an old location with a door that isn't wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, you are limiting your customer base. Maybe your doorway has some heritage value that you will lose by widening it, but doesn't it make more sense to make sure you avail yourself to as many potential customers as possible?

 

[Mightygoose]

Eskimos will likely change their name. The word itself is problematic.

Being a community owned club will impact how they move forward differently than the other teams in question. No billionaire making anything off the name/logo etc...

Edmonton Eskimos: 'We are accelerating our ongoing process of review' - TSN.ca

One sponsor threatening to pull support if they don't change the name. Expanded consultation....find out if other sponsors feel the same way but not being public

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

Being a community owned club will impact how they move forward differently than the other teams in question. No billionaire making anything off the name/logo etc...

Edmonton Eskimos: 'We are accelerating our ongoing process of review' - TSN.ca

One sponsor threatening to pull support if they don't change the name. Expanded consultation....find out if other sponsors feel the same way but not being public

Funny after all these decades, now suddenly the people that find these team names problematic didn't make a fuss about it till now when it became trendy.

 

[Tarantula]

Funny after all these decades, now suddenly the people that find these team names problematic didn't make a fuss about it till now when it became trendy.

Funny how women and minorities didn't get to vote until it became "trendy"!

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think there's a moral imperative to change these names and, in the case of Chicago, the iconography. But I can accept others don't have those qualms. But given that this is the business forum, I'll put it in a business context. If you are excluding a portion of your potential customer base, is that good business? It might be annoying to current fans to change the logo, for example, but potential fans are citing actual harm from the current visuals, which is a lot more damaging from a business standpoint than some fans being annoyed at the change of the logo.

It's fair to say that on the range racist iconography, the Blackhawks logo is a lot more tame than, say, Chief Wahoo, and given the history of the name, it doesn't rise to the standard of the Washington football club.

But again, irrespective of your intent, exclusion is exclusion. If you own a business and you move into an old location with a door that isn't wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs, you are limiting your customer base. Maybe your doorway has some heritage value that you will lose by widening it, but doesn't it make more sense to make sure you avail yourself to as many potential customers as possible?

I'd question whether the use of Black Hawks is actually exclusive of Native American culture. It's always struck me as more of a tribute to a famous warrior, no different than Blue Jackets, Golden Knights, Buccaneers, Raiders, Cowboys, Vikings, Patriots. This sentiment is extremely common in athletics.

Are we really going to say it's "inclusive" to only pay tribute to white warriors, and erase people of color from the picture?

 

[Yukon Joe]

Funny after all these decades, now suddenly the people that find these team names problematic didn't make a fuss about it till now when it became trendy.

People have been questioning these sorts of names for decades. Questioning teams named after indigenous groups has been questioned since the 1960s. Here's a list of teams that have changed their names and/or mascots or logos to remove indigenous imagery.

14 Sports Teams That Dumped Their Racist Mascots (Photos)

Not how some of those teams changed their names way back in the 1970s. Heck the Philadelphia Warriors ditched their native logo when they moved to the Bay Area in 1969.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I'd question whether the use of Black Hawks is actually exclusive of Native American culture. It's always struck me as more of a tribute to a famous warrior, no different than Blue Jackets, Golden Knights, Buccaneers, Raiders, Cowboys, Vikings, Patriots. This sentiment is extremely common in athletics.

Are we really going to say it's "inclusive" to only pay tribute to white warriors, and erase people of color from the picture?

The issue with the Blackhawks isn't the name, but the logo.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The issue with the Blackhawks isn't the name, but the logo.

If we're talking about removing the image of Black Hawk entirely, and replacing him it with a bird or whatever, consider that this is the ONLY professional sports logo that depicts a person of color. Eliminating the image of the person is not necessarily the solution here.

Would a more realistic, less cartoon-like portrait make it better?

 

[MeHateHe]

I'd question whether the use of Black Hawks is actually exclusive of Native American culture. It's always struck me as more of a tribute to a famous warrior, no different than Blue Jackets, Golden Knights, Buccaneers, Raiders, Cowboys, Vikings, Patriots. This sentiment is extremely common in athletics.

Are we really going to say it's "inclusive" to only pay tribute to white warriors, and erase people of color from the picture?

Have you read the Athletic piece? I think the person from the American Indian Center makes some compelling points? Look, I'm a bit agnostic on the use of the Hawks name. I am aware of the history and how the name came to be. It strikes me that the name itself was never meant to be appropriation by any stretch. But intent doesn't always matter when it comes to what hurts: if I accidentally step on your foot, it hurts the same as if I did it on purpose, no? So maybe I should try to avoid stepping on your foot?

My partner is a school administrator, and a school where she was principal was populated largely by Indigenous kids, because the school is near an urban reserve. There was some kerfuffle at her school and she was visited by the parent of one of the kids, who, as it turns out, was the likely the aggressor in the kerfuffle. Keep in mind that my partner had a very good relationship with the chief and elders at the nation and it was not unusual for parents to come in, defend their kids to the school, and then go home and tell their kid to stop being such a jerk. That's the kind of dynamic they had.

Anyway, this parent, who was well respected in her community, spent 90+ minutes in my partner's office, tearing a strip off of her and saying this was racist and that was racist and she was racist and the school was racist. All of this after an incident between two Indigenous kids. At the end of the meeting, the parent was exhausted and in tears and it was clear that all she really wanted to do was rant. Because this was a woman in her 40s who had spent her entire life living near a (very) white community where she felt like a second-class citizen and no one had ever really listened to her.

See, I don't know you, Heel. I am assuming you are a decent sort who wants to more or less do right by the world. I'm just a white guy from the prairies and I have no earthly idea what it is to feel like a total outsider. I can't remember the statistics, but study after study shows that Canadian jails are way over-represented by Indigenous people, and that an Indigenous person will face harsher penalties for even the most simple of offences. That bleeds into other aspects of life: Indigenous kids are tailed in stores because people assume they're going to steal something; we just had a story about a 'game' played by health care workers to guess the blood-alcohol content of the Indigenous person that presented in their emergency room. It's steeped in our culture.

What does any of that have to do with the topic? There's a ton of unrest in Canada, especially, coming from Indigenous communities who have been telling us - like the woman told my partner - that they have not been heard. Now is a hell of a good time to start listening. So while I might be agnostic about the impact of the Blackhawks name, my opinion doesn't matter that much. I'm not the one who has spent a lifetime feeling like an outsider. I think people with my particular hue of skin should sit down, shut up, and listen. That doesn't necessarily mean that Indigenous people get their way carte blanche, but if a significant number of Indigenous voices are saying that the logo is problematic, I think their opinion counts more than mine.

 

[Yukon Joe]

If we're talking about removing the image of Black Hawk entirely, and replacing him it with a bird or whatever, consider that this is the ONLY professional sports logo that depicts a person of color. Eliminating the image of the person is not necessarily the solution here.

Would a more realistic, less cartoon-like portrait make it better?

I dunno. I'm agnostic on this issue. I acknowledge there is an issue, don't know what the answer is.

But I'm having trouble thinking of any sports logo that depicts a person at all! The Senators I guess - and the ancient Romans aren't around to complain.

 

[royals119]

The problem is a lot of this uproar is from white people. I've talked to man First Nations people in Canada that couldn't give a shit about it.

White guilt is a real thing. Although the Redskins is a name that should definitely change. Blackhawks? No.

I read an article by a black soccer player recently. He talked about the racism he encountered as a pro athlete, and how there was an incident where his white team mates stood up for him when it happened on a particular occasion. He said at the time it was life changing for him, because previously he had been told to just keep his mouth shut and take it, don't speak up, don't rock the boat. Once his white team mates took exception people actually listened and some action was taken. Unfortunately the momentum didn't last, and the diversity committee was disbanded after a couple years with no real change. He pointed out that the minority group who don't have power can't really make a change by themselves, and that until white people start speaking up, lasting change isn't going to happen. It isn't about white guilt, it is about speaking up for what is right and wrong, and supporting people who are asking for change.

Funny after all these decades, now suddenly the people that find these team names problematic didn't make a fuss about it till now when it became trendy.

People have been objecting for a long time, you just weren't listening until now. Or maybe some of those who are speaking up now weren't listening, and now they are, and are adding their voices to those who haven't been heard in the past.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I dunno. I'm agnostic on this issue. I acknowledge there is an issue, don't know what the answer is.

But I'm having trouble thinking of any sports logo that depicts a person at all! The Senators I guess - and the ancient Romans aren't around to complain.

One of these things is not like the others...

The 100% whitewashing of logos would be problematic in its own right. I'm not saying the current logo is the solution, but if the style of portraiture is the issue, then maybe we have an opportunity to fix that issue and create a positive change.