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

[daver]

Okay, I guess. I'm still not sure what you had to put aside. The quote, by the way, comes from Justice Sheldon W. Lanchbery of the Court of queen's Bench.

By way of context, NDN CAR was allowed by our government insurance office.

I was saying that subjective commentary on whether something should be viewed as being offensive or not is moot when it comes to government issued licence plates. I.e. everyone, save for two people, has no issue with the assimilate plate but it is a moot point.

 

[chizzler]

Let’s make believe. If there never was any “racist” logos and a team decided to make their logo as a tribute to a people, everyone would be buying and lauding the move.
People should let the community of said people decide if they are offended. Let’s not decide for them or tell them how they should feel because social media is demanding it.

 

[adsfan]

Gaels is a broad term to refer to Gaelic people, that is Irish and Scottish (to simplify things).

The Golden Gaels is the name used by Queens University in Kingston.

In the US, we have Iona in New Rochelle, New York and St Mary's in California using the Gaels name.

As an Irish/Scottish American, it doesn't bother me in the least. I am amused by Notre Dame's mascot. Since they have been successful in college football for a hundred years and do okay in basketball, I am not offended.

On the other hand, I never liked Chief Wahoo for the Cleveland Indians. The team was renamed from the Spiders supposedly after a Native American player. From Wikipedia:


Spiders outfielder Louis Sockalexis played for the team during its final three seasons and is often credited as the first Native American to play professional baseball. The Cleveland Indians, major league successor to the Spiders in Cleveland, have long cited Sockalexis as inspiration for their team name, though that claim is disputed.


First Native American means before Jim Thorpe. Cy Young pitched for the Spiders and the team name wasn't changed to the Youngs in his honor. The Spiders played in the NL for 11 seasons. They can stay as the Indians as long as they completely get rid of that cartoon-like mascot. The team took it off of their caps a few years ago, but you can still buy team merchandise with it.

I also never liked Chief Knockahoma for the Atlanta Braves. They dropped him in 1985. Thank goodness that was all in Atlanta and was never used here in Milwaukee. It was embarrassing for a major league team to do that.

One local university, Marquette, dropped their Warriors mascot about 20 years ago to become the Golden Eagles.
Former men's basketball coach Al McGuire spoke out publicly and repeatedly for the mascot change.

While I dislike Chicago sports teams, I think that the name Black Hawks is okay. I would drop the iconic Indian head before the tomahawks, but I am not in favor of doing either. He was a historical person. He fought against the US a few times (1812, 1832) in an effort to keep white settlers out of his tribe's territory in present day Illinois. He went as far east as present day Sandusky, Ohio. He surrendered after the Black Hawk War in 1832 to Lt Jefferson Davis. Abraham Lincoln was one of the volunteers who fought in the war against the Sauk tribe.

 

[Anisimovs AK]

Like statues or street names that honour specific individuals, you can question why sports names are even a thing and take a view that they serve no particular purpose thus their removal or change can be given the same level of importance.

That being said, to a certain degree, I would apply the same "serving no particular purpose" premise to the calls for these "symbols of oppression" to be changed/removed as there are far more important social issues that require the tremendous amount of energy and attention this issue seems to be given by activists and the media. I.e. if you really care about the plight a certain group then your time and effort can be spent on much more meaningful things to initiate change.

At the same time, it takes almost no effort to change a teams name

 

[S E P H]

The Frölunda Indians of the Swedish Hockey League will abandon their name and Indian head logo after this season:

That sucks another beautiful logo gets ruined as University of North Dakota did.

 

[Leafmealone11]

Why do people need to ban headdresses? I can see some images being dropped but even then are all cartoonish pictures of anyone racist? Telling people they can't wear headdresses seems more like what a racist would do.
"You better not wear jeans they are for white people" I don't think telling people they are the wrong color to wear things is ok at all, no matter what.
I am not sure if that came out offensive but telling other races you are offended they would wear things your race invented...That is extremely racist is it not?

 

[Ezekial]

Why do people need to ban headdresses? I can see some images being dropped but even then are all cartoonish pictures of anyone racist? Telling people they can't wear headdresses seems more like what a racist would do.
"You better not wear jeans they are for white people" I don't think telling people they are the wrong color to wear things is ok at all, no matter what.
I am not sure if that came out offensive but telling other races you are offended they would wear things your race invented...That is extremely racist is it not?

It's kinda like blackface no?

Obviously a little different context, but you're taking something historical and significant and making a mockery of it for your amusement.

 

[Leafmealone11]

It's kinda like blackface no?

Obviously a little different context, but you're taking something historical and significant and making a mockery of it for your amusement.

So burger king is mocking the royal family and we should be outraged? It is nothing but a silly hat with feathers that the ruling family at the time used as a symbol to control brainwashed peasants.It is a story that is old as dirt.
Its a hat, they didn't invent it and in reality it means nothing. but trying to tell people they can't wear one because it's a mockery if the wrong race wears one is extremely racist. They and you and myself have no right to tell people what they can and can't wear.

The days of being told what is OK to wear by others were done in this part of the world many many years ago. I can wear whatever I want and I don't care how this racist controlling crap is disguised, laying claim to something then being offended by it if 'white trash' wears it is as racist as can be. But "feelings cause it really matters to me" does not give others the right to control what freedoms we do have left.
The idea of being offened that some other race wore 'your' hat is gross

 

[Ezekial]

So burger king is mocking the royal family and we should be outraged? It is nothing but a silly hat with feathers that the ruling family at the time used as a symbol to control brainwashed peasants.It is a story that is old as dirt.
Its a hat, they didn't invent it and in reality it means nothing. but trying to tell people they can't wear one because it's a mockery if the wrong race wears one is extremely racist. They and you and myself have no right to tell people what they can and can't wear.

The days of being told what is OK to wear by others were done in this part of the world many many years ago. I can wear whatever I want and I don't care how this racist controlling crap is disguised, laying claim to something then being offended by it if 'white trash' wears it is as racist as can be. But "feelings cause it really matters to me" does not give others the right to control what freedoms we do have left.
The idea of being offened that some other race wore 'your' hat is gross

f*** the royal family they're a bunch of unworthy rich f***s who've stolen everything from around the world.

A chief's headdress is meaningful to Native culture, it signifies something greater than "a hat", and some idiot wearing it and waving a tomahawk could be seen as demeaning.

 

[mouser]

Why do people need to ban headdresses? I can see some images being dropped but even then are all cartoonish pictures of anyone racist? Telling people they can't wear headdresses seems more like what a racist would do.
"You better not wear jeans they are for white people" I don't think telling people they are the wrong color to wear things is ok at all, no matter what.
I am not sure if that came out offensive but telling other races you are offended they would wear things your race invented...That is extremely racist is it not?

What you’re missing is that headdresses in the native nations are a recognition by the nation of something special about the wearer. That might include things like bravery, wisdom or leadership. The specific headdresses vary by nation, but all are recognitions of achievement by the wearer. No one in the native nations would consider wearing a headdress they hadn’t earned.

The most commonly worn headdresses to Chicago games are imitations of a headdress only the most senior members of the nations might be allowed to wear, if any in the community. And they would never wear it to something as gauche as a hockey game.

The Chicago headdresses aren’t wrong because they’re “cultural appropriation”—an argument I think gets way too overblown with many flaws. The Chicago headdresses are wrong because they’re more clearly and widely disrespectful to all of the native nations.

I haven’t seen a seen a scientific poll, but I wouldn’t be the least surprised if native Americans collectively found the headdresses more offensive then major league team names like the Blackhawks, Redskins, Indians, Braves, Warriors, etc.

 

[smitty10]

f*** the royal family they're a bunch of unworthy rich f***s who've stolen everything from around the world.

A chief's headdress is meaningful to Native culture, it signifies something greater than "a hat", and some idiot wearing it and waving a tomahawk could be seen as demeaning.

So because you deem a figurehead of one culture to be unworthy it shouldn't be held to the same standard as another that you decided is worthy?

Interesting take. I guess as long as you're aware of the double standard...

 

[Leafmealone11]

What you’re missing is that headdresses in the native nations are a recognition by the nation of something special about the wearer. That might include things like bravery, wisdom or leadership. The specific headdresses vary by nation, but all are recognitions of achievement by the wearer. No one in the native nations would consider wearing a headdress they hadn’t earned.

The most commonly worn headdresses to Chicago games are imitations of a headdress only the most senior members of the nations might be allowed to wear, if any in the community. And they would never wear it to something as gauche as a hockey game.

The Chicago headdresses aren’t wrong because they’re “cultural appropriation”—an argument I think gets way too overblown with many flaws. The Chicago headdresses are wrong because they’re more clearly and widely disrespectful to all of the native nations.

And you don't see the hardcore racist reaction of 'how dare they wear that"
Make it a white person bing upset that any other race is wearing 'white stuff'and tell me that isn't racist. The whole idea racists and racist actions only work one way is loony toons.
This PC culture bull poop is going backwards

 

[Leafmealone11]

So because you deem a figurehead of one culture to be unworthy it shouldn't be held to the same standard as another that you decided is worthy?

Interesting take. I guess as long as you're aware of the double standard...

No ask yourself why it is upsetting? How dare 'those people' wear our stuff
Being upset you see another race 'cheapen' what you decide is yours because they wore it?
Oyyy

 

[mouser]

And you don't see the hardcore racist reaction of 'how dare they wear that"
Make it a white person bing upset that any other race is wearing 'white stuff'and tell me that isn't racist. The whole idea racists and racist actions only work one way is loony toons.
This PC culture bull poop is going backwards

Is it possible to discuss the Chicago decision without labeling anyone a racist, because I’m pretty sure I never mentioned racism once in my post you replied to?

 

[Leafmealone11]

Is it possible to discuss the Chicago decision without labeling anyone a racist, because I’m pretty sure I never mentioned racism once in my post you replied to?

Telling people its a mockery of their race to wear what they think is theirs is super racist, and if your really really offended by it thats even worse.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Telling people its a mockery of their race to wear what they think is theirs is super racist, and if your really really offended by it thats even worse.

...what?

 

[GordonGecko]

People should let the community of said people decide if they are offended. Let’s not decide for them or tell them how they should feel because social media is demanding it.

Just like the Washington Redskins where Native Americans consistently polled majority did not care about the the name but that wasn't good enough for social justice warriors who kept telling them they were supposed to be offended?

 

[Ezekial]

So because you deem a figurehead of one culture to be unworthy it shouldn't be held to the same standard as another that you decided is worthy?

Interesting take. I guess as long as you're aware of the double standard...

I'm aware of the fact that I think the royal family blows and they aren't the only people to ever wear a crown and don't lay claim to a crown as a cultural identifier, like a headdress does to a race of people.

 

[mouser]

Telling people its a mockery of their race to wear what they think is theirs is super racist, and if your really really offended by it thats even worse.

I will ask the second time: can you discuss the topic maturely without calling anyone you disagree with a racist?

 

[Leafmealone11]

I'm aware of the fact that I think the royal family blows and they aren't the only people to ever wear a crown and don't lay claim to a crown as a cultural identifier, like a headdress does to a race of people.

Lay claim? Lol ya well people can lay claim to what they want but I’m going to wear a headdress all week because they sound fun right now. Yay

 

[Albatros]

Just like the Washington Redskins where Native Americans consistently polled majority did not care about the the name but that wasn't good enough for social justice warriors who kept telling them they were supposed to be offended?

That is not quite correct, the most recent academic survey by UMich and UC Berkeley - which was also by far the largest ever done in scale - found that 49 % of Native Americans considered the name offensive, 38 % did not have a problem with it, and 13 % had no opinion. The more involved the participants were in native cultural participation, the more likely they found the name offensive. Either way it is hard to see what point there is in the argument that only some Native Americans find the name offensive, the fact that there's any significant number is already enough of a problem. These sports franchises despite their names are not Native American institutions to any meaningful extent, they don't get to decide or have a say in what is offensive.

 

[daver]

So burger king is mocking the royal family and we should be outraged? It is nothing but a silly hat with feathers that the ruling family at the time used as a symbol to control brainwashed peasants.It is a story that is old as dirt.
Its a hat, they didn't invent it and in reality it means nothing. but trying to tell people they can't wear one because it's a mockery if the wrong race wears one is extremely racist. They and you and myself have no right to tell people what they can and can't wear.

The days of being told what is OK to wear by others were done in this part of the world many many years ago. I can wear whatever I want and I don't care how this racist controlling crap is disguised, laying claim to something then being offended by it if 'white trash' wears it is as racist as can be. But "feelings cause it really matters to me" does not give others the right to control what freedoms we do have left.
The idea of being offened that some other race wore 'your' hat is gross

You are free to have this opinion but, in my opinion, framing it as "racist" does nothing to strengthen your opinion. Nor am I a big fan of using "racist" to describe someone wearing a headdress at a hockey

For your consideration, here is a decent barometer of what is a reasonable or not. If you were attending a social gathering with natives, would you wear a headdress if you felt like it?

 

[Leafmealone11]

You are free to have this opinion but, in my opinion, framing it as "racist" does nothing to strengthen your opinion. Nor am I a big fan of using "racist" to describe someone wearing a headdress at a hockey

For your consideration, here is a decent barometer of what is a reasonable or not. If you were attending a social gathering with natives, would you wear a headdress if you felt like it?

Why would I wear one to social gathering? Would it matter to me who saw me with one on? No

 

[Yukon Joe]

Why would I wear one to social gathering? Would it matter to me who saw me with one on? No

Of course it matters what other people think of what you wear. Would you wear a Blue Lives Matter t-shirt to a Black Lives Matter rally? Would you wear a shirt depicting a graphic sex act to your grandmothers for Thanksgiving?

Now you might be the kind of person who does that - but you're doing it because you specifically want to provoke a reaction.

 

[daver]

Why would I wear one to social gathering? Would it matter to me who saw me with one on? No

According to your position, you don't make any distinction of the occasion to wear one so why are you asking this question?