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

[tarheelhockey]

True, though arguably the biggest problem here is that there is no adequate Native American involvement, as kachina dolls in the form they are known to most whites emerged as merchandise sold to tourists anyway.

That's really been the issue from Day One for all of these organizations. Appropriation is the heart of the complaint.

In my opinion, by far the best option for Native Americans is to engage with these organizations so that the appropriation aspect can be lessened, and the brands become a platform for public awareness and appreciation of Native American history and cultural values. That's certainly how it worked at Notre Dame, where the football team became a platform for the mainstreaming of Irish identity (even in the context of a Wahoo-like mascot) and ultimately a massive fundraiser for cultural institutions that are important to the Irish-American community. I believe the tribes have far more to gain from platforming than they do from de-platforming.

But if they decide to go the other way, then there's not much left to be said. If Hopi leadership decides they no longer want the kachina used as a logo, then the Coyotes are in a bad spot. Likewise, if the leadership of the Kwakwaka'wakw decides that the Seahawks need to stop using their imagery for commercial purposes, then the Seahawks are in a bad spot.

What's difficult about this is that the winds can change almost overnight. The Blackhawks were working with the approval of local Native groups, until all of a sudden they weren't. That can just as easily happen with any of these other organizations.

 

[hanshin44]

That's really been the issue from Day One for all of these organizations. Appropriation is the heart of the complaint.

In my opinion, by far the best option for Native Americans is to engage with these organizations so that the appropriation aspect can be lessened, and the brands become a platform for public awareness and appreciation of Native American history and cultural values. That's certainly how it worked at Notre Dame, where the football team became a platform for the mainstreaming of Irish identity (even in the context of a Wahoo-like mascot) and ultimately a massive fundraiser for cultural institutions that are important to the Irish-American community. I believe the tribes have far more to gain from platforming than they do from de-platforming.

But if they decide to go the other way, then there's not much left to be said. If Hopi leadership decides they no longer want the kachina used as a logo, then the Coyotes are in a bad spot. Likewise, if the leadership of the Kwakwaka'wakw decides that the Seahawks need to stop using their imagery for commercial purposes, then the Seahawks are in a bad spot.

What's difficult about this is that the winds can change almost overnight. The Blackhawks were working with the approval of local Native groups, until all of a sudden they weren't. That can just as easily happen with any of these other organizations.

This is what happened with Holtby's mask design. At first, the majority of people were supportive of his mask design paying tribute to First Nation culture. Then, once the leaders started making a fuss, they all came out against him. He got told he had to redesign the mask and pay a indigenous designer to do-so.
Frankly, we all know the score with this kind of stuff. We're not supposed to say what the deal is openly but I think the majority of people are strongly against changing names (besides perhaps the Redskins). As someone who has known many people on reservations in both the US and Canada, I can tell you this is likely near the bottom of their concerns and issues they have to deal with. But, nowadays it's all about people getting upset on behalf of other people. Dangerous slippery slope that cancel culture has become, to the point people tried to cancel Baby Yoda.
It's all a massive farce in my eyes. Anybody can appropriate anything in this modern world. It's all a fear-driven movement.

 

[Web In Front]

Press X to Doubt

If enough corporate sponsors, or even just a few significant ones, express concern over being associated with the logo they'll change it. What fans or the general public think really doesn't matter.

 

[Albatros]

Frankly, we all know the score with this kind of stuff. We're not supposed to say what the deal is openly but I think the majority of people are strongly against changing names (besides perhaps the Redskins).

What does it tell about this alleged majority that they are only interested in preserving the controversial names and symbols, but could not care less when one of the unproblematic names or logos gets changed?

 

[hanshin44]

What does it tell about this alleged majority that they are only interested in preserving the controversial names and symbols, but could not care less when one of the unproblematic names or logos gets changed?

"but could not care less when one of the unproblematic names or logos gets changed?"
Anything is problematic if you find reason enough. And I actually don't understand what you're saying. Not many teams have changed their names over the years in the four major leagues, unless they relocate. That's a different argument. I don't exactly know what you're even trying to argue tbh. You might have something specific in mind, so please feel free to throw that out there.

 

[TheLegend]

There's a substantial argument to be made that appropriating Native art to sell branded corporate merchandise, especially in an enterprise that has zero Native ownership, is just as trivializing and derogatory as doing the exact same thing with a nickname.

I don't necessarily agree with where that argument is leading, but the internal logic is the same in both cases.

Appropriating is a subjective subject.

If one directly copies or altars an actual artwork is one thing. Creating entirely new artwork based upon taking cues from existing work is a completely different animal.

Not sure the latter is a rabbit hole anyone would want to go down because it opens up a whole different set of problems.

 

[GordonGecko]

Anything is problematic if you find reason enough

This is truth, and an even bigger truth is that it's OK for some things to be problematic in life. It's ok to be offended and let something be, the world goes on

You can't just sanitize existence, it's pure madness and futility.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Appropriating is a subjective subject.

If one directly copies or altars an actual artwork is one thing. Creating entirely new artwork based upon taking cues from existing work is a completely different animal.

Not sure the latter is a rabbit hole anyone would want to go down because it opens up a whole different set of problems.

Like I said, I find the argument problematic.

But it is the natural conclusion of the “stop all appropriation of Native imagery” campaign.

 

[Acesolid]

I think unfortunately the conclusion we should take from these recent problems is that the path of least resistence is the complete erasure and purge of any trace of referencing or mentioning First Nations in our culture because it'll cause problem from those who consider it "appropriation".

And in my opinion that's strange.

 

[HolyCrap]

Vancouver will be next. It’s getting sorta crazy. Just name each team the Cities hockey club and be done with it. Sad times we live in.
Canadian Indigenous historian urges Canucks to retire 'orca' logo

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Vancouver will be next. It’s getting sorta crazy. Just name each team the Cities hockey club and be done with it. Sad times we live in.
Canadian Indigenous historian urges Canucks to retire 'orca' logo

The sooner SJW culture dies off, the better.

 

[canuckster19]

I think unfortunately the conclusion we should take from these recent problems is that the path of least resistence is the complete erasure and purge of any trace of referencing or mentioning First Nations in our culture because it'll cause problem from those who consider it "appropriation".

And in my opinion that's strange.

That’s exactly what will happen, we’ll slowly sink back into mono-culturalism grey and bland with no historical identity, which is exactly what is wanted from well, I’m not going to continue down that path.

 

[Albatros]

Rather the identity of the First Nations does not belong to the colonizers and their offspring, never did.

 

[FMichael]

Rather the identity of the First Nations does not belong to the colonizers and their offspring, never did.

But that is the true bitch of it all...The winners take everything and write history whereas the losers get nothing.

 

[WingsMJN2965]

Rather the identity of the First Nations does not belong to the colonizers and their offspring, never did.

It'll soon belong to nobody.

 

[Jacob]

Rather the identity of the First Nations does not belong to the colonizers and their offspring, never did.

Where is the line between colonizer and immigrant? Is the Asian community in Vancouver colonizers and descendants of them?

but could not care less when one of the unproblematic names or logos gets changed?

Example?

 

[Acesolid]

Rather the identity of the First Nations does not belong to the colonizers and their offspring, never did.

Except cultural exchange has been the way of things since the beginning of history.

Most people who today call themselves Macedonians are actually mostly of Slavic descent... and yet they moved many years ago to the region and mixed with the old Macedonians.

The Franks took over Roman Gaul and made it France. The Angles and the Saxons pushed most original Britons to Wales and formed England. The original legend of "King Arthur" is what today we would call Welsh, and mostly fighting against the people we would now call the english! And yet the english "appropriate" that legend and identity.

Complete segregation of identity and culture is an absurd (and racist) concept. And enforcing it makes little sense. And will only lead to the further marginalization of First Nations.

The solution is Interculturalism: cross-cultural dialogue and challenging segregational tendencies within cultures. Segregationist multiculturalism is a MISTAKE. And the way it's pushed today is highly damaging.

 

[Albatros]

Except cultural exchange has been the way of things since the beginning of history.

Most people who today call themselves Macedonians are actually mostly of Slavic descent... and yet they moved many years ago to the region and mixed with the old Macedonians.

The Franks took over Roman Gaul and made it France. The Angles and the Saxons pushed most original Britons to Wales and formed England. The original legend of "King Arthur" is what today we would call Welsh, and mostly fighting against the people we would now call the english! And yet the english "appropriate" that legend and identity.

Complete segregation of identity and culture is an absurd (and racist) concept. And enforcing it makes little sense. And will only lead to the further marginalization of First Nations.

And reciprocal cultural exchange between equals should be welcomed, absolutely. Unfortunately the relationship between the First Nations and the colonizers has always been unequal and defined by exploitation.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think unfortunately the conclusion we should take from these recent problems is that the path of least resistence is the complete erasure and purge of any trace of referencing or mentioning First Nations in our culture because it'll cause problem from those who consider it "appropriation".

And in my opinion that's strange.

I disagree that the natural conclusion is erasure of First Nations from the general culture. If anything, this movement is geared toward the opposite -- strong support for visibility and awareness. They are specifically opposed to erasure.

Needless to say, per my posts in this thread, I do agree that the "no appropriation" argument ends in erasure of non-white cultures (but not white cultures) from the visible branding of sports. This most recent development around the Canucks is exactly what I feared when I wrote those posts earlier this week.

 

[mouser]

I've always found the "cultural appropriation" arguments illogical. As if "culture" is a finite resource where any growth and adoption of "culture" by one group must be offset by a decline of that "culture" in another group.

Chicago appropriately banned wearing headdresses to their games not because they were "cultural appropriation", but rather because the headdresses were disrespectful and insensitive to the native community.

 

[GordonGecko]

I've always found the "cultural appropriation" arguments illogical

It's also self defeating and inconsistent. The whole purpose of diversity used to be to get a range of viewpoints to discover new ways of doing things, i.e. cultural appropriation was the goal. Now "diversity" as understood by the woke means lots of people who are superficially different but think exactly the same way. Welcome to 2020

 

[Yukon Joe]

Cultural appropriation is not the argument that was used against the Washington Football Club, or the Cleveland Baseball Team. There the argument is a little more basic and understandable - that you shouldn't use an entire group or race of people as mascots - that it's disrespectful.

Now cultural appropriation is different. It's frequently done with great respect - the Canucks logo, or the Seattle Seahawks logo, show respect for the first nations heritage of their area. But what cultural appropriation goes to is who gets to benefit, or profit, from First Nations culture. The argument is that only people of First Nations heritage should benefit or get paid for artwork coming from First Nations culture.

Justin Trudeau has a tattoo of a haida Raven based on a painting by a Haida artist - but the artist didn't give permission, and the tattoo artist wasn't First Nations. Therefore he's been accused of cultural appropriation, even though Trudeau clearly meant the tattoo to show respect to First Nations.

Personally, I feel like there is "something" there, but I don't fully buy cultural appropriation as a "wrong".

 

[Lt Dan]

Cultural appropriation is not the argument that was used against the Washington Football Club, or the Cleveland Baseball Team. There the argument is a little more basic and understandable - that you shouldn't use an entire group or race of people as mascots - that it's disrespectful.

Now cultural appropriation is different. It's frequently done with great respect - the Canucks logo, or the Seattle Seahawks logo, show respect for the first nations heritage of their area. But what cultural appropriation goes to is who gets to benefit, or profit, from First Nations culture. The argument is that only people of First Nations heritage should benefit or get paid for artwork coming from First Nations culture.

Justin Trudeau has a tattoo of a haida Raven based on a painting by a Haida artist - but the artist didn't give permission, and the tattoo artist wasn't First Nations. Therefore he's been accused of cultural appropriation, even though Trudeau clearly meant the tattoo to show respect to First Nations.

Personally, I feel like there is "something" there, but I don't fully buy cultural appropriation as a "wrong".

The Seahawk name is honoring the Osprey (called Seahawks in the area) that were nearly wiped in the 1970s .
They were named in a fan contest , the name was nominated hoping to bring awareness to their depleting numbers

 

[Yukon Joe]

The Seahawk name is honoring the Osprey (called Seahawks in the area) that were nearly wiped in the 1970s .
They were named in a fan contest , the name was nominated hoping to bring awareness to their depleting numbers

I'm talking about the logo, which is obviously inspired by coastal First Nations art.

 

[Burke the Legend]

First nations peoples I guess have to make a choice on whether they want their cultures to be relevant and mushed up, or pristine but less relevant. Reality is mainstream culture has long taken bits of trendy and interesting subculture and elevated it to greater popular circulation and exposure, but during this "appropriation" process it will become diluted and used in vulgar, low brow mediums like cheesy pop songs, mass market movies, crude childrens' comics/cartoons, sports team iconography, etc. This is not limited to racial culture but also all kinds of subcultures, art, cuisine, music, cuisine, and other niche. When a culture gets recognized and elevated in the public sphere its purity and authenticity will take a beating, but it will have exposure and more people who are inclined will learn more about the authentic side of it, people who wouldn't of it they hadn't had basic exposure. It's hard to imagine there being much long term appeal in this (undemocratic) idea that certain racial cultures are to be widely beheld and admired in the broad public sphere, but never touched by inspired artists, cooks, sportsmen, craftsmen, musicians, etc. unless they hold the proper (poorly defined) purity licensing.

At the way things are trending, the puritans seem to be winning and are successfully purging First Nations references from some of the most prominent popular venues around. Is the future then that their culture will be displayed only on poorly rated public broadcasting channels, sections of museums, and sparsely attended ceremony events? It could be geniunely considered a victory for this faction, others with an opposing viewpoint might disagree, and it could even lead to long term disinterest amongst people with that heritage. From polls I've read it seems most First nations' people are pretty split on the issue, but the puritans tend to be louder as they gain a sort of prestige currency from denounciations, which carries weight in certain lucrative academic, political and media circles. So these highly motivated activist climbers seem to carry the day over more easy going types.