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

[tarheelhockey]

Have you read the Athletic piece? I think the person from the American Indian Center makes some compelling points?

I did read it. In regard to the points made by the AIC and others, yes and no. I think the distinction in impact between naming a university vs naming a sports team is a great point. The idea that logos limit the way people see themselves is intriguing.

Certain other comments in the article are troubling. It seems that some of it comes from the context of blatantly racist logos existing... the organizations pushing against those obviously-awful images appear to have taken the position that ALL depictions of and references to Native people should be removed. I understand the distrust, but the hard line position is problematic as not all of those images are actually racist in nature.

What's really disappointing is that the AIC and the Blackhawks appeared to have built a partnership that could address this subject in a positive and uplifting way, and that partnership was cancelled by the hardliners. I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish. Say the organization decides to go with a non-Native interpretation of the name... say, an image of an artillery gunner or something. That means no more Black Hawk bio on the website, no more educational outreach, no more inviting musical performances. Here's this incredible brand, an image that is widely viewed as aesthetically beautiful, a sold-out 20000 seat arena, a team that regularly performs on international television, the opportunity to generate sustainable financial support for cultural organizations... and now that platform is gone. I just don't see that as a "win" for advancing the cause.

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.

I appreciate your sharing that experience. And yes, this is definitely a regional issue in many ways. My perspective comes from North Carolina, where the Native population was all but eradicated hundreds of years ago. The few who remain are just barely hanging on. In my part of the country, we have one or two organizations struggling just to preserve the Cherokee language. If they're mentioned at all, it's usually in the context of a casino trip. We have the Lumbee trying simply to be recognized as a tribe by the government because the links to their heritage were obscured so severely. We have 10,000 places named in their language and yet you could live an entire lifetime in those places without ever seeing an actual Native American in the flesh.

In that context, visibility is a big deal. These people have very little platform to advocate for themselves. The Carolina Hurricanes are a pretty progressive organization... they have a frontrunning Pride Night, and I have absolutely no doubt that they are going to have a big Black History Month celebration at the next opportunity (given what's happened recently). Not even a peep about the idea of celebrating Native American history. And that silence isn't weird, because it's in parallel with the general cultural view of those tribes. They're off in the hills somewhere, out of sight and mind.

FWIW, just to share some of my perspective, I do have family ties to the Choctaw tribe and my Facebook feed occasionally pops up a video of cousins at one of their cultural celebrations. I am not going to pretend this hits close to home for me, because honestly I'm just a white guy by any reasonable definition, but I do want to share that this isn't entirely "us and them" for me.

 

[FirstRowUpperDeck]

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

Ah, the unintended consequences of it all. I'm white, so I have no moral authority to tell others what to do, so I won't. In reality, this is just seems to be another symbolic gesture to minorities in this county, not any real change. I think if I was a minority, I would focus my attention on real issues, like poverty and alcoholism in native populations, among others.

I do think if we really look back, the only constant in this country is change, and whatever happens, it will turn out......... somehow! Probably for the better or about neutral, and at some point, we will forget what the original team names were. If we like watching hockey, does it really matter so much we get our undies in a wad?

 

[MeHateHe]

What's really disappointing is that the AIC and the Blackhawks appeared to have built a partnership that could address this subject in a positive and uplifting way, and that partnership was cancelled by the hardliners. I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish. Say the organization decides to go with a non-Native interpretation of the name... say, an image of an artillery gunner or something. That means no more Black Hawk bio on the website, no more educational outreach, no more inviting musical performances. Here's this incredible brand, an image that is widely viewed as aesthetically beautiful, a sold-out 20000 seat arena, a team that regularly performs on international television, the opportunity to generate sustainable financial support for cultural organizations... and now that platform is gone. I just don't see that as a "win" for advancing the cause.

This is all fair. I want a better relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous in this country. And because I'm of a certain age, I grew up in the 'sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones' era, and I would like people to be a little less fussed by the specific words they hear and more eager to actually hear what people are trying to say to each other.

However, I'm just a tourist on this issue. Personal perspective matters: just because I've been to Beaufort doesn't mean I know what North Carolinians really feel. Your perspective will always be more relevant than mine on that score. And given that Indigenous people on this hemisphere have faced systemic discrimination pretty much universally since contact, their perspective on their experience of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous will always carry more weight. Moreover, they have the right to change their minds. Do I wish people of divergent views always agreed with me? I do. But I have to respect their prerogative to have a different view.

I appreciate your sharing that experience. And yes, this is definitely a regional issue in many ways. My perspective comes from North Carolina, where the Native population was all but eradicated hundreds of years ago. The few who remain are just barely hanging on. In my part of the country, we have one or two organizations struggling just to preserve the Cherokee language. If they're mentioned at all, it's usually in the context of a casino trip. We have the Lumbee trying simply to be recognized as a tribe by the government because the links to their heritage were obscured so severely. We have 10,000 places named in their language and yet you could live an entire lifetime in those places without ever seeing an actual Native American in the flesh.

In that context, visibility is a big deal. These people have very little platform to advocate for themselves. The Carolina Hurricanes are a pretty progressive organization... they have a frontrunning Pride Night, and I have absolutely no doubt that they are going to have a big Black History Month celebration at the next opportunity (given what's happened recently). Not even a peep about the idea of celebrating Native American history. And that silence isn't weird, because it's in parallel with the general cultural view of those tribes. They're off in the hills somewhere, out of sight and mind.

I don't think propagating imagery that is at best incomplete and at worst derogatory (talking about the range of Blackhawks to Chief Wahoo, for example) is a good way of ensuring the viability of Indigenous people. Here in BC, the provincial government has committed to putting public money into teaching Indigenous languages, of which there are a couple dozen here. I agree that supporting Indigenous culture is important, but it needs to be intentional and done in full collaboration with the nations involved.

FWIW, just to share some of my perspective, I do have family ties to the Choctaw tribe and my Facebook feed occasionally pops up a video of cousins at one of their cultural celebrations. I am not going to pretend this hits close to home for me, because honestly I'm just a white guy by any reasonable definition, but I do want to share that this isn't entirely "us and them" for me.

I appreciate the considered response and respect that you're drawing on your personal experiences. One of the reasons these discussions are happening here is that Indigenous populations are growing quickly. Depending on the nation, in BC, the average age of Indigenous persons ranges from 26-34. They're politically active. They're unhappy that their voices and the voices of their forebears have been ignored. I think ignoring that unrest is unwise.

ETA: Coincidentally, although only slightly related, one of the Junior B clubs in the region (Junior B is still a thing in BC) announced today it was going to change its name.

Island hockey club takes lead on name change amid international conversation on race

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

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

If you really are buying the sincerity of all the white warriors......yikes. Sure some are, but majority of them are bored and want to feel like better people. People in general I don't have much hope for.

 

[joelef]

why is the fighting irish ok then? or Gaels?

 

[Yukon Joe]

why is the fighting irish ok then? or Gaels?

Because no one of irish heritage has complained.

 

[alko]

What about White Sox?

 

[mikemar1]

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.

This!

 

[Yukon Joe]

What's really disappointing is that the AIC and the Blackhawks appeared to have built a partnership that could address this subject in a positive and uplifting way, and that partnership was cancelled by the hardliners. I'm not sure what that's supposed to accomplish. Say the organization decides to go with a non-Native interpretation of the name... say, an image of an artillery gunner or something. That means no more Black Hawk bio on the website, no more educational outreach, no more inviting musical performances. Here's this incredible brand, an image that is widely viewed as aesthetically beautiful, a sold-out 20000 seat arena, a team that regularly performs on international television, the opportunity to generate sustainable financial support for cultural organizations... and now that platform is gone. I just don't see that as a "win" for advancing the cause.

Why does any of that have to be predicated on the Blackhawks using an indigenous-inspired logo?

My team is the Jets. They do a big Indigenous-themed night every season, even though their name and logo has nothing to do with indigenous culture.

Winnipeg Jets celebrate Indigenous culture with WASAC Night on Feb. 16

 

[Merrrlin]

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.

That's a pretty sick logo. The Blackhaws current logo is iconic and I love it, but I also get why they should change it. Why even open the door to that kind of problem in sports?

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.

Anecdotes are a bit silly to use in discussions like these.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

The Blackhawks would be dumb to change it. One of the most recognizable names and logos in sports. The people offended are the kind of folks who wake up in the morning trying to find something to be offended by. Ignore them and they'll move on to the next thing eventually.

 

[Yukon Joe]

The Blackhawks would be dumb to change it. One of the most recognizable names and logos in sports. The people offended are the kind of folks who wake up in the morning trying to find something to be offended by. Ignore them and they'll move on to the next thing eventually.

Sports teams named after indigenous people, or using indigenous symbols or mascots, is not a new debate. It's been going on for 50 years or so. There's no reason to think the question of the Blackhawks logo is going to go away.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Sports teams named after indigenous people, or using indigenous symbols or mascots, is not a new debate. It's been going on for 50 years or so. There's no reason to think the question of the Blackhawks logo is going to go away.

It's been 'talked about' by the same cadre of activists forever and periodically comes up in public debate whenever this cadre of activists see an opening to push their agenda and some helpful hands in the media pick the issue up. We're in such a time frame right now. Sit tight, don't do anything rash and the Marxist professors will go back into their holes.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Why does any of that have to be predicated on the Blackhawks using an indigenous-inspired logo?

My team is the Jets. They do a big Indigenous-themed night every season, even though their name and logo has nothing to do with indigenous culture.

Winnipeg Jets celebrate Indigenous culture with WASAC Night on Feb. 16

Seeing as Indigenous population of Manitoba is larger than all other minority groups combined, that makes sense. You’re comparing a province with 17.5% Indigenous population to a state with 0.3%.

We can wish upon a star that every minority group will get its own moment in the spotlight, but the reality is that this doesn’t happen without a platform.

 

[LadyStanley]

Jordan Tootoo's response to similar issue

 

[Captain Bowie]

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.

Why is that a problem? Shouldn't we all be sensitive to these types of issues regardless of our race and the race of the people we feel being improperly depicted?

The origin of the name Blackhawks isn't the issue for most people I don't think. It's a logo that uses a caricature of a race of people that makes some uncomfortable. Which is a shame because the logo itself is aesthetically pleasing.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

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.

This should be the logo if they are forced to change it.

 

[Captain Bowie]

why is the fighting irish ok then? or Gaels?

Maybe it's not OK? Who or what are the Gaels?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

If you really are buying the sincerity of all the white warriors......yikes. Sure some are, but majority of them are bored and want to feel like better people. People in general I don't have much hope for.

So are you saying majority of white people are terrible people?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The origin of the name Blackhawks isn't the issue for most people I don't think. It's a logo that uses a caricature of a race of people that makes some uncomfortable. Which is a shame because the logo itself is aesthetically pleasing.

Dead serious question, sincerely not trying to lean into some sort of right-wing angle:

In what way is it an offensive caricature?

From my perspective, it's simply a generic profile image of a Native American man in war dress.

This is a plaster cast of the real-life Chief Black Hawk -- not a bust, but a cast taken from his actual head -- when he was in his 60s:

If you take that image in context of a typical Sauk man of the era:

Then the logo does actually appear to be a reasonable approximation of what Black Hawk would have looked like as a young man -- at least, to the same extent that the Patriots logo is an approximation of a Revolutionary War hero and the Senators logo is an approximation of a Roman warrior.

Are we calling it a caricature for no other reason than that it depicts a person of color? Or is there something I'm simply missing here? If so, is it something that could be tweaked without throwing away the entire image?

 

[Captain Bowie]

Dead serious question, sincerely not trying to lean into some sort of right-wing angle:

In what way is it an offensive caricature?

From my perspective, it's simply a generic profile image of a Native American man in war dress.

This is a plaster cast of the real-life Chief Black Hawk -- not a bust, but a cast taken from his actual head -- when he was in his 60s:

If you take that image in context of a typical Sauk man of the era:

Then the logo does actually appear to be a reasonable approximation of what Black Hawk would have looked like as a young man -- at least, to the same extent that the Patriots logo is an approximation of a Revolutionary War hero and the Senators logo is an approximation of a Roman warrior.

Are we calling it a caricature for no other reason than that it depicts a person of color? Or is there something I'm simply missing here? If so, is it something that could be tweaked without throwing away the entire image?

Might just be as simple as a difference of understanding of the word "caricature".

To me it highights or emphasizes the characteristics of a race that stand out as different from the majority. Things like the skin tone, the war paint, the head dress, ect.

As for your last question, sports logos that depict a race of people are just uncomfortable no matter how their done. I have a hard time imagining a logo representing a group of native peoples that is tastefully done.

 

[MeHateHe]

Dead serious question, sincerely not trying to lean into some sort of right-wing angle:

In what way is it an offensive caricature?

From my perspective, it's simply a generic profile image of a Native American man in war dress.

This is a plaster cast of the real-life Chief Black Hawk -- not a bust, but a cast taken from his actual head -- when he was in his 60s:

If you take that image in context of a typical Sauk man of the era:

Then the logo does actually appear to be a reasonable approximation of what Black Hawk would have looked like as a young man -- at least, to the same extent that the Patriots logo is an approximation of a Revolutionary War hero and the Senators logo is an approximation of a Roman warrior.

Are we calling it a caricature for no other reason than that it depicts a person of color? Or is there something I'm simply missing here? If so, is it something that could be tweaked without throwing away the entire image?

It isn't so much that it's a caricature as that some Indigenous people simply don't want to be seen as mascots, especially in a society that has treated them so shabbily. We might think we are honouring them for their strength or whatever, but when you have hundreds of years of history of being mistreated, lied to, double-dealt and, oh yes, killed, you might be reticent to have your heroes appropriated in this manner.

 

[Captain Bowie]

It isn't so much that it's a caricature as that some Indigenous people simply don't want to be seen as mascots, especially in a society that has treated them so shabbily. We might think we are honouring them for their strength or whatever, but when you have hundreds of years of history of being mistreated, lied to, double-dealt and, oh yes, killed, you might be reticent to have your heroes appropriated in this manner.

Well put. A better way to "honor" their strength and bravery, if that is really what they are trying to do, would be to have treated them as a people better then, and do more to help them regain what they've lost since.

 

[Juniorhockeyguru]

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

Social media has dumbed down most peoples intelligence, and don't do things for the right reasons, but all for likes. It's a cesspool and I always will question peoples true motives. Especially white peoples. (I am white).

Cleveland Indians should they change their name and mascot? Absolutely, should the Redskins change their name? Absolutely. Those are beyond insulting and can't believe changes weren't done a lot sooner.

The Blackhawks are not near as bad as the teams listed above. But their logo may need some tweaking as well as their mascot needing to be given the heave ho.

 

[tarheelhockey]

To me it highights or emphasizes the characteristics of a race that stand out as different from the majority. Things like the skin tone, the war paint, the head dress, ect.

As for your last question, sports logos that depict a race of people are just uncomfortable no matter how their done. I have a hard time imagining a logo representing a group of native peoples that is tastefully done.

The issue I see here is that logos representing white people are being interpreted as "not representing a race of people". White men are in the role of "default human", which is very highly problematic.

Unfortunately, unlike diversity in movies or commercials, this is not solvable by simply swapping a brown face onto the Patriot, Viking, or Senator. The root issue is a lack of diversity in the actual cultures being represented, and the only solution is to represent other cultures. Right now we are going in the opposite direction -- for the right reasons, for sure, but we do need to recognize the whitewashing that's about to happen. When we're standing here looking at a field of 100% white-normative logos, what's the next move? And is that next-move more plausible from where we are already standing right now?

The other option would be to eliminate human-based mascots altogether. I suppose opinions would vary, but that feels like a dystopian future to me.

It isn't so much that it's a caricature as that some Indigenous people simply don't want to be seen as mascots, especially in a society that has treated them so shabbily. We might think we are honouring them for their strength or whatever, but when you have hundreds of years of history of being mistreated, lied to, double-dealt and, oh yes, killed, you might be reticent to have your heroes appropriated in this manner.

Well put. A better way to "honor" their strength and bravery, if that is really what they are trying to do, would be to have treated them as a people better then, and do more to help them regain what they've lost since.

That's completely fair and to be clear, the Indigenous perspective really should be listened to. What I would suggest is that we play the long game when it comes to advancing their interests.

In most pro sports markets (the exceptions being the plains areas and PNW) we are talking about a fraction of 1% of the population. Such a small minority that it has virtually zero political or economic influence unless other demographics actively promote their cause. And in a few isolated cases -- Seminoles, Illini, Utes, Sauk -- these people have access to a mainstream platform that can be leveraged for mass-media awareness and financial support.

Eliminate those platforms, and what's left? Perhaps it eases a feeling of disrespect for some people in that community, but it also deals a blow to their ability to advocate for themselves. It cuts off funding streams, public appearances, the potential to attract more support. I don't think that's smart negotiation.

The ideal solution would be to promote the tribe's interests while also easing the sense of caricature or appropriation. IMO, if there is any possibility that this can happen through a re-design, that should be the first option on the table.