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

[Yukon Joe]

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.

U of Illinois has done away with any native imagery for their sports team.

In the case of the Seminoles and Utes though, FSU and Utah actually have signed agreements with the Seminole and Ute tribes allowing both universities to use the name, and have put some conditions on their use. That's the only reason the NCAA allows those schools to keep those names (lots of other NCAA schools had to change away from Indigenous-inspired team names).

That's what the Blackhawks ahd attempted to do by affiliating themselves with the American Indian Centre based in Chicago - but that group has abandoned it's affiliation with the Blackhawks over the name and logo controversy.

 

[Captain Bowie]

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 simple answer is probably people/races/cultures shouldn't be sports/school mascots.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The simple answer is probably people/races/cultures shouldn't be sports/school mascots.

That definitely is one option.

But then I wonder... what’s the NHL without the Montreal Canadiens? Is the NHL better that way? Is Montreal better that way? Who does this help?

 

[Captain Bowie]

That definitely is one option.

But then I wonder... what’s the NHL without the Montreal Canadiens? Is the NHL better that way? Is Montreal better that way? Who does this help?

Given the context and history of the name, and lack of a logo depicting a human I don't think there's any issue there to worry about.

 

[BudBundy]

The Blackhawks name is literally a tribute and the logo is somewhat stylized but is in no way cartoonish. This isn’t chief Wahoo we are talking about, nor is the name as crass as the Washington Redskins. They should absolutely keep the name and the logo and if people don’t know or don’t care that the name is in honour of Chief Black Hawk and is 100% complimentary in nature, then they are simply lacking in common sense and good judgement. Manufactured outrage.

 

[MeHateHe]

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.

It isn't the "default human" but it is the dominant culture. 'Our' culture (to the extent that the broad mix has any homogeneity) is represented in our iconography. Professional sports, when they include non-cartoony logos at all, reflect the culture on which they're based. Given that our professional sports came of age through the latter half of the 20th century, when North America was very, very white, it's completely understandable that logos that included people would represent those people as white.

Your point is apt, however, in that iconography that is exclusively white will make non-white fans wonder if they belong as part of the fan base, and I'd say that teams that are developing imagery would be well advised to avoid using any race whatsoever, for precisely that reason.

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.
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.

Okay, but if the Indigenous nations don't want to participate, we can't browbeat them into participating. Here in BC, we have a hodgepodge. There are 203 distinct groups (some are nations, some are tribal councils, some are loose affiliations of relatively closely related nations) and except for portions of the north east and parts of Vancouver Island, there were no treaties at all until the 1990s. A handful of treaties have been signed since, but the vast majority of the landbase is essentially unceded lands. It's a mess. When it comes to economic development, some of the nations have either developed or acquired the wherewithal to do their own work. For example, the three nations whose traditional territory is where Vancouver is are incredibly wealthy. They own a huge outlet mall near the ferry terminal and are currently working on a 2,000-home development in some of the most expensive land in the region. I mean to say, they have money and political power. Other nations are smaller but have used court decisions to remind mining companies that there is a constitutional obligation to get First Nations on side before digging any holes; there are a couple of nations in the northwest where there are lots of gold and copper mines and the nation not only has about 40 per cent of the work force, they take profits from the mines. Other nations are tiny and aren't sure how to exploit what they have. Still others have told governments and corporations to take a hike - and the Supreme Court has said they have that right.

For us to say to First Nations that their interests would be better served if they did X, Y, or Z is seen as patronizing. And I will tell you it most often backfires. If you want First Nations involvement, you have to go to them as a first step, not several steps down the road. If you approach them as full partners, you have a chance. If you go and tell them that something is in their best interest, you will probably get shown the door. So, if a First Nation wants to come up with imagery for something that they have an ownership in and that imagery includes Indigenous things, that's something completely apart from a hockey team that has been around for 100 years going to a local tribe and saying 'well, we've been using this Indian head for most of our existence, are you okay with that?'

 

[BKIslandersFan]

The Blackhawks name is literally a tribute and the logo is somewhat stylized but is in no way cartoonish. This isn’t chief Wahoo we are talking about, nor is the name as crass as the Washington Redskins. They should absolutely keep the name and the logo and if people don’t know or don’t care that the name is in honour of Chief Black Hawk and is 100% complimentary in nature, then they are simply lacking in common sense and good judgement. Manufactured outrage.

Tribute to who? Its not for Native Americans, thats for sure.

 

[BudBundy]

Tribute to who? Its not for Native Americans, thats for sure.

It is literally a tribute to one man, Chief Black Hawk, who was deeply admired to the point of having a military unit in the US army named after him. A case can be made against the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians, and I have zero sympathy for the Washington Redskins. But yes, the Blackhawks are absolutely a tribute to one particular Native American person. That’s for sure.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Given the context and history of the name, and lack of a logo depicting a human I don't think there's any issue there to worry about.

The context of the name is a marketing scheme. I don’t see how that’s much better. Canadiens is, quite literally, a racist name. Should it be changed and replaced with something inoffensively generic?

To shift the question to one that does have a logo — you’re saying Johnny Canuck should be mothballed forever?

I realize these are straw men, but in all seriousness that’s where this conversation is going. People are already calling on Notre Dame to change its mascot, and that is 100% parallel to Canadiens.

It isn't the "default human" but it is the dominant culture. 'Our' culture (to the extent that the broad mix has any homogeneity) is represented in our iconography. Professional sports, when they include non-cartoony logos at all, reflect the culture on which they're based. Given that our professional sports came of age through the latter half of the 20th century, when North America was very, very white, it's completely understandable that logos that included people would represent those people as white.

Your point is apt, however, in that iconography that is exclusively white will make non-white fans wonder if they belong as part of the fan base, and I'd say that teams that are developing imagery would be well advised to avoid using any race whatsoever, for precisely that reason.

I’m sure that will be the case with teams developing imagery going forward.

The question right now is one of purging imagery that already exists. Is the image of a white Ottawa Senator actually OK? Because it definitely is an example of a white ethno-centric norm. Hell, when you come down to it, the name itself is an imperial reference. How the heck do we fix that?

Okay, but if the Indigenous nations don't want to participate, we can't browbeat them into participating.

I really don’t think anyone is being browbeaten into participating. Based on the article, it sounds like the relationship between the AIC and the Blackhawks was going in a highly cooperative direction until a new leader abruptly ended the conversation.

Does the CEO of the AIC represent a majority opinion among the Sauk tribe? Does she represent the best interests of the Sauk? I have no idea, but based on the article it appears that the relationship turned on one individual who was energized by a different argument about a different franchise in a different sport. Far from being browbeaten, the tribe likely has not had any direct voice at all in this conversation.

For us to say to First Nations that their interests would be better served if they did X, Y, or Z is seen as patronizing. And I will tell you it most often backfires. If you want First Nations involvement, you have to go to them as a first step, not several steps down the road. If you approach them as full partners, you have a chance. If you go and tell them that something is in their best interest, you will probably get shown the door. So, if a First Nation wants to come up with imagery for something that they have an ownership in and that imagery includes Indigenous things, that's something completely apart from a hockey team that has been around for 100 years going to a local tribe and saying 'well, we've been using this Indian head for most of our existence, are you okay with that?'

I am 100% arguing for the tribe to have an active role in whatever the logo turns out to be. It’s not about preserving the logo as-is, but about preserving the opportunity for a tribe — and people of color in general — to actually be represented rather than whitewashed out of sight and mind.

Per your comments on the role of Indigenous tribes in BC, there’s a stark difference between the political power of tribes on either side of the border. American tribes have vanishingly little access to mainstream media, outside of these sports brands. If they lose this opportunity, there won’t be another one to replace it.

It shouldn’t be that way, but it is that way.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Canadiens is, quite literally, a racist name. .

How so??

As for Johnny Canuck, I love the logo. But it does not depict a race or culture of people. If anything, it depicts a profession which I don't hear any actual lumberjacks getting offended by it.

 

[MeHateHe]

Canadiens is, quite literally, a racist name.

It most assuredly is not.

 

[tarheelhockey]

How so??

As for Johnny Canuck, I love the logo. But it does not depict a race or culture of people. If anything, it depicts a profession which I don't hear any actual lumberjacks getting offended by it.

It most assuredly is not.

Canadiens was conceived as a way of marketing a commercial product to French Canadians who were absolutely considered racially distinct from Anglos at that time.

Johnny Canuck portrays a stereotypical version of a Canadian. Notably, that stereotypical Canadian is extremely white. Portraying it as a “professional” mascot is an interesting turn, considering it is without question a national personification.

Take a step back and ask yourself why you don’t see the racial or cultural side of what are obviously racially/culturally-based mascots.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Canadiens was conceived as a way of marketing a commercial product to French Canadians who were absolutely considered racially distinct from Anglos at that time.

Even so, that makes the name"Canadiens" racist how?

 

[MeHateHe]

Canadiens was conceived as a way of marketing a commercial product to French Canadians who were absolutely considered racially distinct from Anglos at that time.

Johnny Canuck portrays a stereotypical version of a Canadian. Notably, that stereotypical Canadian is extremely white. Portraying it as a “professional” mascot is an interesting turn, considering it is without question a national personification.

Take a step back and ask yourself why you don’t see the racial or cultural side of what are obviously racially/culturally-based mascots.

Race-based =/= racism.

Racism has three components
1) yes, based on race or ethnicity
2) derogatory
3) exacerbates power imbalances.

“Canadiens” and the Johnny Canuck stereotype meet one of those.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Johnny Canuck portrays a stereotypical version of a Canadian. Notably, that stereotypical Canadian is extremely white. Portraying it as a “professional” mascot is an interesting turn, considering it is without question a national personification.

Take a step back and ask yourself why you don’t see the racial or cultural side of what are obviously racially/culturally-based mascots.

No, Johnny Canuck is a lumberjack. Maybe not the original political cartoon version, but the Canucks version.

What exactly are you accusing me of here?

 

[cutchemist42]

I think a lot of times I judge these issues by imagining if an expansion team would go the Blackhawks/Redskins/Indians route starting out fresh in 2022.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Jordan Tootoo's response to similar issue

They could call them the Edmonton Elks.

 

[cutchemist42]

They could call them the Edmonton Elks.

I expect they become the Elks or Empire by the end of the month. Remind me.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Canadiens is, quite literally, a racist name

Your intentions may be good, but this is such a ridiculous and inaccurate statement it can't be allowed to pass.

The Montréal Canadiens name comes from the club's official name, le Club de hockey Canadien. That literally means the Canadian Hockey Club. It's literally a statement of what they are. They are a hockey club. They are in Canada. They are the Canadian Hockey Club. They are still referred to as Le Canadien in the singular, much more common than the plural Les Canadiens. It is literally the equivalent of calling a team The Americans. The terms Les Habitants may be a big more of the marketing towards French-Canadians, but throw out any of these notions you have towards the Montréal Canadiens name because they are embarrassingly incorrect. You know what a Canadian is? Literally the dictionary definition of someone from Canada. That is all it is. I know a statement of nationality and racism may seem fairly similar to you, but they are not even close to the same thing.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Even so, that makes the name"Canadiens" racist how?

Race-based =/= racism.

Racism has three components
1) yes, based on race or ethnicity
2) derogatory
3) exacerbates power imbalances.

“Canadiens” and the Johnny Canuck stereotype meet one of those.

@Art of Sedinery, you said just a few posts up that “people/races/cultures shouldn't be sports/school mascots”. There is no question that both Canadiens and Johnny Canuck fit into the categories of “people/races/cultures”.

Yet when I proposed they should be removed like all the others you just suggested we get rid of, you were immediately willing to make exceptions for these two, because you personally don’t feel a racially offensive context behind them.

This clash in reasoning is identical to the Native Americans in the Athletic article saying they don’t see the Blackhawks logo as problematic, and an activist coming along to overrule their point of view with a sweeping statement that ALL such logos need to be ditched, period, bar none. The lack of room for context and nuance leads to problematic conclusions. Such as cutting off the organizational partnership that had been providing benefits for the tribe.

Do I actually think Canadiens is problematic? No. But then why would Celtics be problematic? Why would a non-caricatured image of a Native American be problematic? These cases are clearly different than Chief Wahoo or Redskins, in context.

Your intentions may be good, but this is such a ridiculous and inaccurate statement it can't be allowed to pass.

The Montréal Canadiens name comes from the club's official name, le Club de hockey Canadien. That literally means the Canadian Hockey Club. It's literally a statement of what they are. They are a hockey club. They are in Canada. They are the Canadian Hockey Club. They are still referred to as Le Canadien in the singular, much more common than the plural Les Canadiens. It is literally the equivalent of calling a team The Americans. The terms Les Habitants may be a big more of the marketing towards French-Canadians, but throw out any of these notions you have towards the Montréal Canadiens name because they are embarrassingly incorrect. You know what a Canadian is? Literally the dictionary definition of someone from Canada. That is all it is. I know a statement of nationality and racism may seem fairly similar to you, but they are not even close to the same thing.

Side discussion, but Les Canadiens were founded by an Irishman and then sold to an Anglo who entered them into the NHA/NHL. The use of the French “e” was much more self-conscious than you’re making it seem here. It was very much a deliberate attempt to cast the organization as ethnically distinct from the other Montreal team of the time — the Shamrocks, also ethnically named. Later it stood in contrast to the Maroons, self-consciously chosen to represent Anglo Montreal for marketing purposes.

Casting all of this as a statement of unified Canadian nationality is anachronistic, given the ethnic politics of the era. All of this was happening concurrent to the events that led up to the Conscription Crisis. The distinction between Anglo and Franco was very sharply felt at that time. The “e” meant something, and if that wasn’t clear enough, the Habitants nickname drove it home.

 

[DoyleG]

I expect they become the Elks or Empire by the end of the month. Remind me.

Or simply Esks or Eskies.

As most fans call them now.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Or simply Esks or Eskies.

As most fans call them now.

Esks or Eskies is from Eskimos. Calling them Esks or Eskies completely defeats the purpose of name change.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Side discussion, but Les Canadiens were founded by an Irishman and then sold to an Anglo who entered them into the NHA/NHL. The use of the French “e” was much more self-conscious than you’re making it seem here. It was very much a deliberate attempt to cast the organization as ethnically distinct from the other Montreal team of the time — the Shamrocks, also ethnically named. Later it stood in contrast to the Maroons, self-consciously chosen to represent Anglo Montreal for marketing purposes.

Casting all of this as a statement of unified Canadian nationality is anachronistic, given the ethnic politics of the era. All of this was happening concurrent to the events that led up to the Conscription Crisis. The distinction between Anglo and Franco was very sharply felt at that time. The “e” meant something, and if that wasn’t clear enough, the Habitants nickname drove it

I suggest you read the background on the name. If you think that the name of a nationality is racist, regardless of whatever entirely incorrect and misconceived notions you have about the reason it was chosen, then God help you. The name of the Canadian national team is racist then. It is literally the dictionary definition of someone from Canada. It is the French spelling of someone from Canada. They played in the French area of the city, of course it is going to be a French name. It isn’t racist. You’re intentions may be good here, but they’re absolutely misguided and ridiculous. And all national teams have to change their names then, because they imply some sort of national identity. The only non-racist hockey team name at the last Olympics was “Athletes from Russia” based off your logic here. Because using your logic of “it obviously wasn’t meant for all people of that nationality” means that there are obviously people of mixed descent who aren’t German or Russian so therefore it is racist. That is friggin insanity.

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

Side discussion, but Les Canadiens were founded by an Irishman and then sold to an Anglo who entered them into the NHA/NHL. The use of the French “e” was much more self-conscious than you’re making it seem here. It was very much a deliberate attempt to cast the organization as ethnically distinct from the other Montreal team of the time — the Shamrocks, also ethnically named. Later it stood in contrast to the Maroons, self-consciously chosen to represent Anglo Montreal for marketing purposes.

Casting all of this as a statement of unified Canadian nationality is anachronistic, given the ethnic politics of the era. All of this was happening concurrent to the events that led up to the Conscription Crisis. The distinction between Anglo and Franco was very sharply felt at that time. The “e” meant something, and if that wasn’t clear enough, the Habitants nickname drove it home.

In addition, if you truly knew anything on the subject or Québec history you would know that the national identity is Canadiens/Canadians. French-Canadians or Quebeckers at that time didn't identify as Canadiens/Canadians, they identified as a different group. They identified as people from Québec/Québecois. You do understand the difference between an American and a New Englander, right? If people in Texas wanted to start their own country, they would call it Texas and not America but with spelled in their own accent.

People didn't love the name since it insinuated it was the team for the unified country, at a time when Québec sovereignty was a fairly popular idea. I appreciate what you're doing but you are entirely incorrect. A statement of what country you are from is not racist, neither is their reason behind saying it. Nowhere in even the most mentally-challenged mind is it something that even resembles racism.

 

[MeHateHe]

@Art of Sedinery, you said just a few posts up that “people/races/cultures shouldn't be sports/school mascots”. There is no question that both Canadiens and Johnny Canuck fit into the categories of “people/races/cultures”.
.

No, I said that Indigenous people don’t want to be mascots for our teams. Huge, huge difference. When Minnesota, which is filled with people from Scandinavia, named its football club the Vikings, it made a lot of sense. It reflected the culture of the people represented by the club. Indigenous groups are repeatedly saying, irrespective of the intent, that our sports clubs don’t represent them. You continue to argue that that is a missed opportunity, but that is absolutely their right.