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.
NHL Chicago on team nickname re cultural/political changes UPD: bans costume headdresses
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
- Status
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.
BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,843
- 7,702
Haven’t hear back from you about Chief Black Hawk yet. Not willing to admit you were historically incorrect eh?
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
What's historically incorrect? I already knew they were named after an army regiment, who in turn was named after Chief Black Hawk.
See my other tweet noting how incredibly ridiculous it is to name anything related to US military when they were the ones who killed and chased Native Americans off their land.
BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,843
- 7,702
“See my other tweet”. Lol. You claimed the name was not a tribute and I stapled you on it. Not surprised you went quiet. Not to worry though. You’ve met your virtue signalling quotient for the day.
JaegerDice
The mark of my dignity shall scar thy DNA
- Dec 26, 2014
- 25,265
- 9,583
I wouldn't be shocked if they changed the logo within the next 10 years.
And honestly, as a fan, I wouldn't mind. Just keep the color scheme and make sure it looks good.
It's not like they're going to confiscate, burn or ban the old jerseys. They're not going to blur it out on archived footage. The history of the logo isn't going to be erased. They're just going to, inevitably IMO, move forward from it.
People are obviously resistant to change, especially when it comes to things they have an emotional attachment to. I sympathize with the fans who want the logo to stay the same forever (well, most of them... the f***wits that wear head-dresses to games or woop like stereotypical Indians can jump off a cliff), but I just don't think it's realistic in the long-term.
And honestly, as a fan, I wouldn't mind. Just keep the color scheme and make sure it looks good.
It's not like they're going to confiscate, burn or ban the old jerseys. They're not going to blur it out on archived footage. The history of the logo isn't going to be erased. They're just going to, inevitably IMO, move forward from it.
People are obviously resistant to change, especially when it comes to things they have an emotional attachment to. I sympathize with the fans who want the logo to stay the same forever (well, most of them... the f***wits that wear head-dresses to games or woop like stereotypical Indians can jump off a cliff), but I just don't think it's realistic in the long-term.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I asked tribute to WHO?
It was not a tribute to Native Americans in any shape or form.
BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,843
- 7,702
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
I never seen or heard that the Indigenous community have any issues with the Blackhawks, Chief or Indians names. They always complain about the Redskins name and rightfully so. It's an offensive term. Why would they get offended about the name Chief or Indians? I think those names are safe.
BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,843
- 7,702
Historically incorrect. If that were true, they would have a soldier on their jersey. Try again.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Major4Boarding
Unfamiliar Moderator
^^^
I'm not purposely trying to shame anyone, but help me understand where the disconnect is... or am I missing something. I'm open for open correcting if I am.
Black Hawk (Sauk Native American) > "Black Hawks" (333rd Machine Gun Battalion / 86th Infantry Division) > Chicago Blackhawks
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,552
- 4,974
Plus, they put a Native American in their logo, not an American infantryman from WWI.
EDIT: As already pointed out:
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,554
- 2,932
It's not an honour if the people being honoured don't feel, you know, honoured.
Let's say you have an ancestor who was a war hero. Some people whose ideals you don't support or who may actively work against your interests now want to put up some kind of monument to your ancestor. Would you think that was okay? Or would you think they were trying to co-opt your family's name and history? That they're saying that your ancestor is somehow on 'their' side - which, given that you feel that group is now fighting against your interests, means that they're using your ancestor against you.
Indigenous people have the right to own their own heritage. That means telling non-Indigenous people not to use their symbols and ancestors as mascots.
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Organization that massacred the Native Americans can't honor Native Americans...
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,552
- 4,974
And that's a more controversial case than the one at hand.
The Chicago Blackhawks are actively working against the interests of Native American people?
Disagree. Cultural phenomena don't belong to a certain group, even if they are the originator. There is no copyright law on cultural symbols and the pictures of historic people.
BudBundy
Registered User
- May 16, 2005
- 5,843
- 7,702
Given that he was part of that regiment, he clearly would’ve known the origin, and it is a picture of who on the front of the jersey again??
Major4Boarding
Unfamiliar Moderator
MeHateHe
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2006
- 2,554
- 2,932
Here's some actual academic research that is a bit better than a poorly done poll.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,552
- 4,974
Thanks for the link. That's indeed a more representative sample on the Washington question.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,552
- 4,974
BKIslandersFan
F*** off
Major4Boarding
Unfamiliar Moderator
And do we know if the Blackhawks, and their logo, were part of the data compiled in said research? Seems to me the whole basis of that piece stems from the Redskins (rightfully so) and other images and fan props (Tomahawk chops, headdress's, etc). Unfortunately, I can't access the actual findings in the study because I'm not a UC-Berkeley student.
I'm also not willing to put up the $37.50 it would cost for online access to said study, only to find it they were not.
Before people start coming out of their corners flailing about, I have long awaited the Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins to change their clubs names and logos. Their team names and logos irk me. My first real experiences with "open" dialogue regarding the overall topic came 10 years with the changes beginning for the Univ of North Dakota. One tribe had no problem with the "Fighting Sioux" name, one tribe did. I won't get into the how and why one did and one didn't, but they were nonetheless not happy with it so I understood and I accepted it.
Before that, the FSU Seminoles. Their partnership with the Seminole Tribe goes back decades. So, until the Seminole Tribal Council decides they no longer are receptive to it, who are we to intervene. And for the record, I detest FSU as an institution. That's because my allegiance is to the Univ of Florida.
So far, my understanding and conclusions drawn over the years about the Blackhawks logo is there's a whole lot of other people in other areas of North America stating their displeasure with it. But I have not heard anything specifically from the Sac and Fox Nations. I understand the AIC were initially against it, warmed to it, and then last year cut ties with the Blackhawks.
So I guess my position is, until someone individually (or Tribal Council) of the Sac and Fox Nation says it has to go, then so be it. I would be disappointed because I think its the only logo that even up till today never showed or openly mocked Native Americans. If they want it changed, I would understand. I'd be disappointed personally, but would accept it.
But hey, if Tom Morello doesn't have a problem with it right now, neither shall I
Major4Boarding
Unfamiliar Moderator
If that's it, then that would explain it. Poorly worded, but I get it now.
It absolutely was not and no, I didn't know the answer. I was legitimately asking because if I knew what the hell you were talking about, I wouldn't have asked.
- Status
