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

[MeHateHe]

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

View attachment 353375

Look, I am agnostic about the Hawks imagery, in large part because I’m just a white Prairie boy. About 30 years ago, I made similar arguments as you’ve made here. I think Washington’s football team has a slur for a name and needs to be changed. I think the imagery used by the Cleveland Indians especially, and the Atlanta Braves and Kansas City Chiefs less so, is problematic. I am fully aware of the history of the Blackhawks name and the logo so I agree it is not nearly so cut and dried as, say Chief Wahoo.

Having said all that, I know that offence is in the eye of the beholder, and the opinion of Indigenous people is more important than mine on this issue. The piece in the Athletic, with comments from the AIC, was pretty illuminating. I also think Indigenous people have the right to change their minds about things, so the fact they were okay with something in the past shouldn’t bind them to that belief forever. So the fact that prominent Indigenous voices are raising these concerns now is compelling.

 

[Theokritos]

And do we know if the Blackhawks, and their logo, were part of the data compiled in said research?

No, MeHateMe was merely replying to a Washington Poll post about the Redskins issue that I had brought up.

Here is a freely accessible link: https://psyarxiv.com/d5gte/

 

[Major4Boarding]

No, MeHateMe was merely replying to a Washington Poll post about the Redskins issue that I had brought up.

Here is a freely accessible link: https://psyarxiv.com/d5gte/

Gotcha. Thanks for the link. I'm reading it now.

 

[Claypool]

By today's standards the Blackhawks' logo is racially insensitive and derogatory. They should absolutely change it and the team name.

 

[Captain Bowie]

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.

Can you see why someone might be offended by a name like the Cleveland "Whites, "Blacks", Negroes", "Honkys", ect?

 

[Konk]

Eskimos will likely change their name. The word itself is problematic.

Problematic? How many Eskimos do you know?

FYI, I lived and worked in Alaska with Eskimos and that's what they call themselves. It's not at all offensive and the Native Corps up there openly call themselves Eskimos and the people aren't as sensitive as the rest of North America about stupid shit like this.

 

[Stumbledore]

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.

Under the heading of Easily Distracted By Historical Inaccuracies:

The logo used by the Ottawa Senators is NOT a senator. It's a centurion. Totally different occupation.

Check out any basic ethnography text. The Romans were NOT white. They were latino. This has been established knowledge for so long now that even a basic Google search ("what race were Romans") brings up the right answer.

If we're going to argue about fine distinctions (which is admittedly the fun of the forum, especially during a lack of hockey), then let's at least get our facts right.

 

[cutchemist42]

By today's standards the Blackhawks' logo is racially insensitive and derogatory. They should absolutely change it and the team name.

This is my contention .....would an expansion today think starting out with that logo would be fine now.

The only reason people are arguing to keep the name like Redskins is because people accepted that kind of name back then. No team could get away with Redskins with start new.

 

[Theokritos]

How is the Blackhawks' logo derogatory?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Under the heading of Easily Distracted By Historical Inaccuracies:

The logo used by the Ottawa Senators is NOT a senator. It's a centurion. Totally different occupation.

Check out any basic ethnography text. The Romans were NOT white. They were latino. This has been established knowledge for so long now that even a basic Google search ("what race were Romans") brings up the right answer.

If we're going to argue about fine distinctions (which is admittedly the fun of the forum, especially during a lack of hockey), then let's at least get our facts right.

You’re seriously going to argue that THIS is supposed to be a picture of a Latino?

 

[Tawnos]

Under the heading of Easily Distracted By Historical Inaccuracies:

The logo used by the Ottawa Senators is NOT a senator. It's a centurion. Totally different occupation.

Check out any basic ethnography text. The Romans were NOT white. They were latino. This has been established knowledge for so long now that even a basic Google search ("what race were Romans") brings up the right answer.

If we're going to argue about fine distinctions (which is admittedly the fun of the forum, especially during a lack of hockey), then let's at least get our facts right.

Fine distinctions (and Google) would tell you that the Romans were Latins, not Latinos (did you get hit by autocorrect?) “White” is a fairly recent social construct, so they’d never be called white, but if you took an ancient Roman of basic description and transported them to modern day America, they’d be considered white. I grew up in a town that was about 40% Italian-American and some of the people I knew fit the descriptions we have of ancient Romans to a T. Not that it matters.

Bang on about the centurion though. Sort of. That could also be a legate or a decurion or a tribune. Or basically any officer in the Roman legion.

 

[Claypool]

How is the Blackhawks' logo derogatory?

Not sure, but in today's political climate any name or use of imagery of Native Americans used in a for-profit sports business is considered problematic.

 

[Theokritos]

Not sure, but in today's political climate any name or use of imagery of Native Americans used in a for-profit sports business is considered problematic.

In today's political climate it is increasingly difficult to find any imagery that isn't considered problematic or waiting to be considered problematic. The question would be if the mere claim that "cultural appropriation" is offensive is simultaneously its own proof. But be that as it may, I think we can agree that the terms "problematic" and "derogatory" are not exactly synonymous and that even if one considered the Blackhawks logo "problematic", the heavier accusation "derogatory" is misguided here.

 

[Boeser Fan]

It's the Chicago Blackhawks not NHL Chicago.

 

[Claypool]

In today's political climate it is increasingly difficult to find any imagery that isn't considered problematic or waiting to be considered problematic. The question would be if the mere claim that "cultural appropriation" is offensive is simultaneously its own proof. But be that as it may, I think we can agree that the terms "problematic" and "derogatory" are not exactly synonymous and that even if one considered the Blackhawks logo "problematic", the heavier accusation "derogatory" is misguided here.

Doesn't matter. Dan Snyder finally caved, for whatever reason. He gave into the mob. All these sports organizations had to do was say "No." They'll come for the Blackhawks soon enough. The mob has been given power.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

They were named after "Black Hawks Regiment", not Chief Black Hawk.
The McLaughlin Years

^^^
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

And yet, the Sauk leader has stated before, they want the logo changed and don't back it.

But Holden said Blackhawk is a name that should be retired, a view echoed by a namesake of the Sauk leader.
John Blackhawk is chairman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, whose ancestors had an on-and-off alliance with Black Hawk. He said doing positive things for Chicago's American Indian community does not make up for a name and logo he considers inappropriate.

Roy, a Chicagoan who is part of the Ojibwe tribe, loves hockey and roots for the Blackhawks, though he finds their logo irredeemable. But he suggests that given a twist, the name could still work.

His Facebook page — titled "This should be the Blackhawks Logo!" — highlights a mock-up that transforms the familiar symbol into a fearsome black bird, its plumage mirroring the feathers that decorate the Indian head. So far, the page's comments have been sparse but enthusiastic.
"I LOVE THIS!" one person wrote. "I want to be supportive but I refuse to wear the ridiculous official logo."

Roy said he hasn't spoken with team officials about making a change but predicted that one would come sooner or later.

"I think people will wake up eventually," he said. "People are getting louder. They're realizing that wearing someone else's culture has a negative effect."

Protests rare over Blackhawks' name, logo
I bolded the last part because this article was 7yrs ago, because the NHL doesn't have the voice the MLB and NFL does for an audience, this gets to be brushed under the rug. Where a white CEO can claim because they give money to museums and do some historical things, a logo that is offensive to an entire race of people is ok. That's how that is being justified.


When a people that have the right to be mad at that logo and usage tell you they don't like it and want it changed, the Hawks have no right to act like they can appropriate that logo and ignore those people. That's ignorance and that's the privilege we're fighting right now for our BLM.

Stylistically, I think the Chicago Blackhawks have fantastic branding, it's iconic. But if Native Americans think that's racist, I am not going to argue with them and it is racist. It's no ones right to act like it isn't racist to them and holds something to them that they don't agree with. A lot of younger people may act like oh what's the big deal, or people that aren't even from that background/race, it's not for them to decide.

It's not for a bunch of owners that are white, to decide either. It's sad that it takes big money sponsors, to wake people up to what is actually racist and demeaning to a race of people.

We literally had to have a riot after a killing of a man by a police officer kneeling on a neck to get brands to change their branding and names let alone everything else. It's sad that because the NHL doesn't have the kind of audience the NFL and MLB does or sponsors with a backbone, that the Hawks can double down on their ignorance and act like they don't need to be accountable to anyone, that's not for them to decide. Native Americans have long been saying they want logo's depicting a face like that, gone, done, and same for any names that they deem to be racist. There's a fine line with that sometimes, but when an entire peoples have been talking about not liking it, there's a huge difference.

I remember seeing the Edmonton Eskimo's doubling down on the same stupidity that the Hawks ownership showed, then the Chiefs and Nation leaders for Aboriginals in Canada, spoke up, saying, hold on...that's not how we feel at all and you have no right to say that.

IF your favorite team changes its logo and colors because it offends another race and you choose to not follow them, what do you think that makes you as a person? (general statement).

 

[Theokritos]

The question would be if the mere claim that "cultural appropriation" is offensive is simultaneously its own proof.

Here we go.

When a people that have the right to be mad at that logo and usage (...) the Hawks have no right to act like they can appropriate that logo

 

[Honour Over Glory]

In today's political climate it is increasingly difficult to find any imagery that isn't considered problematic or waiting to be considered problematic. The question would be if the mere claim that "cultural appropriation" is offensive is simultaneously its own proof. But be that as it may, I think we can agree that the terms "problematic" and "derogatory" are not exactly synonymous and that even if one considered the Blackhawks logo "problematic", the heavier accusation "derogatory" is misguided here.

And who's the judge and jury on that, you? Why do you think it's not problematic?

Let me guess, it's stupid because the Native Americans have found those logo's and names that hold some negative history to them, to be offensive and problematic, but to you, it's just an inconvenience? I like how everyone wants to be woke to things, but still can't educate themselves on why things are changing and should change.

Are there some thing that are just triggered responses to things? Sure, most definitely. But EVERYONE is starting to educate themselves on what certain people in history or logo's or whatever, mean and mean to groups of people that just so happened to not be white.

Like I said below...

Some may pretend oh Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben having to change their logo is lame is annoying, must because things that shouldn't be considered problematic, are being considered problematic. Read up on why those brands using those logo's and names, are racist. Read about how Trina McGee was called Aunt Jemima and how it made her feel given the racial connotations it holds.

So if Native people, as a whole, have been saying those logo's and names are offensive to their people (they have been, like the BLM suggests, now is the time to listen), those teams have zero right or claim to use them. It's as simple as that.

I remember people made a huge fuss about Apu having to be retired..people still can't understand why that is wrong.

That...
1. A white man is using a fake indian accent to depict an indian character.
2. Literally all of that is demeaning to any culture.

People will still argue, that people are being overly sensitive, that they're easily triggered, etc.

Aunt Jemima's appearance has evolved over time. The brand's origin and logo is based off the song "Old Aunt Jemima" from a minstrel show performer and reportedly sung by slaves. The company's website said the logo started in 1890 and was based on Nancy Green, a "storyteller, cook and missionary worker." However, the website fails to mention Green was born into slavery.
The news was first reported by NBC News.
After a nationwide reckoning on race following the death of George Floyd in police custody, some companies are making changes.

The Aunt Jemima brand, acknowledging its racist past, will be retired - CNN

So again, I ask, are things that shouldn't be considered problematic, now problematic because you didn't educate yourself on what it meant to an entire race of people, or do you just think it's people whining to feel relevant?

Hint: It's not the latter.

Doesn't matter. Dan Snyder finally caved, for whatever reason. He gave into the mob. All these sports organizations had to do was say "No." They'll come for the Blackhawks soon enough. The mob has been given power.

Dan Snyder "caved" and "gave into the mob..."

Are you serious? First off, their name is racist and Native Americans have been fighting that one for a long time as well as that logo being removed/changed and the name as well. The mob that got power, is from the mob that my people in the black community, are fighting to remove the racist/derogatory/discriminating ideology that is still existing today.

People will cry..."Oh, now Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's is changing their name and logo? What's next?" And this is the same. Because YOU don't understand why it's derogatory or racist, is insignificant because you don't get how it's offensive to your people. For example.


Btw, Dan Snyder should have done the right thing and changed it without question when Native Americans were speaking out against it for years. It took a major sponsor to say change it or else...

It took a major sponsor to have the cultural sensitivity to push for the right thing to be done. A major sponsor that also happens to have a CEO that owns a minor stake in the team, formally requested to the majority owner to change it.



I should state, I don't think either of you are racist. I just think neither of you understand what cultural appropriation feels like.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Here we go.

Ah yes, here we go...

Non POC have been telling us POC what we should find offensive...for centuries.

 

[Claypool]

Dan Snyder "caved" and "gave into the mob..."

Are you serious? First off, their name is racist and Native Americans have been fighting that one for a long time as well as that logo being removed/changed and the name as well. The mob that got power, is from the mob that my people in the black community, are fighting to remove the racist/derogatory/discriminating ideology that is still existing today.

People will cry..."Oh, now Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's is changing their name and logo? What's next?" And this is the same. Because YOU don't understand why it's derogatory or racist, is insignificant because you don't get how it's offensive to your people. For example.


Btw, Dan Snyder should have done the right thing and changed it without question when Native Americans were speaking out against it for years. It took a major sponsor to say change it or else...

It took a major sponsor to have the cultural sensitivity to push for the right thing to be done. A major sponsor that also happens to have a CEO that owns a minor stake in the team, formally requested to the majority owner to change it.



I should state, I don't think either of you are racist. I just think neither of you understand what cultural appropriation feels like.

If he's changing it due to internal pressure from sponsors, and doesn't actually care about Native Americans speaking out about it, how does it make it better? Doesn't that make the entire gesture seem pointless?

 

[Theokritos]

Let me guess, it's stupid because the Native Americans have found those logo's and names that hold some negative history to them, to be offensive and problematic, but to you, it's just an inconvenience? (...) But EVERYONE is starting to educate themselves on what certain people in history or logo's or whatever, mean and mean to groups of people that just so happened to not be white. (...) So if Native people, as a whole, have been saying those logo's and names are offensive to their people (they have been, like the BLM suggests, now is the time to listen), those teams have zero right or claim to use them. It's as simple as that.

Disagree strongly as far as logos and names that are not derogatory per se but "culturally appropriated" are concerned. Everyone (white or not) is entitled to "appropriate" whatever part of Human heritage from whatever culture and people as they see fit. Just because an individual or group comes up with something, doesn't mean it's theirs and others can't use it or copy it or adapt it.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

If he's changing it due to internal pressure from sponsors, and doesn't actually care about Native Americans speaking out about it, how does it make it better? Doesn't that make the entire gesture seem pointless?

So it should be better that he doesn't do it until he finally educates himself and is sympathetic to what people of color feel and think about that logo and what it represents? Specifically in this case, Native Americans? Ignorance on his part shouldn't be why they wait to change the name and logo.

He acted like he didn't need or nor should he have to.
FedEx and their sponsorship money as well as their minor shareholder for the team, decided otherwise and forced it. Monday, it is going down as being a retired sports team name.

Edmonton Eskimo's also played that stupid gamble. Chicago is playing it right now, so what makes it worse? Being ignorant and tone deaf to people you are purposely offending because of what, holding a stance that it's about tradition? That doesn't matter, it's about principal to these rich non POC that don't understand, what cultural appropriation and racism feels like, at all.

So do I care if they are forced to? No.
A win is a win no matter how it's done.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Disagree strongly as far as logos and names that are not derogatory per se but "culturally appropriated" are concerned. Everyone (white or not) is entitled to "appropriate" whatever part of Human heritage from whatever culture and people as they see fit. Just because an individual or group comes up with something, doesn't mean it's theirs and others can't use it or copy it or adapt it.

Again, you're justifying the racist logo's and names because you think the people that it belongs to, their culture and creed, is not entitled to have an opinion on how they are being depicted, because appropriation happens and people should basically just accept it, is that it? That isn't how that works. Non people of color, don't get to decide that other peoples culture is fine to use as a logo or name, with derogatory or racist implications attached to those names with a deep rooted history to it for those people.

Somehow, you think that's ok. Yet don't understand how that's wrong on so many levels.

"Redskins" - Is derogatory and racist.
"Blackhawks" - The name itself is fine and can still be used, but that logo, the "Indian Head" is not something Native Americans like, specifically, the leader that the team is trying to "honor" isn't even accepted by the Sauk people, which Black Hawk is from. That's ignorance on the Chicago Blackhawks part.

 

[Theokritos]

Again, you're justifying the racist logo's and names because you think the people that it belongs to, their culture and creed, is not entitled to have an opinion on how they are being depicted

No, what I'm saying is it does not belong to their culture and creed in the sense of an exclusive possession. The same is true for every other culture and people.

because appropriation happens and people should basically just accept it, is that it? That isn't how that works.

That's absolutely how it works. What you call "cultural appropriation" is an universal phenomenon througout human history. Has been and always will be. It's like saying "just because rainfall happens, people should just accept it?"

Non people of color, don't get to decide that other peoples culture is fine to use as a logo or name

It's not a POC vs non-POC issue. Everyone gets to decide what they want to use from other cultures. If for example POCs want to "appropriate" traditional German culture and found a sports team with a respective logo, then good for them.

 

[Claypool]

So it should be better that he doesn't do it until he finally educates himself and is sympathetic to what people of color feel and think about that logo and what it represents? Specifically in this case, Native Americans? Ignorance on his part shouldn't be why they wait to change the name and logo.

He acted like he didn't need or nor should he have to.
FedEx and their sponsorship money as well as their minor shareholder for the team, decided otherwise and forced it. Monday, it is going down as being a retired sports team name.

Edmonton Eskimo's also played that stupid gamble. Chicago is playing it right now, so what makes it worse? Being ignorant and tone deaf to people you are purposely offending because of what, holding a stance that it's about tradition? That doesn't matter, it's about principal to these rich non POC that don't understand, what cultural appropriation and racism feels like, at all.

So do I care if they are forced to? No.
A win is a win no matter how it's done.

Dan Synder will stay rich
Native Americans won't be lifted up
The Washington D.C. football team will still play NFL football

Nice "victory" you got there.