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

[Stumbledore]

Calling the Ottawa mascot a "Latino" was ridiculous in the first place, as that is really but really an incorrect statement. Doing so with "why don't you start by learning to read" levels of condescension was a bad look. Continuing to double down is a really bad look.

Just take the L and stop making it worse.

I never called the Ottawa mascot a Latino. I know it will infuriate you to be told this, but if you go back and read posting #107 you'll find that I never said that.

Not doubling down, just suggesting that facts still matter even in this age.

 

[Stumbledore]

By whom? By Italians themselves? Is that your claim?

I wasn't making the claim. I was quoting a Harvard professor. If you read posting #145 you can see the quote and the attribution.

For what it's worth, every time I've been in Italia I have heard the word 'latino' refer to people from Latina but that's purely anecdotal evidence.

 

[Stumbledore]

In Spanish you mean. Obviously they weren't and aren't calling themselves "Latinos". And as you point out yourself, the term "Latino" as used in America today has a different meaning than "someone speaking Latin".

Actually, the use of "Latino" in Italy does not refer to someone speaking Latin. It refers to a resident of Latina which is a large province on the southern edge of Roma.

 

[Staniowski]

I'm not sure, to be honest. Because it took place 88 years after his passing. I kinda get the impression you implied he had dementia and that he spent his whole life harboring resentment till the very end. I posted something to the contrary is all. I guess you can assume he wouldn't be ok with it. I can, perhaps, assume maybe he would be ok with it based on what I posted. I also believe the intended purpose by McLaughlin when he named the team was genuine. But that was a time in our history where things like this took place that is obviously now outdated and something one shouldn't consider doing.

Yes, it's very dumb and uncaring to name sports teams after indigenous people or groups, or for them to use any representations of indigenous people or groups.

It's always been dumb, and it still is.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I'm not sure, to be honest. Because it took place 88 years after his passing. I kinda get the impression you implied he had dementia and that he spent his whole life harboring resentment till the very end. I posted something to the contrary is all. I guess you can assume he wouldn't be ok with it. I can, perhaps, assume maybe he would be ok with it based on what I posted. I also believe the intended purpose by McLaughlin when he named the team was genuine. But that was a time in our history where things like this took place that is obviously now outdated and something one shouldn't consider doing.

So you think after they (Illinois) literally stole everything from his people and (America) continued to alienate and destroy his race, he'd be cool with them just casually honoring him, omitting most of the actual history behind what happened to him, including the Jim Crow era type crap?

Just, yikes. Double yikes.

We black people know all too well, how America can edit and omit its own history, to suit its own needs and narrative.

 

[Major4Boarding]

What the f*** does Jim Crow have to do with the usurping and pillaging of Native American lands? "Separate but equal" which, I may add, is single-handedly the most vulgar attempt in our nation's history to justify an abhorrent contradiction in terms I might add, took place after Black Hawk passed. Why the hell would you even bring that in to the discussion?

At this point, I'm convinced there is no way you can engage in a meaningful conversation. I'm done.

 

[Richard]

This is ridiculous. I am Irish, the name "Fighting Irish" offends me. Same with the Celtics. My cousin was a Pirate and doesn't appreciate the Raiders. Furthermore, my wife is Swedish and feels the name vikings is condescending and perpetuates ethnic stereotypes.

I understand Redskins... that makes total sense but STOP just stop.

If they keep this up I might literally file federal lawsuits for shits and giggles at the above referenced teams. If they dont change their name they are racist as well!

 

[Richard]

So you glanced over the link I provided that has quotes from a Sauk leader and other Native Americans in regards to the Blackhawks logo being offensive?

It's there. You ask for proof and yet you did nothing to find it yourself in the same thread a page or two back.

I'll leave this here too: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/


So now I'll sit back and see posts by non people of color telling others that it's no big deal and they should suck it up or something to that extent. The ethical thing to do is to take down something that is offensive. Regardless of your financial standing for that merchandise (ridiculous). Chicago has been tone deaf and racist towards their usage and how they've handled it for a very long time. People just learning about this is interesting. Go do some research on how Sr Wirtz felt about all of this and how the team continues to act like they are not accountable to anyone when appropriating a Native Hero as their logo and acting like they have ownership to it...because.

Its literally no big deal.

Like I said before, its the same thing as a blonde wigged viking running around, or a drunk leprechaun. This is totally different from the Redskins. That name is offensive under any circumstances.

Come off your high horse.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Its literally no big deal.

Like I said before, its the same thing as a blonde wigged viking running around, or a drunk leprechaun. This is totally different from the Redskins. That name is offensive under any circumstances.

Come off your high horse.

Except it is a big deal to a lot of Native Americans.

Come off your high horse and maybe educate yourself on what they've been saying and what has been going on with systemic racism and racism in general especially within the sports world with their branding and naming of teams.

It's ironic that it's POC that are saying it's wrong and the ones who say it's no big deal...aren't are predominantly not POC.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Its literally no big deal.

Its no big deal to you, and therefore its no big deal to everyone else.

Hmm.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I never called the Ottawa mascot a Latino. I know it will infuriate you to be told this, but if you go back and read posting #107 you'll find that I never said that.

Not doubling down, just suggesting that facts still matter even in this age.

“The Romans were NOT white. They were latino.”

^ First, that statement is simply false. Anyone who knows the meaning Latino in either English or Italian would agree that it does not describe Romans.

^^ Secondly, you introduced Romans to the topic, in reference to a post talking about the Ottawa Senators. So unless you had an aneurism and typed gibberish, you most definitely did suggest that the Senator is Roman and therefore (somehow) Latino.

^^^ Thirdly, none of this is so important that it’s worth immolating your credibility. We can all see what was written, there’s no sense denying it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's ironic that it's POC that are saying it's wrong and the ones who say it's no big deal...aren't are predominantly not POC.

It’s ironic that you’d make that argument, after saying the intentions of the actual Sauk people are irrelevant.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

It’s ironic that you’d make that argument, after saying the intentions of the actual Sauk people are irrelevant.

No, see, again, no understanding of this at all. Sauk people's word is relevant, as is the rest of the Native American population. Because that image, the logo, is not based on what Blackhawk looked like, it's a generalization of a Native American symbolizing a romanticized version of a Native American Hero that the Blackhawks are omitting the entire story to. They never tell the whole story, they tell the parts they want to as it's less controversial, also less of the truth of what was done to those people and how this is again, stealing something of theirs without permission.

You know, like how most of the American Founding Heroes that ended up being a slave owners that we black people had enough of and not enough people were taught about the true history of how America has treated the disenfranchised peoples of color.

Minor things like that.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, see, again, no understanding of this at all. Sauk people's word is relevant, as is the rest of the Native American population. Because that image, the logo, is not based on what Blackhawk looked like, it's a generalization of a Native American symbolizing a romanticized version of a Native American Hero that the Blackhawks are omitting the entire story to. They never tell the whole story, they tell the parts they want to as it's less controversial, also less of the truth of what was done to those people and how this is again, stealing something of theirs without permission.

You know, like how most of the American Founding Heroes that ended up being a slave owners that we black people had enough of and not enough people were taught about the true history of how America has treated the disenfranchised peoples of color.

Minor things like that.

I get what you’re saying about it having a wider impact, but the difference between a Fox and a Cherokee is as significant as the difference between an Italian and an Irishman. Lumping these people together as a giant monolithic group is offensive in its own right.

An Italian might have a perfectly valid opinion on the Fighting Irish, based on advancing a broader ideal of cultural sensitivity. But when it comes time to make decisions the Italian doesn’t really get a vote. Likewise the broader national Native American community is welcome to have a voice in the Blackhawks issue, but the rubber meets the road when we learn the intentions of Black Hawk’s own tribe.

Side note: don’t you find it really weird that nobody has asked the Sauk leadership to go on record, other than catching one of them doing educational work at a Hawks game? Wouldn’t those three tribes be the first people you’d go to for a statement if you were writing an article or a research paper?

 

[Stumbledore]

“The Romans were NOT white. They were latino.”

^ First, that statement is simply false. Anyone who knows the meaning Latino in either English or Italian would agree that it does not describe Romans.

^^ Secondly, you introduced Romans to the topic, in reference to a post talking about the Ottawa Senators. So unless you had an aneurism and typed gibberish, you most definitely did suggest that the Senator is Roman and therefore (somehow) Latino.

^^^ Thirdly, none of this is so important that it’s worth immolating your credibility. We can all see what was written, there’s no sense denying it.

I agree, none of this is important. I don't agree that quoting a learned professor from Harvard (see post #145) has any effect on my credibility. Yes, I did suggest that senators of the Roman Senate were Romans and Latino, citing the fact that this is established knowledge among ethnographers.

You claim that the statement that Romans were Latino is 'simply false". Dr. Ferandez-Moreara, in a peer-reviewed paper published in an academic journal, states that Romans were Latino. While I respect your right to have an opinion, I prefer to accept the views of the Harvard graduate which have also been confirmed by others in his field.

Judging by the large boldface type, this has obviously upset you and that was not my intention; my apologies.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree, none of this is important. I don't agree that quoting a learned professor from Harvard (see post #145) has any effect on my credibility. Yes, I did suggest that senators of the Roman Senate were Romans and Latino, citing the fact that this is established knowledge among ethnographers.

You claim that the statement that Romans were Latino is 'simply false". Dr. Ferandez-Moreara, in a peer-reviewed paper published in an academic journal, states that Romans were Latino. While I respect your right to have an opinion, I prefer to accept the views of the Harvard graduate which have also been confirmed by others in his field.

Judging by the large boldface type, this has obviously upset you and that was not my intention; my apologies.

Dr. Fernandez-Moreara wrote about the Spanish word "latino", which is a literal translation of the word "Latin". It is of course accurate to say the Romans were Latins, which in Spanish translates to "latino". This phrasing is used about as often in Spanish as it is in English, where people rarely talk about "Latins" outside of specialized settings.

However, the word "Latino" in English and North American Spanish is not borrowed from the Spanish "latino". They are two completely distinct words and concepts. The word is a shortening of "Latinoamericano", which is a different word with a different meaning even in Spanish. These words are not interchangeable and they are multiple degrees removed from each other etymologically.

I have no idea why Dr. Fernandez-Moreara chose to skip over a bunch of history and say that this has anything to do with a government decision in 1997. "Latino" was firmly established in both North American Spanish and subsequently in English by the early/mid 20th century. If you need to see evidence I'm happy to post screenshots of Spanish newspapers using the word in a context which is clearly self referential and has nothing to do with Italy. It's inexplicable that Dr. Fernandez-Moreara missed this, but the facts are what they are. My best guess is Dr. Fernandez-Moreara is much more familiar with ancient history than modern.

Unless you are actually speaking European Spanish throughout the entire sentence, using the word "Latino" to describe a Roman is inaccurate. It does not translate that way across languages. Latin is correct, Latino is not. Anyone saying otherwise is simply wrong, regardless of which university gave them the wrong idea.

 

[Stumbledore]

Dr. Fernandez-Moreara wrote about the Spanish word "latino", which is a literal translation of the word "Latin". It is of course accurate to say the Romans were Latins, which in Spanish translates to "latino". This phrasing is used about as often in Spanish as it is in English, where people rarely talk about "Latins" outside of specialized settings.

However, the word "Latino" in English and North American Spanish is not borrowed from the Spanish "latino". They are two completely distinct words and concepts. The word is a shortening of "Latinoamericano", which is a different word with a different meaning even in Spanish. These words are not interchangeable and they are multiple degrees removed from each other etymologically.

I have no idea why Dr. Fernandez-Moreara chose to skip over a bunch of history and say that this has anything to do with a government decision in 1997. "Latino" was firmly established in both North American Spanish and subsequently in English by the early/mid 20th century. If you need to see evidence I'm happy to post screenshots of Spanish newspapers using the word in a context which is clearly self referential and has nothing to do with Italy. It's inexplicable that Dr. Fernandez-Moreara missed this, but the facts are what they are. My best guess is Dr. Fernandez-Moreara is much more familiar with ancient history than modern.

Unless you are actually speaking European Spanish throughout the entire sentence, using the word "Latino" to describe a Roman is inaccurate. It does not translate that way across languages. Latin is correct, Latino is not. Anyone saying otherwise is simply wrong, regardless of which university gave them the wrong idea.

"^^^ Thirdly, none of this is so important that it’s worth immolating your credibility."

This is obviously far too important for you. Again, my apologies.

I will bid you adieu. (That's French, not Italian or Spanish or Latin.)

 

[tarheelhockey]

"^^^ Thirdly, none of this is so important that it’s worth immolating your credibility."

This is obviously far too important for you. Again, my apologies.

I will bid you adieu. (That's French, not Italian or Spanish or Latin.)

Being right (as opposed to acting that way in spite of the facts) actually is important.

Adios.

 

[Yukon Joe]

"Latino" is a term that came into being to try to describe non-English-speaking people from the Americas. Hispanic is slightly problematic because A: it excludes portuguese-speaking Brazilians, and B: it includes people from Spain.

In any event however, Latino is not a race or ancestry - it is a culture. You can have latinos with completely fair skin, and you can have black latinos.

 

[Stumbledore]

"Latino" is a term that came into being to try to describe non-English-speaking people from the Americas. Hispanic is slightly problematic because A: it excludes portuguese-speaking Brazilians, and B: it includes people from Spain.

In any event however, Latino is not a race or ancestry - it is a culture. You can have latinos with completely fair skin, and you can have black latinos.

Actually, "latino" is a term that came into existence more than two thousand years ago, long before the Americas had been "discovered" by the western world.

I'd dig into the ethnography texts and explain further but after my experiences with the other fellow, I think I'll refrain from quoting experts and just go in search of more forums to read.

 

[DoyleG]

Bringing it back to the topic at hand......

 

[Albatros]

Bringing it back to the topic at hand......

According to the Edmonton E*****s, the E*****s name does not offend Inuit people.

 

[MeHateHe]

And yet

 

[CBJ goalie]

Money talks....big name sponsors threatening to pull their $$$.

Funny the polls show the majority of the people this is demeaning to are ok with it, but sponsors are afraid of the handful that may pull their business.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Money talks....big name sponsors threatening to pull their $$$.

Funny the polls show the majority of the people this is demeaning to are ok with it, but sponsors are afraid of the handful that may pull their business.

If 30+ percent of a race of people don't like something, I feel like that's more than enough to know it's bothersome and should be changed.


@Major4Boarding What does Jim Crow have to do with it? Did you read nothing I posted about the actual story of Black Hawk being paraded by the Americans and them doing minstrel and Jim Crow crap while showing him around? That's what it has to do with it. The whole story, not the edited crap you are peddled to by the Hawks about how Black Hawk was treated when he was captured. Ironic, talking about how the history of it should be fine, as an honor, yet people don't want to know the full history.