News Article: Should the Blackhawks drop the emblamatic Indianhead due to the times we are living in?

[JaegerDice]

The league highlights all the new sweaters in this thread, the Blackhawks’ is the only one not to show off the front logo.



you see it for like one second in this clip haha

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Bettman and the other owners to apply pressure to the Blackhawks to change the logo.

It's clear the NHL and Adidas were somewhat embarrassed to put the logo out there in the current climate. If the League and major partner(s) are getting nervous about it, change could be on the horizon.

There was a funny bit on the latest Puck Soup podcast where they were discussing the retro reverse jerseys and talked about how the media package for the unveil did everything possible to avoid showing the Chicago logo. They wouldn't even put out a standard front-facing picture. The Blackhawks themselves, not the league or adidas, had to put out an image with a clear view of the logo.

 

[Ratsreign]

You may need to brush up on your Viking/Anglo-Saxon history...

“Saxons have been overpowered
Victims of the mighty Norsemen”

maybe this will help somewhat? If not, at least it rocks.

Lol, Best part of this discussion today (main board, as well as here) is it made me bust out the old Maiden album.
Two songs on there relevant to the discussion.

 

[HockeySauce]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Bettman and the other owners to apply pressure to the Blackhawks to change the logo.

It's clear the NHL and Adidas were somewhat embarrassed to put the logo out there in the current climate. If the League and major partner(s) are getting nervous about it, change could be on the horizon.

There was a funny bit on the latest Puck Soup podcast where they were discussing the retro reverse jerseys and talked about how the media package for the unveil did everything possible to avoid showing the Chicago logo. They wouldn't even put out a standard front-facing picture. The Blackhawks themselves, not the league or adidas, had to put out an image with a clear view of the logo.

The league social media featured the logo. Both on the retro and they continue to feature the main logo. The issue isn't the league, it was very clearly Adidas. It's just posturing and virtue signaling. If they were truly concerned about pubic backlash or of offending anyone, they simply could have not made the jersey feature the indian head logo. Or bolder yet, refused to make a jersey for the Blackhawks at all until the team changed the logo/name/whatever else. Instead, as cowardice capitalist corporations are want to do, they produced a jersey for a team they know will rake them in tons of cash and on their end, through their platform, went out of their way to not display the logo as to differentiate themselves from the league/Blackhawks.

 

[BK]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Bettman and the other owners to apply pressure to the Blackhawks to change the logo.

It's clear the NHL and Adidas were somewhat embarrassed to put the logo out there in the current climate. If the League and major partner(s) are getting nervous about it, change could be on the horizon.

There was a funny bit on the latest Puck Soup podcast where they were discussing the retro reverse jerseys and talked about how the media package for the unveil did everything possible to avoid showing the Chicago logo. They wouldn't even put out a standard front-facing picture. The Blackhawks themselves, not the league or adidas, had to put out an image with a clear view of the logo.

Do you think they should change it?

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility for Bettman and the other owners to apply pressure to the Blackhawks to change the logo.

It's clear the NHL and Adidas were somewhat embarrassed to put the logo out there in the current climate. If the League and major partner(s) are getting nervous about it, change could be on the horizon.

There was a funny bit on the latest Puck Soup podcast where they were discussing the retro reverse jerseys and talked about how the media package for the unveil did everything possible to avoid showing the Chicago logo. They wouldn't even put out a standard front-facing picture. The Blackhawks themselves, not the league or adidas, had to put out an image with a clear view of the logo.

Ya, it’s very clear the NHL and Adidas were trying to hide it as much as possible. That is a much bigger concern than a few privileged white people, who have no connection to those depicted, demanding change on a blog.

The Hawks will voluntarily change it if it starts costing them money.

Honestly, I’d rather see the Hawks do it proactively than be the center of a nasty campaign which includes corporate boycotts. So I won’t blame the franchise if they choose to do it.

It’s just a shame that more common people will ignore the background of why the Hawks logo/name is different than the other hyper-offensive team names.

—
Personal anecdote: A few days before the release my girlfriend and I were discussing where to put my large flag (same logo as the RR sweater) in our new apartment. I mentioned that we should consider that some people may eventually view the logo as offensive and that displaying it prominently in the living room may not be good for company/professional Zoom meetings. A few days later, I see NHL and Adidas trying to hide the logo in their rollouts. We got a small kick out of that happening just days after I mentioned the logo could become a problem.

 

[JaegerDice]

Do you think they should change it?

I'm mostly indifferent, but if you put a gun to my head I would say yes, they should change it.

Aesthetically, I think you could create something just as beautiful with the same color scheme and style. So for those crying 'its the most beautiful logo in sport', you can keep all the artistic decisions that make it that way, and apply it to another image, and there's a 99% chance it would STILL be the best logo in sport.

Content-wise, I personally don't put it on the same level as the Red Skins name or some of the more offensive caricatures of native americans. That said, I understand the general sentiment of 'stop using native people for mascots and logos, their culture and appearance is not a commodity to use to make money'. I know and understand the context of the logo... I also know that intent means less than impact.

I'm also of the opinion that the more you have to explain your logo, the more likely it is you should change your logo. No logo should require a paragraph of explanation to express why it's not offensive, or why it's meaningful, or good. I feel the same way about the Minnesota Wild logo. You ask a Wild fan what it is, and it's a 15 minute explanation of how the star represents this, and the lake is the mouth, and this and that... dude, if I need a damn decoder ring to appreciate your logo, it's not good. Likewise, if I, the hypothetical hockey neophyte, need a history lesson to understand why the logo shouldn't feel icky.... probably a sign to change the damn logo.

I don't think the Blackhawks or Blackhawks fans need to be ashamed of the logo, to never wear their jerseys to games after a hypothetical change, or to have the logo blurred out in archival footage. The organization and the fans don't need to pretend the logo never happened, they never loved it, etc. We can all say 'we tried our best at the time, times changed, we did our best to change with them'. Honestly, I think that's all anybody wants.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I'm also of the opinion that the more you have to explain your logo, the more likely it is you should change your logo. No logo should require a paragraph of explanation to express why it's not offensive, or why it's meaningful, or good.

So it has to be changed because potentially offended people can't be bothered to do a 5 minute Wiki search on who Chief Blackhawk is? 70 years of history and tradition just down the tubes then because people are stupid and rush to judgement before learning?

 

[CallMeShaft]

So it has to be changed because potentially offended people can't be bothered to do a 5 minute Wiki search on who Chief Blackhawk is? 70 years of history and tradition just down the tubes then because people are stupid and rush to judgement before learning?

I don't like it either, but you can't ask the general public to spare 5 minutes to look up a random hockey teams origins.

There is a difference between what the Hawks do with the name/logo and what the Redskins do with their name or the Indians do with their mascot. But because of those other teams, a team that brandishes an indianhead logo will be compared to them, rightly or wrongly. Blame them, not the average American who doesn't know about a particular sports team.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I don't like it either, but you can't ask the general public to spare 5 minutes to look up a random hockey teams origins.

There is a difference between what the Hawks do with the name/logo and what the Redskins do with their name or the Indians do with their mascot. But because of those other teams, a team that brandishes an indianhead logo will be compared to them, rightly or wrongly. Blame them, not the average American who doesn't know about a particular sports team.

No i'll go right ahead and blame people too incompetent to do a google search before they rush to judgment and try and take away the logo/name of my favorite sports team.

 

[CallMeShaft]

No i'll go right ahead and blame people too incompetent to do a google search before they rush to judgment and try and take away the logo/name of my favorite sports team.

Go ahead. I don't give a f***.

You think I'm happy about this? You think any of us are?

But it's unreasonable to expect people to have to research a team to decide how they feel about a logo.

Best the organization can do is make sure the team and it's story is known throughout the Chicagoland area and make the general public who'd see the logo in the wild understand that the name and logo isn't out of malice, but respect. That's why they have pushed for more acknowledgement of Native American culture, as a sign of respect and to try to generate news about how they are trying to show that respect.

 

[HockeySauce]

I don't like it either, but you can't ask the general public to spare 5 minutes to look up a random hockey teams origins.

There is a difference between what the Hawks do with the name/logo and what the Redskins do with their name or the Indians do with their mascot. But because of those other teams, a team that brandishes an indianhead logo will be compared to them, rightly or wrongly. Blame them, not the average American who doesn't know about a particular sports team.

To be fair, the general public is indifferent. There is a very loud minority of people who want it to be changed and of course, you can't refute them bc it's how they "feel" and it's their "experience". I also don't blame the Redskins or Indians. If you can't use your brain to recognize the contextual differences between the Redskins/Indians and the Blackhawks, they you shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[CallMeShaft]

To be fair, the general public is indifferent. There is a very loud minority of people who want it to be changed and of course, you can't refute them bc it's how they "feel" and it's their "experience". I also don't blame the Redskins or Indians. If you can't use your brain to recognize the contextual differences between the Redskins/Indians and the Blackhawks, they you shouldn't be taken seriously.

When the other major US teams with Native American imagery all have had issues with being culturally appropriate, it puts a spotlight on us; despite us not having a racist name like the Redskins or a caricature like Chief Wahoo. That spotlight and pressure is what we are currently feeling. If those teams acted with any class to begin with, there wouldn't be near the amount of people fed up with organizations donning a logo of a Native American.

People who know the team are generally fine with it. But, for the reason I listed in the paragraph above, you will get looks wearing Hawks merch in parts of the country that don't know shit about hockey. All they'll see are the similarities to those other organizations that they have heard about, they won't be googling the f***ing Blackhawks to understand the context behind the name and logo.

 

[ClydeLee]

No i'll go right ahead and blame people too incompetent to do a google search before they rush to judgment and try and take away the logo/name of my favorite sports team.

I dont understand who this people that need to look up data population is you're referring to. I dont think a concept that fits to what JD was saying is oh, people will look up info and learn and see things are fine. Its about how the Hawks have to make a statement themselves to try to express its okay because x, you know notions of honoring.

I'm not aware of people rushing to judgement to say change the logo or name based on some uninformed knowledge of why it was named or created. They're plain the native activists that have said they want no more logos or sports names based on native imagery and iconography for the litany of reasons. And the people that are responding and taking that view into account even though it isn't the majority of Native peoples.

These people aren't rushing to judgement on nothing. They just are looking at the origin and history and coming to a different conclusion as you. (And I think it often boils down to how people value the concept of tradition)

 

[HockeySauce]

When the other major US teams with Native American imagery all have had issues with being culturally appropriate, it puts a spotlight on us; despite us not having a racist name like the Redskins or a caricature like Chief Wahoo. That spotlight and pressure is what we are currently feeling. If those teams acted with any class to begin with, there wouldn't be near the amount of people fed up with organizations donning a logo of a Native American.

People who know the team are generally fine with it. But, for the reason I listed in the paragraph above, you will get looks wearing Hawks merch in parts of the country that don't know shit about hockey. All they'll see are the similarities to those other organizations that they have heard about, they won't be googling the f***ing Blackhawks to understand the context behind the name and logo.

I don't care about the people who just generally have no knowledge, wondering what the jersey/logo is about. Maybe they're a bit offended, maybe curious, whatever it may be, they're simply ignorant. That's fine. I have an issue with the vocal minority I mentioned -- the "activists" -- that're engaged and angry in the discussion and who either don't know the history behind the logo they're mad about, or don't care.

 

[Ratsreign]

Go ahead. I don't give a f***.

You think I'm happy about this? You think any of us are?

But it's unreasonable to expect people to have to research a team to decide how they feel about a logo.

Best the organization can do is make sure the team and it's story is known throughout the Chicagoland area and make the general public who'd see the logo in the wild understand that the name and logo isn't out of malice, but respect. That's why they have pushed for more acknowledgement of Native American culture, as a sign of respect and to try to generate news about how they are trying to show that respect.

But, would any person of reasonable intelligence think a team would be named after something the owner/organization disrespected with malice? The reasonable conclusion is there must be something they deem admirable in the name/logo, and then find out why they feel that way.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I dont understand who this people that need to look up data population is you're referring to. I dont think a concept that fits to what JD was saying is oh, people will look up info and learn and see things are fine. Its about how the Hawks have to make a statement themselves to try to express its okay because x, you know notions of honoring.

I'm not aware of people rushing to judgement to say change the logo or name based on some uninformed knowledge of why it was named or created. They're plain the native activists that have said they want no more logos or sports names based on native imagery and iconography for the litany of reasons. And the people that are responding and taking that view into account even though it isn't the majority of Native peoples.

These people aren't rushing to judgement on nothing. They just are looking at the origin and history and coming to a different conclusion as you. (And I think it often boils down to how people value the concept of tradition)

Jaeger Dice was saying that a logo shouldn't need a 15 minute explanation. Which to me implies that the logo itself, regardless of all context and historical value, is automatically offensive and insensitive because it is Native American imagery. Which is absurd and reductionist. There is a history behind the logo, it was chosen out of respect and tremendous admiration for an incredible individual. So if you're going to have an opinion (anyone, not just you) it can't just be based on the logo at surface level, because it ignores all of the background.

 

[ClydeLee]

Jaeger Dice was saying that a logo shouldn't need a 15 minute explanation. Which to me implies that the logo itself, regardless of all context and historical value, is automatically offensive and insensitive because it is Native American imagery. Which is absurd and reductionist. There is a history behind the logo, it was chosen out of respect and tremendous admiration for an incredible individual. So if you're going to have an opinion (anyone, not just you) it can't just be based on the logo at surface level, because it ignores all of the background.

I'm not sure many have this objection without historical knowledge. It's fine and well to say the military troup and then McLaughlin saw it as an honorable famous figure, locally known since they were from Rockford I believe.

But that also lead to them making a stereotypical logo of a native. I get them saying its the stoic heroic depiction, not an offensive one, but in the end its still a generic idea of what some artists thought a Native leader looks like.

You're saying these people need to read or listen to the history, but I'm not sure if people so strongly against a change are aware of the history of why there are many people who don't like it. Like the whole hated idea of selected worthy adversaries or the Nobel savage that deserve honor.

So the history and origins are good to know but more than merely the view from the Blackhawks perspective.

 

[Albatros]

There is a history behind the logo, it was chosen out of respect and tremendous admiration for an incredible individual.

Not really, it's a fusion of the franchise owner's old military unit and his polo club logo, as designed by his wife. A typical noble savage caricature from the early 1900s that doesn't even resemble Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak or his culture.

 

[Nellie Fox]

... it's a fusion of the franchise owner's old military unit

86th Infantry Division. They even used the colors of the unit patch.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Not really, it's a fusion of the franchise owner's old military unit and his polo club logo, as designed by his wife. A typical noble savage caricature from the early 1900s that doesn't even resemble Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak or his culture.

Just choosing not to mention that the military unit was named for him, in honor of him, with respect and admiration?

 

[LordKOTL]

Jaeger Dice was saying that a logo shouldn't need a 15 minute explanation. Which to me implies that the logo itself, regardless of all context and historical value, is automatically offensive and insensitive because it is Native American imagery. Which is absurd and reductionist. There is a history behind the logo, it was chosen out of respect and tremendous admiration for an incredible individual. So if you're going to have an opinion (anyone, not just you) it can't just be based on the logo at surface level, because it ignores all of the background.

Bingo. By that logic, woke white people should be campaigning against the Brampton Battalion, since it has military imagery and is thus insensitive to military personnel (irrespective of what *actual* military personnel think).

 

[ChiHawks10]

Bingo. By that logic, woke white people should be campaigning against the Brampton Battalion, since it has military imagery and is thus insensitive to military personnel (irrespective of what *actual* military personnel think).

Right. This is what I've been saying since this thread was started. I'm not getting behind a bunch of woke, white, SJW, who feel that it's offensive. I'll get behind a large group of Natives that do, and have no problem with that, but I won't stand behind a bunch of clowns who are outraged on behalf of a group of people who don't really care, as a whole.(and who support the team in very large numbers, actually).

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

But, for the reason I listed in the paragraph above, you will get looks wearing Hawks merch in parts of the country that don't know shit about hockey. All they'll see are the similarities to those other organizations that they have heard about, they won't be googling the f***ing Blackhawks to understand the context behind the name and logo.

So what? f*** those ignorant people.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Not really, it's a fusion of the franchise owner's old military unit and his polo club logo, as designed by his wife. A typical noble savage caricature from the early 1900s that doesn't even resemble Ma-ka-tai-me-she-kia-kiak or his culture.

Yes really. I forgot you existed, but your ridiculousness from the old politics board is coming back to me! You’re truly a citizen of the world using his full, real name too. Congratulations on that, I’m sure you just love typing out every single hyphen in the name knowing that you’re more in tune with Sauk culture than the rest of us plebeians.

The logo is commemorative, just like his statue in Oregon, IL. Just like his state park. All three of which were created in the first few decades of the 1900’s. This may not have come up in your google search of “What’s Chief Black Hawk's real name so I can seem more initiated in my internet argument with hockey fans” but the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago placed a great deal of importance on its Native American history and the important players involved have been revered for over a century. So...no, it’s not some white lady being bored and trying to come up with a sick logo.

Do you also have a problem with “The Equestrian Indians” statues in downtown Chicago?

Would you have a problem with me changing my avatar to Chief Black Hawk himself? His actual likeness?

 

[Albatros]

Just choosing not to mention that the military unit was named for him, in honor of him, with respect and admiration?

That association is a mere coincidence, besides the division was named in honor of those U.S. militiamen that fought against Black Hawk rather than the man himself.