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

[ChiHawks10]

All you have to do is cross Randall Rd, TBH.

However, Elgin is nothing like other parts of the Chicago Metro once you get east of Kane County.

I didn't grow up with those folks though....I grew up with the Campton Hills richie rich group. You could count the number of non-white people in the entire school on two hands. I think when I attended the district was 97% white. It's gone down a few percentages but it's still 90% or above.

Campton Hills is the area that is...um if you want the rural lifestyle and don't want to be far from the Chicago Metro area.

I actually thought you were in Lake in the Hills, but the point pretty much still stands, because almost all suburbs out there are 80%+ white. The NW burbs are far less diverse than the south side of Chicago, AINEC. I'm not sure how someone could even try to attempt an argument saying otherwise...

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

All you have to do is cross Randall Rd. tbh.

I didn't grow up with those folks though....I grew up with the Campton Hills richie rich group. You could count the number of non-white people in the entire school on two hands. I think when I attended the district was 97% white. It's gone down a few percentages but it's still 90% or above.

And if you grew up in West Englewood it would be 97% black.

I'm not saying there are no bubbles. I'm saying they're in the cities too.
Richie Rich from Lakeview is not going to West Lawn to experience the culture, the poor black man from West Englewood is not going to Lake Forest to experience the culture, and so on.

 

[ChiHawks10]

And if you grew up in West Englewood it would be 97% black.

I'm not saying there are no bubbles. I'm saying they're in the cities too.
Richie Rich from Lakeview is not going to West Lawn to experience the culture, the poor black man from West Englewood is not going to Lake Forest to experience the culture, and so on.

The difference being... the poor black man from West Englewood has reason to fear for his life going into Lake Forest, whereas if he rides his bike 15 minutes north of him, he doesn't look out of place... because there is far more diversity, in a far closer proximity...

But by all means, continue to be willfully ignorant of what you're debating.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

The difference being... the poor black man from West Englewood likely has to fear for his life going into Lake Forest, whereas if he rides his bike 15 minutes north of him, he doesn't look out of place... because there is far more diversity, in a far closer proximity...

But by all means, continue to be willfully ignorant of what you're debating.

Huh?
15 min bike ride north of West Englewood is Back of the Yards.
I believe that's now an overwhelmingly Hispanic neighborhood. How would he not be out of place?
The south side is very segregated.

The guy from Lake Forest probably fears for his life in West Englewood too.
Also he can ride his bike north ~20mins up to North Chicago and be in a very diverse area.

How is that proof of anything?

 

[Pez68]

This thread is something else.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Huh?
15 min bike ride north of West Englewood is Back of the Yards.
I believe that's now an overwhelmingly Hispanic neighborhood. How would he not be out of place?
The south side is very segregated.

The guy from Lake Forest probably fears for his life in West Englewood too.
Also he can ride his bike north ~20mins up to North Chicago and be in a very diverse area.

How is that proof of anything?

Even if you just talk about Back of the Yards, the population there is 61% Hispanic, 23% black, and 12% white... so no, a black man would not be nearly as out of place there as he would in the NW burbs... One of four people in that community is black. The black population is regularly lower than 5%... and as low as 1% or less in many NW suburbs... where a 2 or 3 out of 100 is the number of black people. What a terrible comparison lol. But thanks for proving my point for me.

The debate here is the neighborhoods of Chicago have much more diversity in close proximity in comparison to the NW suburbs... where it's predominantly white and affluent.

The debate was also talking about the NW suburbs... not the northern suburbs like Lake Forest. You keep changing things up to try and fit your position, when it just doesn't. Just stop.

You're wrong. The south side of Chicago is far more diverse, and has far more diversity in close proximity, than the NW suburbs. Period. End of debate, because you're wrong, and just refuse to admit it. The cultural bubble in West Englewood, is nowhere near the size of the cultural bubble in the NW burbs... and there is nothing you can say to change that. There is no debating the amount of diversity in close proximity to West Englewood, compared to the NW burbs. West Englewood is a tiny, miniature, ant-sized, micro bubble in a very diverse part of the city. One where you can travel in 15 minutes in any direction, and be in a really diverse community. The NW burbs are a f***ing hot air balloon of whiteness all over.

West Englewood = tiny little bubble formed on the edge of a tiny bubble wand from one of those 8oz bottles of bubbles. One the size of a grain of salt.

NW burbs = this,

the giant bubble of whiteness.

 

[CallMeShaft]

Political Correctness isn't a bad thing when used with some level of reason and caution. Standing up for minority groups is a good thing in an evolving society.

But as has been stated numerous times in this thread already, we don't really know what most Native Americans feel about the name and logo. Some of the tribes that get frequently asked about it are from the area and thus know of the team. We just don't really know how it's perceived by Native Americans who aren't aware the Hawks' indianhead is a depiction, albeit one with quite a lot of liberties, of a singular person in history and not just a generic Native.

That's why it's such a crap shoot about the logo right now. Nobody is asking a Native American from f***ing South Dakota how they feel about the jersey. They may hate it, they may love it. Who the f*** knows right now. If it turns out they hate it, then there needs to be some more serious discussion about changing things. But again, who the f*** knows?

It's not like our name is a racial slur like the Redskins or we have a Native American mascot who is a caricature (Chief Wahoo). Not having those types of issues is the reason this organization hasn't faced the same level of scrutiny, but having the other major sports leagues in the country with Native American imagery be so bush league about their depictions has forced a bigger spotlight on them, and thus us.

There is a chance, albeit low, that the Hawks can sort of wait out most of the heat from this, which may die down due to the Redskins and Indians already having to take action, thus the outcry over Native American names and imagery associated with sports teams may start to settle to a level of contentment.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

Even if you just talk about Back of the Yards, the population there is 61% Hispanic, 23% black, and 12% white... so no, a black man would not be nearly as out of place there as he would in the NW burbs... One of four people in that community is black. The black population is regularly lower than 5%... and as low as 1% or less in many NW suburbs... where a 2 or 3 out of 100 is the number of black people. What a terrible comparison lol. But thanks for proving my point for me.

The debate here is the neighborhoods of Chicago have much more diversity in close proximity in comparison to the NW suburbs... where it's predominantly white and affluent.

The debate was also talking about the NW suburbs... not the northern suburbs like Lake Forest. You keep changing things up to try and fit your position, when it just doesn't. Just stop.

You're wrong. The south side of Chicago is far more diverse, and has far more diversity in close proximity, than the NW suburbs. Period. End of debate, because you're wrong, and just refuse to admit it. The cultural bubble in West Englewood, is nowhere near the size of the cultural bubble in the NW burbs... and there is nothing you can say to change that. There is no debating the amount of diversity in close proximity to West Englewood, compared to the NW burbs. West Englewood is a tiny, miniature, ant-sized, micro bubble in a very diverse part of the city. One where you can travel in 15 minutes in any direction, and be in a really diverse community. The NW burbs are a f***ing hot air balloon of whiteness all over.

West Englewood = tiny little bubble formed on the edge of a tiny bubble wand from one of those 8oz bottles of bubbles. One the size of a grain of salt.

NW burbs = this,

the giant bubble of whiteness.

We're not going to agree on this obviously.
It's not just West Englewood, that was just the example I chose.
Look at the demographics map.

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

 

[ChiHawks10]

We're not going to agree on this obviously.
It's not just West Englewood, that was just the example I chose.
Look at the demographics map.

Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

We're not, because I'm not sure what there is to agree about. You said West Englewood was more of a cultural bubble than the NW burbs, did you not? That's... factually wrong. And I've provided mountains of factual information to back that up.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, though.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

You said West Englewood was more of a cultural bubble than the NW burbs, did you not?

I don't think I did. My point was that there are urban bubbles just as there are rural (or suburban) bubbles.
West Englewood was the example I chose because it sits basically in the middle of a large demographic bubble on the south side.
Here's an even better map:
The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

If you zoom in the details are remarkable.
Lots of segregation in Chicago.

 

[ChiHawks10]

I don't think I did. My point was that there are urban bubbles just as there are rural (or suburban) bubbles.
West Englewood was the example I chose because it sits basically in the middle of a large demographic bubble on the south side.
Here's an even better map:
The Racial Dot Map: One Dot Per Person for the Entire U.S.

If you zoom in the details are remarkable.
Lots of segregation in Chicago.

There's definitely neighborhood segregation. That's a given. My point was there is far more diversity in the city, and in those neighborhoods, than the milk white NW suburbs. It's not even close. You can use a map like that to see the areas where each race is more dominant, but to get an idea of the true diversity of the neighborhoods, you have to look at percentages. You said that Back of the Yards was predominantly Hispanic, which may be true, but it's also like 24% black, which means ~1 in 4 people in the neighborhood is black... Diversity has to be measured by percentages of a population using the census demographics for each area/neighborhood. colors on a map based upon the predominant race will never show the full picture of the neighborhood.

Now go up to St. Charles, and it's 85% white or mixed white, with 1.5% black... That rings true for almost all the NW suburbs.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

There's definitely neighborhood segregation. That's a given. My point was there is far more diversity in the city, and in those neighborhoods, than the milk white NW suburbs. It's not even close.

Zoom in on them, I don't think it's true.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Zoom in on them, I don't think it's true.

I'm literally using the census demographic percentages of race... I don't need to zoom in on them. I'm giving you the exact percentage of each race in a neighborhood, based upon the most recent census info...

The Demographic Statistical Atlas of the United States - Statistical Atlas

McHenry County: 1.3% black throughout the entire county
Kane County: 5.6% black throughout the entire county (and most of this in one small area in a couple suburbs).

These are the two counties and suburbs I'm talking about, those which make up the NW suburbs. It's milk white out there man... the city neighborhoods can't even remotely come close to comparing as "cultural bubbles".

 

[Brightwing]

Political Correctness isn't a bad thing when used with some level of reason and caution. Standing up for minority groups is a good thing in an evolving society.

But as has been stated numerous times in this thread already, we don't really know what most Native Americans feel about the name and logo. Some of the tribes that get frequently asked about it are from the area and thus know of the team. We just don't really know how it's perceived by Native Americans who aren't aware the Hawks' indianhead is a depiction, albeit one with quite a lot of liberties, of a singular person in history and not just a generic Native.

That's why it's such a crap shoot about the logo right now. Nobody is asking a Native American from f***ing South Dakota how they feel about the jersey. They may hate it, they may love it. Who the f*** knows right now. If it turns out they hate it, then there needs to be some more serious discussion about changing things. But again, who the f*** knows?

It's not like our name is a racial slur like the Redskins or we have a Native American mascot who is a caricature (Chief Wahoo). Not having those types of issues is the reason this organization hasn't faced the same level of scrutiny, but having the other major sports leagues in the country with Native American imagery be so bush league about their depictions has forced a bigger spotlight on them, and thus us.

There is a chance, albeit low, that the Hawks can sort of wait out most of the heat from this, which may die down due to the Redskins and Indians already having to take action, thus the outcry over Native American names and imagery associated with sports teams may start to settle to a level of contentment.

There's a couple of issues to consider. So, something may not be offensive today but may be offensive in the future if there are enough negative connotations with it and the logo issue may be heading that way. A couple of examples of words like that are "Pejorative Slured" and "colored" which were not offensive phrases to use in professional settings at one time, but certainly are today.

I agree that what is happening is that the Blackhawks don't know where this coin flip is going to land at this point. There's a lot of attention on this issue right now but it may fade and blow over as the more offensive team names disappear but it also may get worse. The jersey debacle is not a good sign because if you start to see this team being excluded from major league-sanctioned marketing initiatives, they will change the logo. On the flip side, I do follow the Hawks' Insta and there seem to be fewer change your name/logo posts now.

I think there's also a chance that this conversation may end from the left with the sentiment that there are much more important Indigenous issues to discuss than sports logos so wasting campaign energy on this issue in particular is a bad look.

 

[Brightwing]

There's a couple of issues to consider. So, something may not be offensive today but may be offensive in the future if there are enough negative connotations with it and the logo issue may be heading that way. A couple of examples of words like that are "the r-word" (apparently filtered on this site) and "colored" which were not offensive phrases to use in professional settings at one time, but certainly are today.

I agree that what is happening is that the Blackhawks don't know where this coin flip is going to land at this point. There's a lot of attention on this issue right now but it may fade and blow over as the more offensive team names disappear but it also may get worse. The jersey debacle is not a good sign because if you start to see this team being excluded from major league-sanctioned marketing initiatives, they will change the logo. On the flip side, I do follow the Hawks' Insta and there seem to be fewer change your name/logo posts now.

I think there's also a chance that this conversation may end from the left with the sentiment that there are much more important Indigenous issues to discuss than sports logos so wasting campaign energy on this issue in particular is a bad look.

 

[Ace Card Bedard]

I'm literally using the census demographic percentages of race... I don't need to zoom in on them. I'm giving you the exact percentage of each race in a neighborhood, based upon the most recent census info...

The Demographic Statistical Atlas of the United States - Statistical Atlas

McHenry County: 1.3% black throughout the entire county
Kane County: 5.6% black throughout the entire county (and most of this in one small area in a couple suburbs).

These are the two counties and suburbs I'm talking about, those which make up the NW suburbs. It's milk white out there man... the city neighborhoods can't even remotely come close to comparing as "cultural bubbles".

Those two counties combined have about the same population as the south side of Chicago.
What percentage do you think is white in Auburn, Chatham, Washington Heights, Englewood, etc?
It's the same thing only more condensed because of population density.

 

[Pez68]

Those two counties combined have about the same population as the south side of Chicago.
What percentage do you think is white in Auburn, Chatham, Washington Heights, Englewood, etc?
It's the same thing only more condensed because of population density.

So it's the same thing, except not at all? Lmao

 

[ChiHawks10]

So it's the same thing, except not at all? Lmao

Said it before I could...

I'm sure I could find a way to do it, but if you overlaid the size of McHenry County over Chicago, and then took a demographic of race, it's probably close to being equal in terms of racial diversity. Some neighborhoods may be more segregated than others, and I'll admit that, and much of it is based upon income inequality, but generally you'll have a good mix of racial diversity in an area that size, and all within relatively close distance to each other. As I argued earlier... you can get on your bike and ride 15 or 20 mins in any direction, and be in a significantly diverse neighborhood.

If you look at Cook County, itself, it's 43% White, and then about 50% Hispanic and Black. Cook County covers like 1600 square miles. Kane and McHenry County cover 1200 square miles. Cook county's racial diversity is above. Whereas Kane and McHenry County are a combined 6.5% black...

I really don't know how someone can argue "it's the same" at this point. Micro bubbles of like 2 or 3 square miles are apparently the same as a 600 square mile county comprised of 81% rich white folks...

 

[ChiHawks10]

Those two counties combined have about the same population as the south side of Chicago.
What percentage do you think is white in Auburn, Chatham, Washington Heights, Englewood, etc?
It's the same thing only more condensed because of population density.

You realize the south side of Chicago consists of far more than those four neighborhoods, right? Your argument isn't made right or accurate because you only include the neighborhoods that are primarily black on the south side of Chicago. You can't just exclude places because they'll prove your argument to be nonsense... Why not include Mt. Greenwood? Or Beverly? Hyde Park? Marquette Park? Morgan Park? And any other number of areas?

 

[Marotte Marauder]

You're wrong. The south side of Chicago is far more diverse, and has far more diversity in close proximity, than the NW suburbs. Period. End of debate, because you're wrong, and just refuse to admit it.

LOL

The South Side has a population of 752,496, of which over 93% are African American.[43] Some census tracts (4904 in Roseland, 7106 in Auburn Gresham) are 99% black.[44] The South Side covers over 50% of the city's land area alone.

 

[Blackhawks]

We should have a transparent poll so we can identify all the white knights lol

 

[BK]

We should have a transparent poll so we can identify all the white knights lol

Make one?

 

[RememberTheRoar]

We should have a transparent poll so we can identify all the white knights lol

 

[Pez68]

LOL

The South Side has a population of 752,496, of which over 93% are African American.[43] Some census tracts (4904 in Roseland, 7106 in Auburn Gresham) are 99% black.[44] The South Side covers over 50% of the city's land area alone.

What in depth research you did on this topic. We all appreciate your contributions.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

LOL

The South Side has a population of 752,496, of which over 93% are African American.[43] Some census tracts (4904 in Roseland, 7106 in Auburn Gresham) are 99% black.[44] The South Side covers over 50% of the city's land area alone.

And the Great South Side has less diversity than the U.S. as a whole.