Little Fury
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2006
- 17,841
- 6,823
I'm usually pretty PC, so this may be offside for some. But I actually think the context and depiction of the logo matters.
In the case of Chicago: you've got an Indigenous person in (partial) headdress and looking stoic, brave, serious... to be respected and honored. Perhaps it comes from lore of a bygone era, but at least the artist was depicting the figure as a symbol of respect. In that sense it is similar to depicting "the samurai" or "knights". It can be conjuring respect, strength and... emblematic of the types of imagery that you want to unify a sports team.
In the case of Cleveland: you have a characature that is friendly looking, but deliberately cartoonish. No one can say for sure what the artist was going for, but "to be respected, revered, feared on the battle/sports field" was probably not high on the list.
The Columbus Blue Jackets for example have a third logo where a soldier is carrying a flag in a very "bayonet" type of positioning. Is this ok? or not? The Vegas Knights logo clearly presents a Knight's helmet.
I certainly understand the concept of "subjugation", and Cleveland crosses that line for me... but when is it ok to also have respect and admiration for the past? Is that only reserved for those we perceive to be the ultimate "winners"... thus Kings (mostly gone), Senators (Rome fell), and Knights (not the same as it used to be) all seem to be ok. It's ok to be inspired by the might and power of those images, but not Blackhawks? Seems a bit ethnocentric to me.
So I suppose it depends on what one sees in the logo. And I appreciate I shouldn't have a vote. The vote should go to the Potawatomie, Ojibwa and other people who identify with that region.
I think the argument would be none of those groups were almost wiped out by the ancestors of the people now using the names. Hard to separate the history of Indigenous sports logos from the history of Indigenous people.