With all the Civil War history issues -

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dirtfloor

Registered User
Oct 12, 2016
84
13
Not trying to have a political discussion or anything like that. Just curious with all the press recently about the Civil War - monuments, subject content, etc., is anyone concerned that someone will soon be protesting either the cannon, or the team's name itself? To be clear, I would not be associated with any group that would want to do that. My leanings fall in the opposite direction. I don't browse hockey news much aside from following a few CBJ fans on Twitter and watching NHL channel some nights.

Go CBJ!
 
Last edited:

CBJWerenski8

Formerly CBJWennberg10 (RIP Kivi)
Jun 13, 2009
42,076
24,004
Nope. Blue Jackets fought for the Union, and the logo is of the state flag. So, unless the protest changes, nothing will be changed.
 

Jaxs

Registered User
Jul 4, 2008
9,873
662
If Robert Lee is our new play by play announcer, we may have a problem, otherwise...:help:
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
Closer to the opposite.

Short version: people aren't protesting war associations, they're protesting racist associations, and the Union Army was the anti-racist army. If anything the Jackets would benefit from the new awareness, but the Union Army team identity is not clearly expressed.

Long version: After Reconstruction there was a successful effort to bring the South back into the country, Jim Crow racism was accepted and the fight of the South was recast as a noble lost cause. To symbolize the new Jim Crow order, the Confederate flag was added and monuments to Confederate generals went up around the country - except for Confederate generals who repudiated racism, they got no monuments.

It was always political. Now the politics have shifted. A lot of old textbooks still say the war had to do with tariffs or some other states rights issue, but the historical consensus is developing that it was slavery. The primary documents are clear enough. This isn't a left vs right thing - I saw a video recently from the right wing Prager University that had military historians arguing that the War was clearly about slavery.

The Union Army is getting new respect because of the political shift - and you see it in movies like The Free State of Jones. If anything, one would expect the Blue Jackets to be embraced by more and more people because of the growing awareness about Civil War history. The Union side is increasingly embraced by everyone but the far-right, not that many things in history are like that! Unfortunately, most people think a Blue Jacket is some kind of bug, and don't even notice the Ohio flag in the main uniform. Whatever jersey you prefer, it's the case that the Union army identity is muddled and not clearly expressed. I think the team is missing an opportunity to gain some fans.
 

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,482
6,370
There will be no controversy surrounding the CBJ or their logos.

There also is no marketing opportunity. The CBJ are far too smart to interject racial politics into the marketing of their product. I must add that the notion of equating the Union Army and their motivations in any way, shape or form with current political agendas is beyond absurd.
 
Last edited:

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
There will be no controversy surrounding the CBJ or their logos.

There also is no marketing opportunity. The CBJ are far too smart to interject racial politics into the marketing of their product. I must add that the notion of equating the Union Army and their motivations in any way, shape or form with current political agendas is beyond absurd.

You need to read me more literally because I never said either of those things.
 

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,482
6,370
You need to read me more literally because I never said either of those things.

Well you did say that the "team is missing an opportunity to gain some fans" which implies marketing a theme or at least placing emphasis on it. Also, the term "anti-racist" has a modern connotation which wouldn't have matched the views the Union save for a few abolitionists-I don't think that I'm going out on a limb on that one.:laugh:

No big deal. I was actually coming back to the thread to delete my post as I don't do politics on this board.
 

major major

Registered User
Feb 18, 2013
14,598
1,669
Well you did say that the "team is missing an opportunity to gain some fans" which implies marketing a theme or at least placing emphasis on it.

Yes, placing the emphasis on the union army theme rather than a muddle of different things. You took that to mean the team would "interject racial politics" into its marketing, which is not what I said. I have no trouble separating politics from sports but I know a lot of folks that like to mix them up, and the Jackets would be all the more appealing to them if they knew what the team identity was about.

Also, the term "anti-racist" has a modern connotation which wouldn't have matched the views the Union save for a few abolitionists-I don't think that I'm going out on a limb on that one.:laugh:

I think you went clear off the limb. They were singing John Browns Body for a reason.
 

Cyclones Rock

Registered User
Jun 12, 2008
10,482
6,370
Yes, placing the emphasis on the union army theme rather than a muddle of different things. You took that to mean the team would "interject racial politics" into its marketing, which is not what I said. I have no trouble separating politics from sports but I know a lot of folks that like to mix them up, and the Jackets would be all the more appealing to them if they knew what the team identity was about.



I think you went clear off the limb. They were singing John Browns Body for a reason.

I don't think people give one damn or know about the role of Ohio in the Civil War. The team's popularity wouldn't increase one iota if the reasons behind naming it were known.

Most Union Soldiers were fighting for preservation of the Union and out of a sense of duty to their particular home state (which used to mean a lot). Period.
 

Dirtfloor

Registered User
Oct 12, 2016
84
13
Closer to the opposite.

While I appreciate the history lesson, I didn't need it. I asked the question because, in general, the people I see arguing for removal of landmarks/statues would struggle to articulate the differences between the two sides of the Civil War. Seems more protesting for protesting' sake.
 

Samkow

Now do Classical Gas
Jul 4, 2002
16,354
488
Detroit
Thread closed due to thinly veiled political virtue signaling. If there's ever an actual controversy, it'll be reopened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->