Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Offensive Blackhawks logo has got to go

Expand Messages
  • axxell34
    ... gone too far? ... http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/815709--cox-offensive-b lackhawks-logo-has-got-to-go ... potential, there s a great
    Message 1 of 16 , May 28, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Craig Wallace" <craigw@...> wrote:
      >
      > From today's Toronto Star;
      >
      > Does Damien Cox have a valid point or is this politicial correctness
      gone too far?
      >
      > Craig
      >
      >
      http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/815709--cox-offensive-b\
      lackhawks-logo-has-got-to-go
      >
      > CHICAGO
      >
      > With this year's Stanley Cup final fairly oozing with possibility and
      potential, there's a great deal of preening going on at NHL
      headquarters.
      >
      > Ask them and they'll tell you every indicator that matters is up, up,
      up and business is good, good, good.
      >
      > So, in the tradition of not letting these folks get too big for their
      britches lest they order another lockout, we choose to ask an
      uncomfortable question.
      >
      > Does anybody notice, or should anybody notice, that the team that will
      open this series on home ice skates out with the cultural equivalent of
      a cigar store Indian on their chests every night?
      >
      > At a time when sports leagues and schools around North America are
      either debating the dubious value of having native peoples used as
      mascots and nicknames or getting rid of those mascots and nicknames
      entirely, the NHL and the Chicago Blackhawks seem awfully casual about
      it, supremely confident that no one will dare question the racial
      sensitivity of the large aboriginal likeness that serves as the logo of
      the hockey club.
      >
      > It's as if nobody notices, or wants to. The same folks who never would
      have one of those disgraceful black jockey statues on their lawn will
      proudly wear a cartoon aboriginal face on their chests.
      >
      > The NCAA - no bastion of morality, it's true - declared five years ago
      that using aboriginal imagery to promote sports teams was "hostile and
      offensive" and put 18 schools on notice that change would be required.
      >
      > Some did. St. John's University decided it would no longer be known by
      the nickname "Redmen," but would change to "Red Storm." Closer to home
      for the hockey folks, the issue produced a polarizing debate at the
      University of North Dakota over the use of "Fighting Sioux" that finally
      reached a conclusion last month when the state's Supreme Court ordered
      the school to dump the nickname after years of squabbling.
      >
      > The most salient argument was probably made by Standing Rock Sioux
      chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder, who argued his ancestors should not
      solely be remembered for "buckskins and headdresses" and for "fighting
      the cavalry."
      >
      > The connection between UND and the Blackhawks, meanwhile, is that the
      original Fighting Sioux logo was based on that used by Chicago's NHL
      entry. So an image now banned at a major NCAA hockey school is still
      happily in use in the NHL.
      >
      > To be fair, the use of Blackhawks isn't as noxious as Redskins, as
      used by Washington's NFL team. For the hockey team, the name came from
      the wish of founder Frederic McLaughlin back in 1926 to honour his
      battalion from World War I, which was nicknamed after Chief Black Hawk
      of the Saux Nation, who fought on the side of the British in the War of
      1812.
      >
      > McLaughlin, described once as the "biggest nut" in the game by Conn
      Smythe, wasn't looking to insult aboriginal people. Then again, the
      North American ethnic majority has been not meaning to injure aboriginal
      culture and peoples on the continent for centuries and has managed to do
      a rather comprehensive job of it anyway.
      >
      > McLaughlin's desire to honour his comrades, assuming they didn't fight
      the Great War with tomahawks, doesn't explain why a large orange painted
      face needs to be the crest of the Blackhawks.
      >
      > All in all, this is one mangled piece of historical iconography.
      >
      > But it has made for a very popular hockey uniform over the decades.
      Denis Savard, while coaching the Hawks, said the players needed to
      "commit to the Indian," meaning the crest. The underground publication
      that currently follows and critiques the Blackhawks is called The
      Committed Indian.
      >
      > Clearly, no right-thinking person would name a team after an
      aboriginal figure these days any more than they would use Muslims or
      Africans or Chinese or any ethnic group to depict a specific sporting
      notion.
      >
      > Hockey fans, of course, being overwhelmingly male and white, hate
      these kinds of discussions. Political correctness, they howl, just like
      the debate over putting women in the Hall of Fame.
      >
      > But you have to wonder if anyone in the Bettman administration has
      taken a break from preening to thoroughly consider the racially
      insensitive image it publishes every day on its website and is seeking
      to popularize even further over the next 10 days to two weeks of this
      Cup final.
      >
      > Maybe the best result would be for the Hawks to win their first
      championship in 49 years, celebrate and then announce that while they'll
      keep the name, they'll change the logo.
      >
      > It's time.
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      Ridiculous!! No team name or image has inspired more respect or fear
      than the proud moniker of the Chicago BlackHawks!! Same for the Minn.
      Vikings & Pittsburgh Pirates!!
    • axxell34
      Absurd!! No Team name or image inspires more respect or fear than the Moniker of the Chicago BlackHawks!!...Same goes for Minn. Vikings & Pitts.
      Message 2 of 16 , May 28, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Absurd!! No Team name or image inspires more respect or fear than the Moniker of the Chicago BlackHawks!!...Same goes for Minn. Vikings & Pitts. Pirates!!..Ridicule!!

        --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "Craig Wallace" <craigw@...> wrote:
        >
        > From today's Toronto Star;
        >
        > Does Damien Cox have a valid point or is this politicial correctness gone too far?
        >
        > Craig
        >
        > http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/815709--cox-offensive-blackhawks-logo-has-got-to-go
        >
        > CHICAGO
        >
        > With this year's Stanley Cup final fairly oozing with possibility and potential, there's a great deal of preening going on at NHL headquarters.
        >
        > Ask them and they'll tell you every indicator that matters is up, up, up and business is good, good, good.
        >
        > So, in the tradition of not letting these folks get too big for their britches lest they order another lockout, we choose to ask an uncomfortable question.
        >
        > Does anybody notice, or should anybody notice, that the team that will open this series on home ice skates out with the cultural equivalent of a cigar store Indian on their chests every night?
        >
        > At a time when sports leagues and schools around North America are either debating the dubious value of having native peoples used as mascots and nicknames or getting rid of those mascots and nicknames entirely, the NHL and the Chicago Blackhawks seem awfully casual about it, supremely confident that no one will dare question the racial sensitivity of the large aboriginal likeness that serves as the logo of the hockey club.
        >
        > It's as if nobody notices, or wants to. The same folks who never would have one of those disgraceful black jockey statues on their lawn will proudly wear a cartoon aboriginal face on their chests.
        >
        > The NCAA - no bastion of morality, it's true - declared five years ago that using aboriginal imagery to promote sports teams was "hostile and offensive" and put 18 schools on notice that change would be required.
        >
        > Some did. St. John's University decided it would no longer be known by the nickname "Redmen," but would change to "Red Storm." Closer to home for the hockey folks, the issue produced a polarizing debate at the University of North Dakota over the use of "Fighting Sioux" that finally reached a conclusion last month when the state's Supreme Court ordered the school to dump the nickname after years of squabbling.
        >
        > The most salient argument was probably made by Standing Rock Sioux chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder, who argued his ancestors should not solely be remembered for "buckskins and headdresses" and for "fighting the cavalry."
        >
        > The connection between UND and the Blackhawks, meanwhile, is that the original Fighting Sioux logo was based on that used by Chicago's NHL entry. So an image now banned at a major NCAA hockey school is still happily in use in the NHL.
        >
        > To be fair, the use of Blackhawks isn't as noxious as Redskins, as used by Washington's NFL team. For the hockey team, the name came from the wish of founder Frederic McLaughlin back in 1926 to honour his battalion from World War I, which was nicknamed after Chief Black Hawk of the Saux Nation, who fought on the side of the British in the War of 1812.
        >
        > McLaughlin, described once as the "biggest nut" in the game by Conn Smythe, wasn't looking to insult aboriginal people. Then again, the North American ethnic majority has been not meaning to injure aboriginal culture and peoples on the continent for centuries and has managed to do a rather comprehensive job of it anyway.
        >
        > McLaughlin's desire to honour his comrades, assuming they didn't fight the Great War with tomahawks, doesn't explain why a large orange painted face needs to be the crest of the Blackhawks.
        >
        > All in all, this is one mangled piece of historical iconography.
        >
        > But it has made for a very popular hockey uniform over the decades. Denis Savard, while coaching the Hawks, said the players needed to "commit to the Indian," meaning the crest. The underground publication that currently follows and critiques the Blackhawks is called The Committed Indian.
        >
        > Clearly, no right-thinking person would name a team after an aboriginal figure these days any more than they would use Muslims or Africans or Chinese or any ethnic group to depict a specific sporting notion.
        >
        > Hockey fans, of course, being overwhelmingly male and white, hate these kinds of discussions. Political correctness, they howl, just like the debate over putting women in the Hall of Fame.
        >
        > But you have to wonder if anyone in the Bettman administration has taken a break from preening to thoroughly consider the racially insensitive image it publishes every day on its website and is seeking to popularize even further over the next 10 days to two weeks of this Cup final.
        >
        > Maybe the best result would be for the Hawks to win their first championship in 49 years, celebrate and then announce that while they'll keep the name, they'll change the logo.
        >
        > It's time.
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Lloyd Davis
        The connection to the Sac (or Sauk) chief is indirect, however. Chicago owner Frederic McLaughlin is reputed to have named the team after the 86th Infantry
        Message 3 of 16 , May 29, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          The connection to the Sac (or Sauk) chief is indirect, however.

          Chicago owner Frederic McLaughlin is reputed to have named the team after
          the 86th Infantry Division -- the Blackhawk Division -- in which he served
          in the First World War.

          The 86th drew its manpower from Illinois and Wisconsin, areas opened up for
          white settlement after the Black Hawk War of the 1830s.

          It is said that the 86th chose the name to honour the Sauk leader. I'm not
          so sure -- that would almost have to have been done with tongue in cheek,
          since Black Hawk not only fought against the U.S. in the conflict that bears
          his name, but in the War of 1812 as well.

          Perhaps the intention was to honour the white settlers who made the area
          their home after the defeat of Black Hawk.

          The division's shoulder insignia was red, usually in the shape of a shield,
          with the image of ... well, a black hawk, superimposed with a shield bearing
          the letters B H.

          McLaughlin would of course have been aware of that emblem, so it's
          interesting that he chose the so-called "Indian head."

          Also interesting is that the image, which has changed several times over the
          years, has never resembled a Sac headdress. Portraits and a photograph can
          be found here
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sac_(people)
          and here
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_(chief).

          Two days after Christmas of 1946, the Buffalo Bisons of the National
          Basketball League picked up stakes and moved to the Tri-Cities region
          (Davenport, Iowa, and Rock Island and Moline, Illinois -- now, with the
          addition of Bettendorf, Iowa, known as the Quad Cities). Online sports logo
          resources suggest that the team, like Chicago, used a Native chief in full
          feather headdress. When the NBL merged with the Basketball Association of
          America in 1949, the Blackhawks became one of the NBA's "Original 17."

          They got off to a 1-6 start that season, before hiring Red Auerbach (who,
          despite coaching the Washington Capitols to the finals the year before, was
          unemployed), who led them to a 28-29 record the rest of the way and got them
          into the playoffs. At season's end, he chose to work for some outfit in
          Boston.

          In 1951, the Tri-Cities Blackhawks moved to Milwaukee. Shortened their
          nickname to the Hawks. Adopted a new logo: the bird. Through nearly 60
          years, two more moves (St. Louis in 1955, Atlanta in 1968), and some
          embarrassing uniform designs (the blue and green worn briefly by Pistol Pete
          Maravich) the emblem has been a hawk.

          Perhaps because the current state of the art is so corporatized,
          unimaginative and often downright ugly, there is a surplus of professional
          and amateur graphic designers who devote their time to working up sports
          uniform "tweaks." An interesting take on the Blackhawks logo:
          http://tinyurl.com/26x4mf7

          It can be said in the Chicago Blackhawks' defence that the current crest is
          not a caricature along the lines of the 1940s Cleveland Indians mascot.
          http://www.sportslogos.net/logo.php?id=720

          Perhaps for this reason, reports consistently comment on the Blackhawks'
          seeming to have "escaped" criticism levelled at other teams. Of course, that
          could also be an indictment of the low profile of the team and the sport.

          Finally, I note that the Junior B team in Stratford, Ontario, the Cullitons,
          are one of a long line of hockey teams from that city to use an "Indian
          chief" as their emblem. Teams over the years have been called the Indians,
          Braves or Warriors. When the Junior B Warriors were bailed out by the
          Culliton Brothers contracting firm, who began sponsoring the team in 1974,
          they retained the same crest.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stratford_Cullitons.png

          Can't tell you how many times I've heard people say, with some confidence,
          that the Cullitons were a local Native band.
          *
          *



          On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Bill Knauert <syllaker@...> wrote:

          > I have never thought the nickname Blackhawks offensive because I always
          > knew that they were named in honour of a Native American. Redskins however
          > I have found offensive. BTW isn't the Redmen nickname for McGill U based on
          > their uni colours?
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Marc Foster
          I have made this argument for years.... The removal of Native American nicknames/mascots in sports is a form of ethnic cleansing. If you go to the UK, you ll
          Message 4 of 16 , May 29, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I have made this argument for years.... The removal of Native American
            nicknames/mascots in sports is a form of ethnic cleansing.

            If you go to the UK, you'll find place name evidence of all the peoples who
            have lived on the island, from the Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Angles,
            Norse... you get the idea. The people have assimilated, but their history
            and heritage lives on in the place names. For example, -Caster/ -Cester/
            -Chester (e.g., Lancaster) dates from the Roman era as the suffix is Latin
            for fort or camp. Similarly, different peoples are referenced through other
            prefixes and/or suffixes in the place names.

            In the USA, mascots/nicknames are often a proxy for geographical
            identification in that they represent something unique or otherwise
            noteworthy of the area. Knickerbockers, Patroons, Celtics, Hoosiers,
            Volunteers, Jayhawks... All these names represent a people or some
            historical reference to the people of that area. Unfortunately, there is
            this movement to rid the country of references to just one of these groups
            of people, Native Americans, hence my belief it's ethnic cleansing. Remove
            all references to a people, and you remove the people.

            Oklahoma City University is a classic example. The Chiefs name had some
            history. It was in fact positive if you consider who Abe Lemons recruited
            in the 50's and 60's, as there were often Native Americans on the team. In
            1987 one of these players, a full-blooded Kiowa named Dr. Bud Sahmaunt,
            became the school's AD. Then OKCU got a new president, and in his 16 months
            in office his only accomplishments were to change the school's nickname and,
            perhaps coincidentally, the end of the tenure of a Kiowa AD under whose
            watch the Chiefs had earned 15 NAIA national titles. Was this progress? I
            don't think so. OKCU was victimized by guilt-based Caucasian paternalism.

            So yeah, I have a bit of an opinion on this. Most folks from Oklahoma think
            the whole thing is silly.

            Marc
          • axxell34
            And what about the great Hawks OHA Junior Affiliate, The St. Catherine Tee Pees...or the AHL Farm team the Buffalo Bisons!! Very evocative imagery!! The
            Message 5 of 16 , May 29, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              And what about the great Hawks OHA Junior Affiliate, The St. Catherine Tee Pees...or the AHL Farm team the Buffalo Bisons!! Very evocative imagery!! The Northmen..Edmonton Eskimos.. Hardly offensive!! What nonsense!
              --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, Marc Foster <jrhockeyblog@...> wrote:
              >
              > I have made this argument for years.... The removal of Native American
              > nicknames/mascots in sports is a form of ethnic cleansing.
              >
              > If you go to the UK, you'll find place name evidence of all the peoples who
              > have lived on the island, from the Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Angles,
              > Norse... you get the idea. The people have assimilated, but their history
              > and heritage lives on in the place names. For example, -Caster/ -Cester/
              > -Chester (e.g., Lancaster) dates from the Roman era as the suffix is Latin
              > for fort or camp. Similarly, different peoples are referenced through other
              > prefixes and/or suffixes in the place names.
              >
              > In the USA, mascots/nicknames are often a proxy for geographical
              > identification in that they represent something unique or otherwise
              > noteworthy of the area. Knickerbockers, Patroons, Celtics, Hoosiers,
              > Volunteers, Jayhawks... All these names represent a people or some
              > historical reference to the people of that area. Unfortunately, there is
              > this movement to rid the country of references to just one of these groups
              > of people, Native Americans, hence my belief it's ethnic cleansing. Remove
              > all references to a people, and you remove the people.
              >
              > Oklahoma City University is a classic example. The Chiefs name had some
              > history. It was in fact positive if you consider who Abe Lemons recruited
              > in the 50's and 60's, as there were often Native Americans on the team. In
              > 1987 one of these players, a full-blooded Kiowa named Dr. Bud Sahmaunt,
              > became the school's AD. Then OKCU got a new president, and in his 16 months
              > in office his only accomplishments were to change the school's nickname and,
              > perhaps coincidentally, the end of the tenure of a Kiowa AD under whose
              > watch the Chiefs had earned 15 NAIA national titles. Was this progress? I
              > don't think so. OKCU was victimized by guilt-based Caucasian paternalism.
              >
              > So yeah, I have a bit of an opinion on this. Most folks from Oklahoma think
              > the whole thing is silly.
              >
              > Marc
              >
            • William Underwood
              Jusdr more silly drivel from the pen of Mr..Cox who s track record for either having days with nothing to do and wriitng about the mundane or simple support
              Message 6 of 16 , May 29, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Jusdr more silly drivel from the pen of Mr..Cox who's track record for
                either having days with nothing to do and wriitng about the mundane or
                simple support for the realm of idiocy is in a class of its own in hockey.
                Remember bakc when he was thye since massively discredited Bob Goodenow's
                peronal mouth piece during the lock out? We saw his mindless ranting about
                poor starving millionaire players and how if we ever got a cap they would
                all becoem destitute.?

                This is just PC non sense. As other folks have said what next? The Fighting
                Irish have to go right? As an Irishman I COULD find our being seen as
                fighting drunken lepracuans offensive. I don't see that image though. To m
                it is an image of tencity and never say die. Gee Damon, maybe we ought to
                call them the Inner Children? Now that is REALLY sick! Gee, personally I
                HATE that Miami Dolphin logo, it demeans the world's second most
                intelligent mammal into being seen as a dummy that can only do circus
                tricks. And add on ro that people call them the "fish". They are MAMMALS.
                Hey, let's get a dignified Dolphin saving a person of undefined sex and
                ethinicity, And what about the Edmonton Eskimos? Isn;t that offensive,
                angers me every day, should they not be the Edmonton Inmnuit? And is that
                not offensive. After all nary an Eskimo plays for them...so maybe the
                Edmonton Edmontonians..Well what about folks in rural Alberta that support
                them. So how abotu the "E's" ooops I know we discinimate against 25 other
                letters! And those New Orleans Saints..isn't that an offence to non
                Catholics? My heart bleedsfor both of the folks that find the religeous
                connotation offensve. Maybe they should be the Village Nurterers...The
                Stampeders and Rough Riders have to go...sounds too cruel to animals to
                me...how about the Equine Walkers and Gentle Companions. Welcome to the
                world of poltical correctness.

                Damon Cox sees a "cigar store Indian" is that maybe a Freudian bit of racism
                on his part? When I look I see a proud warrior representing a proud people.
                He is dignified. It isnlt soem silly cartoon character. And he is doing
                nothing violent. Is he taking a scalp? No. He is fighting? No. He is just
                there. What Savard said was merely symbolic. If a ND coach wants to say
                "have pride in the little Irishman" it doesn't bug me. Why SHOULD it? It is
                their logo for pity's sake! He didn't say "let's go take soem scalps".
                Folks can leanrh something from that proiud warrior , I'll bet he had some
                pretty thick skin. This stuff worries me. It actually infringe on freedom of
                speech and expression, things that the same people who support PC will back
                all of the way even if it offends the general populace as we have seen with
                everything from gay art exhibits which were gay porn re packaged to
                offensive depictions of religeous symbols. It can even involve crafting
                history so it does not offend to the point that it distorts it. In the end
                it is the Orwellian thought police at work trying to create New Speak and
                only Approved History, sort of a 1984 only this time created generally by
                intellectual liberals as opposed to crude facists and it is REAL. And it
                does something else. the thick skin issue, it makes us into a cauldron of
                whigning saps. If we vere have a real world crisis a lot of this world isn't
                going to make it...

                In conclusion Mr. Cox I hoipe that Mr.Bettman and co are not even giving it
                a second thought and are filing it wiht all of your other great ideas, where
                they properly belong on a bathroom wrack on the floor for the dog (second
                thought that would be an insult to the dog and be creulty to animals) or as
                trash can liner...WAKE UP, there are WAY bigger issues that they had better
                be thinking about. And please note, as we see with MOST of these issues, it
                is Mr. Cox, NO ONE else who is offended by this it seems.; It is not like
                they just got a petition form a million native Americans, if he ever gets
                that FINE we have to look at what is said but right now we only hear from
                one tiresome bore of a white bread TO writer. Which tribe is he a member of?
                The Tribe of PC who's rite of initiation is haivng to annoy at least 50
                people in a single day over trivial non sense that either no one thought of
                to be bothered by or just don't care about...

                The question of the day is how does this guy keep his job? Here we have a
                Cup final between a city that has not seen the Cup since 1961 and a #7 seed
                that came a penalty shot away from missing the play offs. And this is what
                he found to write about?


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Lloyd Davis
                ... So when the Coon Chicken Inn went out of business, was that tantamount to erasing African-Americans from the history books? I guess not, as we still have
                Message 7 of 16 , May 29, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Marc Foster <jrhockeyblog@...>wrote:

                  > I have made this argument for years.... The removal of Native American
                  > nicknames/mascots in sports is a form of ethnic cleansing.
                  >


                  So when the Coon Chicken Inn went out of business, was that tantamount to
                  erasing African-Americans from the history books? I guess not, as we still
                  have Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima to propagate the race.

                  There used to be a chain of restaurants called Sambo's. I understand that,
                  with one exception, they're all gone.

                  I consider this a tragedy. Before it's too late, I had better hustle my ass
                  up to Brampton, Ontario, where there are as many South Asians as whites
                  (both represent 37 percent of the population), and inform the community
                  leaders that their identity has been negated.



                  >
                  > If you go to the UK, you'll find place name evidence of all the peoples who
                  > have lived on the island, from the Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Angles,
                  > Norse... you get the idea. The people have assimilated, but their history
                  > and heritage lives on in the place names. For example, -Caster/ -Cester/
                  > -Chester (e.g., Lancaster) dates from the Roman era as the suffix is Latin
                  > for fort or camp. Similarly, different peoples are referenced through
                  > other
                  > prefixes and/or suffixes in the place names.
                  >


                  Which might be relevant if the topic were a proposal to change the name of
                  Chicago, Illinois, to Pleasantville, Niceland.

                  Or might not be relevant to anything at all. We've got a capital named
                  Ottawa (formerly Bytown) and a predominant metropolis named Toronto
                  (formerly York). There are sports teams with names such as Eskimos or
                  Chiefs, as well as those that reference (I'd like to say appropriate)
                  aboriginal symbols such as the thunderbird and raven.

                  Yet we do not revere our first nations. The dominant myth of Canadian
                  history is that of the "two founding nations" -- English and French.

                  Which in itself is fraught with centuries of baggage. Sure, it's been fifty
                  years since the Quiet Revolution, and a generation since Trudeau's policy of
                  official bilingualism. Yet there are still millions who feel threatened by
                  the printing of the phrase "flocons de maïs" on their cereal boxes.

                  Oh, but there are lots of places with French names.

                  As an aside, you could have a field day exploring the cultural implications
                  of a seemingly innocuous nickname such as Montréal Canadiens.

                  Assimilation is a difficult word. If it is not the result of a conscious
                  choice to adapt to the customs and values of a culture one is joining of
                  one's volition, how is it anything but capitulation?

                  The Welsh language has made a comeback in recent years. As has Irish
                  (Gaelige). No thanks to the efforts of the English to obliterate them. Some
                  in Canada still suggest that the French should've been obliterated in 1763,
                  or at least offered the same ultimatum as the Acadians.



                  >
                  > In the USA, mascots/nicknames are often a proxy for geographical
                  > identification in that they represent something unique or otherwise
                  > noteworthy of the area. Knickerbockers, Patroons, Celtics, Hoosiers,
                  > Volunteers, Jayhawks... All these names represent a people or some
                  > historical reference to the people of that area. Unfortunately, there is
                  > this movement to rid the country of references to just one of these groups
                  > of people, Native Americans, hence my belief it's ethnic cleansing. Remove
                  > all references to a people, and you remove the people.
                  >


                  Marc, please take a moment to consider what you're suggesting.

                  The past four decades or so have seen a great volume of revisionist history,
                  along with an increase in cultural sensitivity. The aim has been to redress,
                  for want of a better word, the whitewashing of history where aboriginals,
                  blacks and just about any group of Others you care to name are concerned.

                  Naturally, there are those who feel threatened by these trends. There are
                  those who have a vested stake in the way things used to be. There are those
                  who might know better but are too rigid to change their views. There are
                  those who are just plain ignorant. There are those who might be sympathetic,
                  but can't be bothered to devote much thought to the matter and would prefer
                  to sweep it all under the rug. "Why can't they just put it all behind them?"
                  Whether it's a land claim, reparations for ethnic groups sent to internment
                  camps during the Second World War, or someone seeking to observe cultural or
                  religious traditions ("Cops don't wear beards; if Sikhs want to be cops,
                  they can bloody well shave").

                  White North America has a history of mistreating "Others," ranging from mild
                  insults, to demonization, to using them as proxies for their own rivalries
                  (Iroquois attacking Hurons as part of the larger French-English struggle),
                  to cultural and economic exploitation to, yes, genocide (I'd ask a member of
                  the Beothuk nation to back me up on that last point, but sadly, none are
                  available). As I note, there are many who would prefer not to acknowledge
                  that. To suggest that confronting these facts and, where affected parties
                  agree, seeking redress for them is "ethnic cleansing"? Hoo boy.

                  In 1988, the Canadian government paid reparations to Japanese-Canadians who
                  had been interned in the 1940s. By your standard, that means
                  Japanese-Canadians are being negated.




                  >
                  > Oklahoma City University is a classic example. The Chiefs name had some
                  > history. It was in fact positive if you consider who Abe Lemons recruited
                  > in the 50's and 60's, as there were often Native Americans on the team. In
                  > 1987 one of these players, a full-blooded Kiowa named Dr. Bud Sahmaunt,
                  > became the school's AD. Then OKCU got a new president, and in his 16
                  > months
                  > in office his only accomplishments were to change the school's nickname
                  > and,
                  > perhaps coincidentally, the end of the tenure of a Kiowa AD under whose
                  > watch the Chiefs had earned 15 NAIA national titles. Was this progress? I
                  > don't think so. OKCU was victimized by guilt-based Caucasian paternalism.
                  >



                  Under a similar standard, the Brooklyn Dodgers perhaps should have changed
                  their name after Robinson, Newcombe, Gilliam, Roseboro, et al joined the
                  team. And I'm sure the Brooklyn Boys could not have been interpreted as
                  anything but respectful towards these talented athletes.

                  You make a point about white guilt. I'm not sure if I was clear about it in
                  my previous post, but I don't think it's Damien Cox's call to make. I put
                  the column down to a hockey writer for a liberal newspaper (a rare enough
                  animal in today's media landscape) with a tendency to sensationalize (not a
                  rare impulse in today's media landscape) filling space on a day when no game
                  was being played.

                  The Star has a habit of making mountains out of molehills. In 2003, it
                  infamously implied that there was systemic racism within the Blue Jays
                  organization during a period when the GM was focusing on, à la Moneyball,
                  drafting college players and fielding "the whitest team in baseball." Won't
                  even get into the righteous indignation they work themselves into whenever
                  MLS&E or the Argonauts' ownership group do anything.

                  For some reason, I am not as concerned by the Blackhawks' logo as by the
                  name Redskins or the Cleveland Indians (albeit bowdlerized) cap logo. But I
                  also am not sure how qualified I am to have an opinion about either. I wish
                  I could be as certain as others seem to be. I might get more done over the
                  course of a day.

                  On the flip side of the question, I note that there is not consensus among
                  native groups and individuals. Which is as it should be: it would be a
                  mistake to presume any group's viewpoint is monolithic.

                  I'm sure Damian Cox suspects he's a voice in the wilderness, or has lit a
                  single candle in a vast darkness. He's just that smug. I don't know what to
                  make about the relative lack of controversy surrounding the Blackhawk crest.
                  For the moment, my conclusions range from "It's viewed as an appropriation
                  of image, but a benevolent one" to "It may be a source of concern, but other
                  battles take priority."

                  But just as I don't think it's up to Cox to express outrage, I don't think
                  it's up to white guys to tell people of other backgrounds how they should be
                  allowed to respond to depictions of them.

                  I don't have a dog in the hunt at the moment. But I would have time for
                  someone who, in earnest, feels the depiction causes them injury and can
                  claim honestly to represent a critical mass of people who share that view.
                  I'd support their desire to be accommodated.



                  > So yeah, I have a bit of an opinion on this. Most folks from Oklahoma
                  > think
                  > the whole thing is silly.
                  >
                  > Marc
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Lloyd Davis
                  Bill, railing about PC is, like, SO 1988. And wasn t the league s reasoning in adopting a salary cap that the players would be destitute, or at least made to
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 29, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill, railing about "PC" is, like, SO 1988.

                    And wasn't the league's reasoning in adopting a salary cap that the players
                    would be destitute, or at least made to approach that state?




                    On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:54 PM, William Underwood <
                    wausport@...> wrote:

                    > Jusdr more silly drivel from the pen of Mr..Cox who's track record for
                    > either having days with nothing to do and wriitng about the mundane or
                    > simple support for the realm of idiocy is in a class of its own in hockey.
                    > Remember bakc when he was thye since massively discredited Bob Goodenow's
                    > peronal mouth piece during the lock out? We saw his mindless ranting about
                    > poor starving millionaire players and how if we ever got a cap they would
                    > all becoem destitute.?
                    >
                    > This is just PC non sense. As other folks have said what next? The Fighting
                    > Irish have to go right?
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • DAVE SOUTTER
                    There are SO MANY places in North America named for Native Americans: Illinois, Delaware, Ontario, Minnesota, Dakota, Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 29, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There are SO MANY places in North America named for Native Americans:

                      Illinois, Delaware, Ontario, Minnesota, Dakota, Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, Indiana, Utah, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Kansas, Wichita, Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Michigan, Pueblo, and so on. Is this wrong? Is it offensive? I doubt most people believe so.

                      Here in Salt Lake, the University of Utah uses "Utes" as its nickname/mascot, which is named after the Ute Indian tribe. It was changed to "Utes" (or "Runnin' Utes") from "Runnin' Redskins" in the early 1970s. Many felt the "Redskins" name was offensive. However, the Ute Indian tribe gives the U of U permission to use "Utes" as its nickname, but word is the tribe may change their positionon that in the near future. Apparently, some Ute leaders consider the term Ute sacred, and that it should only be used in reference to the actual people of the tribe. If the Ute tribe pulls the plug on the U of U, should the State of Utah change its name for similar reasons?

                      Either way, I do not find the name nor the logo for the Chicago Blackhawks offensive any more than I find "Fighting Irish" offensive. And my Mom's maiden name is O' Brien.

                      Dave Soutter



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Lloyd Davis<mailto:ldaviseditor@...>
                      To: hockhist@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:20 AM
                      Subject: Re: [hockhist] Re: Offensive Blackhawks logo has got to go



                      On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Marc Foster <jrhockeyblog@...<mailto:jrhockeyblog@...>>wrote:

                      > I have made this argument for years.... The removal of Native American
                      > nicknames/mascots in sports is a form of ethnic cleansing.
                      >

                      So when the Coon Chicken Inn went out of business, was that tantamount to
                      erasing African-Americans from the history books? I guess not, as we still
                      have Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima to propagate the race.

                      There used to be a chain of restaurants called Sambo's. I understand that,
                      with one exception, they're all gone.

                      I consider this a tragedy. Before it's too late, I had better hustle my ass
                      up to Brampton, Ontario, where there are as many South Asians as whites
                      (both represent 37 percent of the population), and inform the community
                      leaders that their identity has been negated.

                      >
                      > If you go to the UK, you'll find place name evidence of all the peoples who
                      > have lived on the island, from the Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Angles,
                      > Norse... you get the idea. The people have assimilated, but their history
                      > and heritage lives on in the place names. For example, -Caster/ -Cester/
                      > -Chester (e.g., Lancaster) dates from the Roman era as the suffix is Latin
                      > for fort or camp. Similarly, different peoples are referenced through
                      > other
                      > prefixes and/or suffixes in the place names.
                      >

                      Which might be relevant if the topic were a proposal to change the name of
                      Chicago, Illinois, to Pleasantville, Niceland.

                      Or might not be relevant to anything at all. We've got a capital named
                      Ottawa (formerly Bytown) and a predominant metropolis named Toronto
                      (formerly York). There are sports teams with names such as Eskimos or
                      Chiefs, as well as those that reference (I'd like to say appropriate)
                      aboriginal symbols such as the thunderbird and raven.

                      Yet we do not revere our first nations. The dominant myth of Canadian
                      history is that of the "two founding nations" -- English and French.

                      Which in itself is fraught with centuries of baggage. Sure, it's been fifty
                      years since the Quiet Revolution, and a generation since Trudeau's policy of
                      official bilingualism. Yet there are still millions who feel threatened by
                      the printing of the phrase "flocons de maïs" on their cereal boxes.

                      Oh, but there are lots of places with French names.

                      As an aside, you could have a field day exploring the cultural implications
                      of a seemingly innocuous nickname such as Montréal Canadiens.

                      Assimilation is a difficult word. If it is not the result of a conscious
                      choice to adapt to the customs and values of a culture one is joining of
                      one's volition, how is it anything but capitulation?

                      The Welsh language has made a comeback in recent years. As has Irish
                      (Gaelige). No thanks to the efforts of the English to obliterate them. Some
                      in Canada still suggest that the French should've been obliterated in 1763,
                      or at least offered the same ultimatum as the Acadians.

                      >
                      > In the USA, mascots/nicknames are often a proxy for geographical
                      > identification in that they represent something unique or otherwise
                      > noteworthy of the area. Knickerbockers, Patroons, Celtics, Hoosiers,
                      > Volunteers, Jayhawks... All these names represent a people or some
                      > historical reference to the people of that area. Unfortunately, there is
                      > this movement to rid the country of references to just one of these groups
                      > of people, Native Americans, hence my belief it's ethnic cleansing. Remove
                      > all references to a people, and you remove the people.
                      >

                      Marc, please take a moment to consider what you're suggesting.

                      The past four decades or so have seen a great volume of revisionist history,
                      along with an increase in cultural sensitivity. The aim has been to redress,
                      for want of a better word, the whitewashing of history where aboriginals,
                      blacks and just about any group of Others you care to name are concerned.

                      Naturally, there are those who feel threatened by these trends. There are
                      those who have a vested stake in the way things used to be. There are those
                      who might know better but are too rigid to change their views. There are
                      those who are just plain ignorant. There are those who might be sympathetic,
                      but can't be bothered to devote much thought to the matter and would prefer
                      to sweep it all under the rug. "Why can't they just put it all behind them?"
                      Whether it's a land claim, reparations for ethnic groups sent to internment
                      camps during the Second World War, or someone seeking to observe cultural or
                      religious traditions ("Cops don't wear beards; if Sikhs want to be cops,
                      they can bloody well shave").

                      White North America has a history of mistreating "Others," ranging from mild
                      insults, to demonization, to using them as proxies for their own rivalries
                      (Iroquois attacking Hurons as part of the larger French-English struggle),
                      to cultural and economic exploitation to, yes, genocide (I'd ask a member of
                      the Beothuk nation to back me up on that last point, but sadly, none are
                      available). As I note, there are many who would prefer not to acknowledge
                      that. To suggest that confronting these facts and, where affected parties
                      agree, seeking redress for them is "ethnic cleansing"? Hoo boy.

                      In 1988, the Canadian government paid reparations to Japanese-Canadians who
                      had been interned in the 1940s. By your standard, that means
                      Japanese-Canadians are being negated.

                      >
                      > Oklahoma City University is a classic example. The Chiefs name had some
                      > history. It was in fact positive if you consider who Abe Lemons recruited
                      > in the 50's and 60's, as there were often Native Americans on the team. In
                      > 1987 one of these players, a full-blooded Kiowa named Dr. Bud Sahmaunt,
                      > became the school's AD. Then OKCU got a new president, and in his 16
                      > months
                      > in office his only accomplishments were to change the school's nickname
                      > and,
                      > perhaps coincidentally, the end of the tenure of a Kiowa AD under whose
                      > watch the Chiefs had earned 15 NAIA national titles. Was this progress? I
                      > don't think so. OKCU was victimized by guilt-based Caucasian paternalism.
                      >

                      Under a similar standard, the Brooklyn Dodgers perhaps should have changed
                      their name after Robinson, Newcombe, Gilliam, Roseboro, et al joined the
                      team. And I'm sure the Brooklyn Boys could not have been interpreted as
                      anything but respectful towards these talented athletes.

                      You make a point about white guilt. I'm not sure if I was clear about it in
                      my previous post, but I don't think it's Damien Cox's call to make. I put
                      the column down to a hockey writer for a liberal newspaper (a rare enough
                      animal in today's media landscape) with a tendency to sensationalize (not a
                      rare impulse in today's media landscape) filling space on a day when no game
                      was being played.

                      The Star has a habit of making mountains out of molehills. In 2003, it
                      infamously implied that there was systemic racism within the Blue Jays
                      organization during a period when the GM was focusing on, à la Moneyball,
                      drafting college players and fielding "the whitest team in baseball." Won't
                      even get into the righteous indignation they work themselves into whenever
                      MLS&E or the Argonauts' ownership group do anything.

                      For some reason, I am not as concerned by the Blackhawks' logo as by the
                      name Redskins or the Cleveland Indians (albeit bowdlerized) cap logo. But I
                      also am not sure how qualified I am to have an opinion about either. I wish
                      I could be as certain as others seem to be. I might get more done over the
                      course of a day.

                      On the flip side of the question, I note that there is not consensus among
                      native groups and individuals. Which is as it should be: it would be a
                      mistake to presume any group's viewpoint is monolithic.

                      I'm sure Damian Cox suspects he's a voice in the wilderness, or has lit a
                      single candle in a vast darkness. He's just that smug. I don't know what to
                      make about the relative lack of controversy surrounding the Blackhawk crest.
                      For the moment, my conclusions range from "It's viewed as an appropriation
                      of image, but a benevolent one" to "It may be a source of concern, but other
                      battles take priority."

                      But just as I don't think it's up to Cox to express outrage, I don't think
                      it's up to white guys to tell people of other backgrounds how they should be
                      allowed to respond to depictions of them.

                      I don't have a dog in the hunt at the moment. But I would have time for
                      someone who, in earnest, feels the depiction causes them injury and can
                      claim honestly to represent a critical mass of people who share that view.
                      I'd support their desire to be accommodated.

                      > So yeah, I have a bit of an opinion on this. Most folks from Oklahoma
                      > think
                      > the whole thing is silly.
                      >
                      > Marc
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Lloyd Davis
                      On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM, William Underwood
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM, William Underwood <
                        wausport@...> wrote:

                        > I'm not so sure that railing about it will ever be out of date and if it is
                        > it is a sign that we have indeed reached "1984" where the history book has
                        > been re written and sanitized to fulfill goals other than simply telling
                        > the
                        > truth.
                        >


                        LOL. I once received a message from someone who asked, "Why can't historians
                        just write what happened?"

                        As put by the person who asked it, it was quite possibly the dumbest
                        question I've ever been asked. But without realizing it, that person
                        provides the grounds for a potentially interesting discussion. Sadly, not
                        one he was prepared to have.

                        So I'll ask you: who's got the monopoly on truth?

                        Is it the State Board of Education in Texas?

                        Because I happen to think that outfit owns the biggest brush and the biggest
                        bucket of whitewash in the world.

                        But I must be wrong. They just want the history books to report what
                        happened. The truth, if you will.




                        > And the reasoning of the cap had nothing to do with harming players it was
                        > actually to PREVENT some form becoming "destitute" as we were not that far
                        > off from losing teams and actually had missed payrolls. The concept was to
                        > create a league where not only was their better parity but teams were more
                        > viable so long as they were in places that would support them. Some might
                        > say that today we STILL face the issue but there is a key difference, in
                        > those days cities that supported their teams such as most smaller Canadian
                        > market teams were on the death watch. In contrast, today it is places where
                        > the support is shaky and leases are bad.
                        >
                        >

                        Well, from where I sit, if you shut down operations for a year (and are
                        prepared to go longer if necessary), and finally negotiate a deal that, at
                        the time, was generally considered to favour management over labour, it's
                        hard for me to rally behind the Count as the gold standard of benevolence.

                        That the NHL has failed to address the fundamental challenges is no
                        reflection on the players. Both sides have shown themselves equally willing
                        and able to shoot themselves in the foot, but the NHL should have been aware
                        that the US dollar was overvalued and some of his franchises were building
                        their businesses on foundations of cotton candy. But when you're the sort to
                        be seduced by the Boots Del Biaggios of the world, I guess a grasp of the
                        obvious proves tenuous.


                        --
                        Lloyd Davis
                        ldaviseditor@...


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • William Underwood
                        I m not so sure that railing about it will ever be out of date and if it is it is a sign that we have indeed reached 1984 where the history book has been re
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'm not so sure that railing about it will ever be out of date and if it is
                          it is a sign that we have indeed reached "1984" where the history book has
                          been re written and sanitized to fulfill goals other than simply telling the
                          truth.



                          And the reasoning of the cap had nothing to do with harming players it was
                          actually to PREVENT some form becoming "destitute" as we were not that far
                          off from losing teams and actually had missed payrolls. The concept was to
                          create a league where not only was their better parity but teams were more
                          viable so long as they were in places that would support them. Some might
                          say that today we STILL face the issue but there is a key difference, in
                          those days cities that supported their teams such as most smaller Canadian
                          market teams were on the death watch. In contrast, today it is places where
                          the support is shaky and leases are bad.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • William Underwood
                          I think that there is a difference here on three counts. 1-Many of the places that you mentioned were based upon stereotypes. Many Native logos are based upon
                          Message 12 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think that there is a difference here on three counts.



                            1-Many of the places that you mentioned were based upon stereotypes. Many
                            Native logos are based upon the historical figures is the case for the Black
                            Hawk logo. In fact in most tribes the warrior caste was an honor whereas the
                            servile or uneducated individual was never an honorable part of anyone's
                            culture. That was the image placed by a slave holding culture who for years
                            held their ex slaves in disdain.

                            2-Many of the terms in those places are essentially terms used by racists
                            not by the culture of the race that those symbols are alleged to represent.
                            One can say that Redskins falls into that category but few others. Even
                            Indian does not was not the American Indian Movement made up of Natives?
                            Thus they use that term themselves.

                            3-The campaign against those other places was generally done by African
                            Americans ands by a large number of them as was the case with issues over
                            the Confederate flag. We have not seen that about the Redskins.in fact there
                            appears to be a divided view. So we come back to exactly which tribe is
                            Damian Cox a member? It is like some guy named Joe Wisniewski without a drop
                            of Irish blood in him telling me to be offended by the term "Fighting
                            Irish". if I ever ran into a bum like that you might actually see that term
                            and stereotype at work! :-)



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • William Underwood
                            On history...while yes there are many angles to take and much information to include it is vital that you ALWAYS present the most basic facts AND try to do so
                            Message 13 of 16 , May 31, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On history...while yes there are many angles to take and much information to
                              include it is vital that you ALWAYS present the most basic facts AND try to
                              do so in as unbiased a manner as you can and presenting ALL arguments and
                              prespectives of the contemporary. to me this is all that a historian can
                              really do. your job is not to be judge and jury nor to represent heroes and
                              villains, that is the job of fiction as in most real stories no one is all
                              one or the other. It is up to the READER to put him or herself into the
                              shoes of those at the time and if not agree with UNDERSTAND why they did
                              whatever they did. In order to do that you must understand their belief
                              system and culture. It is an easy thing to say "I would have been a patriot
                              in the Revoltuion" thorugh the prism of TODAY. But in that era it was
                              treason and it was operating on what seemd to be avery long shot bet. A lot
                              of those "brave patriots" of today would have really been loyalists or just
                              tried to stay out. It is easy to say in the Civil War you would have fought
                              slavery. But what if you lived inthe south and everyone and everything that
                              you loved was there? Would you really be prepared to march with Sherman and
                              burn your home town? But you can't do all of the above if the historian is
                              trying to feed you what you should feel or omiiting certain parts of reality
                              that are uncomfortable to his or her belief system for politcal reasons. I
                              think that in America we once only had to worry about the former not nearly
                              as much of the latter. Today we have both to worry about. and the politcal
                              agenda of censorship is BY FAR the most dangerous as it attacks kids many of
                              whom read all too little history on their own. Eventually you get a
                              contrived sense of the world and you also can have evil people maniipulate
                              it. Simply put, this is what USED to only happen in places like Nazi Germany
                              and Soviet Russia wherre thought control prevailed and in fact as I recall
                              trhe first time I ever heard the term "politcally correct" it was way before
                              PC came here here and it was in reference to the Nazis...

                              History when presented WELL is a lesson in LIFE both about the world AND
                              yourself. As I say, it is 1776 and there are thigns that you dson't like
                              abotu yoru country but you ahve agood lifestyle and are well protected, your
                              leader has put some offensive and rather odd emergency measures to work.
                              there is theis rag tag army being put together to fight the world's greatest
                              super power, their only potential ally is one that you had just fought under
                              20 years ago and is no less oppressive. If you join this army you could be
                              hung as a traitor, your proeprty burnt, your family ruined...on the other
                              ahdn if you ooppose them you have folks with them who would be ready to tar
                              and feather you. What way do you go HONESTLY? It not only helps you to
                              understand the times but to learn about yourself and inthe context of that
                              what can happen in the present when confornted with certain scenarios. So
                              muhcb of conflict resolution is understanding the other guy and why they
                              want what they do, hiostory is the best lav for that.

                              On to the lock out...yes the NHL inflicfted a lot of its own wouinds. A big
                              part was the great lie that hockey was going onto a new golden era as
                              America's next "national" sport but also, in all honestly salry cpas are
                              becoming anecessity in sprot around the world and hockey needs it more than
                              most due to its vast disparity of markets and market interest. It was not
                              done perfectly and the league itself has a lot to answetr for as you poijnt
                              out. but none the lesa a cap was needed and if we REALLY want to point
                              fingers Mr. Goodenow (cox's guru onthe subject) deverves a lot of blame for
                              doing just as out PC historians do, they did not tell all of the facts to
                              his membership and this was a big reason for his ouster. The NHL offered to
                              open the books, he refused and did not let the players see what was there.
                              And that was just one example. I personally think that the league did what
                              it had to do. If they had not we may be seeing fewer teams today when the
                              economy hit the recession, there may have been losses both in Canada and the
                              US. there could well be 5 or 6 or more Phoenixes and soem a re palces that
                              DO support the game. Even as things are I know of one team that missed
                              payments to its buidling twice in February and it is a northern US based
                              team..

                              Mr. Cox was as way off on that as he is here and maybe even more so.


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.