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

Re: Offensive Blackhawks logo has got to go

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , May 28, 2010
    • 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 2 of 16 , May 29, 2010
      • 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 3 of 16 , May 29, 2010
        • 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 4 of 16 , May 29, 2010
          • 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 5 of 16 , May 29, 2010
            • 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 6 of 16 , May 29, 2010
              • 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 7 of 16 , May 29, 2010
                • 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 8 of 16 , May 29, 2010
                  • 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 9 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                    • 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 10 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                      • 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 11 of 16 , May 30, 2010
                        • 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 12 of 16 , May 31, 2010
                          • 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.