Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[strombad]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How is that big Native American head with the huge nose not offensive to them?
The name might be able to stay but the logo certainly should go.

I more so meant the name, clearly wasn't paying attention.

I'm not in any position to say whether the logo should stay or go, but if the Native American community find it offensive, then I understand the need for it to go.

Blackhawks however is just fine.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by strombad

I more so meant the name, clearly wasn't paying attention.

I'm not in any position to say whether the logo should stay or go, but if the Native American community find it offensive, then I understand the need for it to go.

Blackhawks however is just fine.

My understanding "Blackhawks" might not be fine. I believe the name is a nod to the Chief, and sometimes the use of it can deminish the sacrifice the man made.

I am not Native, nor am I an expert on Native American/Canadian issues.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My understanding "Blackhawks" might not be fine. I believe the name is a nod to the Chief, and sometimes the use of it can deminish the sacrifice the man made.

I am not Native, nor am I an expert on Native American/Canadian issues.

In a roundabout way. The name was created after an army regiment which was named after the Chief. Chicago contributes a lot to local Native American groups, and does their best to prompt awareness, while avoiding the use of caricatures in their logo, mascot, and celebrations.

There are some interesting articles out there regarding Chicago in particular, and the sentiments range from Native Americans being fine with it, to a small portion looking for the logo to change. In almost all cases though, the point of offence does not seem to be the logo (there are even mockups of a new logo featuring a black hawk with similar detailing to that of the current logo that was created by members of the Native American community).

Regardless, Chicago (for what seems like a few different reasons) does not come under the same scrutiny that the Redskins and Indians do, and the push for change in regards to the Blackhawks is much less uniform or momentous than that of the other clubs.

I mean, there are teams like the Fighting Sioux and Seminoles than get express permission from those tribes to use that sort of branding. I don't think a "blanket philosophy" is as easily attainable or logical as some may think.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by strombad

In a roundabout way. The name was created after an army regiment which was named after the Chief. Chicago contributes a lot to local Native American groups, and does their best to prompt awareness, while avoiding the use of caricatures in their logo, mascot, and celebrations.

There are some interesting articles out there regarding Chicago in particular, and the sentiments range from Native Americans being fine with it, to a small portion looking for the logo to change. In almost all cases though, the point of offence does not seem to be the logo (there are even mockups of a new logo featuring a black hawk with similar detailing to that of the current logo that was created by members of the Native American community).

Regardless, Chicago (for what seems like a few different reasons) does not come under the same scrutiny that the Redskins and Indians do, and the push for change in regards to the Blackhawks is much less uniform or momentous than that of the other clubs.

I mean, there are teams like the Fighting Sioux and Seminoles than get express permission from those tribes to use that sort of branding. I don't think a "blanket philosophy" is as easily attainable or logical as some may think.

I thought the Fighting Sioux was dumped a few years ago?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I thought the Fighting Sioux was dumped a few years ago?

Oh yeah, you're right! A year and a half ago.

Apparently a statewide vote knocked it out.

Though, that issue is kind of funny, as I guess the NCAA wanted it gone originally, while a local Sioux tribe adamantly wanted it to stay.

[Coach]

How far can it really be taken though? To what extent, or to how many people does it have to be offensive enough for change. I could say the Canucks is offensive to me. I could also say the Yankees is offensive. How about the Blue Jackets?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Neither are the Blackhawks nor the Indians. You can't pick and choose here. They all need to go.

Of course you can. It's called drawing a line, and there are many places where you can draw this one.

I don't pretend that there is a universally accepted easy way of deciding what's over the line, but I don't see how there's even a debate over whether or not the Redskins is a racist team name.

Originally Posted by nik-

not necessarily. It's more of an indication of what was acceptable when it was founded, which is the 1940's. The United Negro College Fund was founded at the same time, still exists with that name and I don't think you'd find anyone using 'negro' as an acceptable term nowadays.

While true, they also used the word Indian in their own ad, which is where I first noticed it. So it very much seems that at least this organization thinks this word is okay.

Which makes the Indians "not a racist name for a team", and puts it under the other category of "is it okay to use these names and images in the first place", which is a lot more complicated question, and I think there the slippery slope argument starts to be somewhat relevant.

Basicly my point is; while it's true that you can't fix everything, to me Redskins is a clear cut case.

[Zarley]

All of the Aboriginals/First Nations People/Native Canadians I know refer to themselves as Indians. The only people I've heard objecting to the term were actually of East Indian descent.

[corporatejay]

This:



is this:



is this:

[GirlySports]

If I (an asian girl) went to a Dallas Cowboys game dressed in full Western gear and painted my face a little whiter, isn't that just as bad as redfaced white people going to Indians games. Or blackfaced people going to Raiders and Pirates games?

Mumbai Indians cricket team needs to look at this too :P

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by strombad

Would Washington be able to get away with "Reds" if they eliminated the Native American imagery and just went with an "R" as the logo?

Seems like it would satisfy both parties in some way.

I would certainly think so. The name nor the logo would be offensive in any way.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My understanding "Blackhawks" might not be fine. I believe the name is a nod to the Chief, and sometimes the use of it can deminish the sacrifice the man made.

I thought they changed the name to get away from that. It was Black Hawk if memory serves.

Lazy way around it, sure. Especially the part about not changing their logo. But I thought the name change was intended to cut ties from the historical figure.

(EDIT - A Wiki search notes that it was indirectly named after Black Hawk. The name was derived from the first owner's machine gun division named in Black Hawk's honour...that is to say, "Black Hawk Division". Just some random information for those curious)

[GirlySports]

Chicago Black Hawk Division from the Central Division

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

If I (an asian girl) went to a Dallas Cowboys game dressed in full Western gear and painted my face a little whiter, isn't that just as bad as redfaced white people going to Indians games. Or blackfaced people going to Raiders and Pirates games?

Mumbai Indians cricket team needs to look at this too :P

No, I think because blackface is based on a history of non-inclusion. White people were never denied parts because they were white and subsequently had black people paint their face white to play those roles. So the offensive factor just isn't there to a white person. That's african american specific though.

I don't know how it would align with painting a face red at an Indians game (do people really do that? Or just put on warpaint?) I just think in general it's not a good idea to paint your face to present yourself as a historically marginalized group.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by kirant

I thought they changed the name to get away from that. It was Black Hawk if memory serves.

Lazy way around it, sure. Especially the part about not changing their logo. But I thought the name change was intended to cut ties from the historical figure.

(EDIT - A Wiki search notes that it was indirectly named after Black Hawk. The name was derived from the first owner's machine gun division named in Black Hawk's honour...that is to say, "Black Hawk Division". Just some random information for those curious)

So why is the logo not a machine gun instead of an overdone Native American head?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So why is the logo not a machine gun instead of an overdone Native American head?

What didn't you understand about his post? I'm trying to figure out the point to your question.

And, so it's clear, the problem native groups have with the Chicago Blackhawks is that they are using Native American culture at all, but they are widely commended for not using any caricatured representations or derogatory actions or names.

Your problem with the "overdone" logo seems like your problem, not the problem of the people who are actually offended by the logo in the first place. That's all well and good, but you're misrepresenting the issue, which is disrespectful to the issue itself.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So why is the logo not a machine gun instead of an overdone Native American head?

Someone would complain about that too by now

Seriously guys there is a huge leap between being offended by slurs such as redskin and insisting that sports teams can't use any first nations imagery even if it isn't offensive.

And the Blackhawks logo isn't offensive. If you want to see what racist caricatures look like there are examples in this thread like the Indians logo

[MRCboicgy]

I picked up a bag of redskin peanuts at bulk barn and feel shame for having eaten them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

How is that big Native American head with the huge nose not offensive to them?

argumentum ad ignorantiam

Also amusing is that someone who is presumably a whitey deciding for "them" what "they" should be offended about.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

argumentum ad ignorantiam

Also amusing is that someone who is presumably a whitey deciding for "them" what "they" should be offended about.

While I agree each part of our society should be the final judge on what insults them, I find that there are certain things in our society that make me cringe, even though I'm not directly involved.