Use of Native American Imagery in Sports - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Cole436 · 02-13-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

My point is teams use names involving groups of people they found to be warriors or found to be tough in some way. The Celtics, Maple Leafs, Rangers, Blue Jackets, Yankees, Pirates, Buccaneers, Mariners, Patriots, 49ers, Vikings, Titansand to a lesser extent the Senators (since they use a roman Senator as their logo) are all names after various groups of people.

As a person of Nordic decent I am not offended by the stereotypical use of a Viking in the Minnesota Viking logo.

You're missing the point. The point has nothing to do with using ethnic imagery. It's about using ethnocentric imagery.

Case in point, would you believe it to be appropriate to address a Native as a "Redskin"? That has the connotations as myself being addressed as a "Wop".

The imagery of the Blackhawks relies on a genocide. The image of the Vikings rely on historical myth. Do you see the difference?

Split98 · 02-13-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

It's fine.

Leave it up to a bunch of liberal ninny writers to be offended by a sports franchise logo/name.

Political correctness needs to end.

There's a difference between political correctness and offensive imagery. I totally agree that political correctness is getting out of hand in popular media, but
a) I see that shifting slightly as people more and more move to independent media
b) this isn't the case here

There still are some things we have to be mindful of.

That being said, I did see a Native American kid come into my bar the other day with a Redskins jersey on...

JiriHrdina · 02-13-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Yankees, Vikings, Giants could all be deemed offensive if you are American, Norweigan or obese. Cleveland Browns to.

Ahhh the slippery slope argument. Trotted out by those who otherwise can't come up with any logical counter to a position not in line with their beliefs.

Clever_Iggy · 02-13-2013, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cole436

You're missing the point. The point has nothing to do with using ethnic imagery. It's about using ethnocentric imagery.

[...]

The imagery of the Blackhawks relies on a genocide. The image of the Vikings rely on historical myth. Do you see the difference?

So then, Braves, Indians and Eskimos are acceptable?

Jimmy Stang · 02-13-2013, 01:15 PM

nm

JiriHrdina · 02-13-2013, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

As a person of Nordic decent I am not offended by the stereotypical use of a Viking in the Minnesota Viking logo.

Good let that be the test then.
Aboriginal people ARE offended by names such as the Redskins - therefore do away with them.

Flamin' DBag · 02-13-2013, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Blackhawk is in honour of the slaughter of American Natives in the Blackhawk war, which was pretty much a complete bloodbath for the Natives. Black Hawk lived and was transported east where they got him out at various towns to show his face (along with the other captured Natives) so that everyone knew who won the slaughter. People would come out and burn the images of the Natives in effigy, once they arrived at their final destination they settled in to live out most of their remaining days in prison.

Not sure how other ethnic groups would react if sports teams were named to honour times when they were slaughtered but I would guess they would find it equally offensive.

Not entirely sure you're correct there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Blackhawks

Basically, it say's the Blackhawks were named after a military unit in WWI which was named after Chief Black Hawk not the war he was involved in.

Split98 · 02-13-2013, 01:16 PM

Example:

The new mascot for the Hartford Yellowskins

Offensive? Obviously.

Resolute 14 · 02-13-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

Blackhawk is in honour of the slaughter of American Natives in the Blackhawk war, which was pretty much a complete bloodbath for the Natives. Black Hawk lived and was transported east where they got him out at various towns to show his face (along with the other captured Natives) so that everyone knew who won the slaughter. People would come out and burn the images of the Natives in effigy, once they arrived at their final destination they settled in to live out most of their remaining days in prison.

Not sure how other ethnic groups would react if sports teams were named to honour times when they were slaughtered but I would guess they would find it equally offensive.

The Blackhawks were named after Frederic McLaughlin's WWI regiment. The Regiment itself, primarally from Illinois, was named after Chief Black Hawk.

So no, the Chicago Blackhawks were not named to "honour times when [natives] were slaughtered". Though the regiment's name may or may not have been. Not saying that this makes the name alright, only that you are being deceptive in how you present the formation of the team's identity.

JiriHrdina · 02-13-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

So then, Braves, Indians and Eskimos are acceptable?

I don't know if it is up for us to decide - but certainly some of the imagery they use (e.g. Chief Wahoo) are certainly not acceptable. Racial caricatures should be considered off limits.

Cole436 · 02-13-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

So then, Braves, Indians and Eskimos are acceptable?

I can't comment to the Braves, as I'm not educated on their background, but absolutely with Eskimos. It's a very offensive term to Inuit people. Indians are a separate matter. Many natives are proud of their legal status of "North American Indians", but if it's used as a pejorative term, then it's deemed offensive.

Split98 · 02-13-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

So then, Braves, Indians and Eskimos are acceptable?

Notice how the Braves haven't been brought up?

Indians I would say maybe...

I'm missing something on the Eskimos here...

But if offending an entire culture, then absolutely! How can anyone actually take the stance that an offensive name for a sports team is acceptable?

troutman · 02-13-2013, 01:19 PM

IIRC, the word Eskimo is derived from "raw meat eater" and is considered derogatory by some.

Derek Sutton · 02-13-2013, 01:20 PM

nm

Puppet Guy · 02-13-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Split98

Notice how the Braves haven't been brought up?

Indians I would say maybe...

I'm missing something on the Eskimos here...

But if offending an entire culture, then absolutely! How can anyone actually take the stance that an offensive name for a sports team is acceptable?

Eskimo translates to "eater of raw flesh", which really makes it a great team name.

mikey_the_redneck · 02-13-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Good let that be the test then.
A small, vocal minority of aboriginal people ARE offended by names such as the Redskins - therefore do away with them.

Fyp.

Anyways, personally I think the Redskins, Blackhawks etc. are really quite beautiful logos and are unique to North America.

oilyfan · 02-13-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Good let that be the test then.
Aboriginal people ARE offended by names such as the Redskins - therefore do away with them.

Can you provide a link with a study to show that aboriginal people think these names are offensive?

I will provide a link where a study proved that aboriginals did not think that they are offensive.

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycent...s_09-24_pr.pdf

Split98 · 02-13-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The Blackhawks were named after Frederic McLaughlin's WWI regiment. The Regiment itself, primarally from Illinois, was named after Chief Black Hawk.

So no, the Chicago Blackhawks were not named to "honour times when [natives] were slaughtered". Though the regiment's name may or may not have been. Not saying that this makes the name alright, only that you are being deceptive in how you present the formation of the team's identity.

Had they gone with military imagery, we could let McLaughlin's insensitivity pass and the name I'm sure would come under fire from some... but be considered acceptable in that we are honouring the regiment.

However, Chicago is littered with native imagery... clearly linking the symbolism to a slaughter.

CliffFletcher · 02-13-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

How about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? A logo of a leprechaun trying to fight.

You don't see the Irish up in arms over it.

The difference is that a lot of the original fans of the team (and of Vikings, etc.) were in fact Irish/Scandinavian. They were celebrating (or making light) of their own heritage. I suspect natives weren't even allowed into the stadium to watch Cleveland Indians games for the first few decades of the franchise. The name, the logo, the team had nothing to do with them.

So when a group of natives launches their own sports franchise and puts a native on the logo, your point will stand.

Clever_Iggy · 02-13-2013, 01:23 PM

And that's where I'm simply ignorant on the subject. I had no idea "Eskimos" was an offensive term... at all. In fact, I've referred to Inquit people as Eskimos not knowing, until now, that it was considered offensive.

The term "Indians", at least with my experience in the US, is how you refer to Indian people. When I first moved there, I was shocked when people would use the term because in Canada it's basically anything but that term.

Braves, I have no idea. Is it simply another reference to Indians/Natives/Aboriginals? A reference to a particular battle or their bravery in warfare generally? I have no idea.