Last week Toronto Star sports writer Damien Cox suggested that it is time to get rid of the Chicago Black Hawks name and symbol, which he says is akin to the old cigar store Indian. It's a great time to raise this, given that Chicago is in the Stanley Cup final.
Personally, I love the retro look, but I agree that the logo developed in 1926 to honour a WW1 fighting unit is long past its "best before" date. Pro teams such as the Blackhawks and the Washington Redskins are being pushed to rethink logos and monikers that were serviceable in their day but are now offensive. Can you imagine if there was a team called the Chinamen? And teams can make these changes. In Washington, where there is a lot of gun violence, the name was changed from the Bullets to the Wizards. I imagine some fundamentalist Christians make the sign of the cross at that alteration.
This debate can be brought closer to home. I grew up in nearby Brooklin, Ontario and the championship lacrosse team was called the Redmen. Still is, for that matter, and the logo looks a lot like that of the Blackhawks. Arguably using that moniker makes more sense for a lacrosse team since aboriginal people invented the game, but appropriating the culture may be just as unreasonable.
Many sports associations have banned the use of aboriginal nicknames. Other organizations including most churches have changed and challenged stereotypes and even offered apologies. So why shouldn't athletic teams get with the program?
An online Star poll asked readers if they agreed with Cox's position and about three quarters said no. What are your thoughts? Do we accept that this is just tradition, or should these teams realize that they are in the twenty first century and develop more respectful sensibilities?
6 comments:
The team was actually named after then-owner/founder retired Gen. McLaughlin's old WWI batallion. This was, in turn, named to honour Chief Blackhawk, a Native American leader who displayed both honour and bravery in combat. McLaughlin's wife designed the logo back in 1926 (I believe) and it's been around in more or less the same form ever since.
It's difficult for me to accept today's ultra-political correctness on this issue because the team wasn't originally named to caricaturize Native Ameicans (like the Atlanta Braves or the gawdawfully named Washington Redskins of the NFL.) It was done to honor the memory of fallen comrades, who were in turn honoured by the link to the original man.
Given the context, I think we should leave it alone.
That is an interesting question. There's no doubt that it is pervasive in so many sports and on so many teams. Just look at the "Tomahawk Chop" that the Atlanta Braves(among other teams) use. I had a British relative go to an Atlanta game and who openly wondered how that was received by North American Indians.
The New Zealand All Blacks rugby team uses a traditional Maori war dance before their games too.
Then there's the Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, etc. I suppose if there is a negative connotation, then perhaps a change would be appropriate.
One of the complaints - and a valid one at that - from our first nations peoples is a lack of consultation with them. I think if there are hard feelings and negativity towards a team name or logo, then I think it would be prudent to revisit it. As you said, David, many of these were created a long time ago. Times change.
These articles say it a lot better then I could.
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/mascots.htm
Lots for and lots against. Makes for some interesting reading.
Have been struggling with this since I read it...when is "wrong" really "wrong"? Only when we visibly and intentionally hurt someone? Or when we are insensitive or oblivious to potential hurt we cause? ("forgive us for we know not what we do") Or when in spirit we mean no harm? Or only when the 'hurt" speak out against us? Only when we get caught? And like these sports teams..when times and sensibilties have changed? hmmmm
Sometimes the ultra political correctness leaves me tongue tied , for fear of offending.... and for me seems separating rather than inclusive, even though I know its necessity.
Thanks to all four of you for wrestling with a challenging issue. Laura's "when is wrong really wrong" is succinct. It is difficult to rewrite history, especially as Ian notes that history may actually be positive.
I agree though, Johnny, that consultation with those may feel they are the victims of charicatures is important.
Good link Laurie, and one which supports the range of opinions.
I agree that we need to ask our First Nations brothers and sisters (or American Indians in the states). If they are the ones that this emblem might offend, then we need to just ask. We also need to be prepared to really listen. We need to have a conversation and take it seriously. We need to be prepared to change.
Post a Comment