Hawks Name/Logo Change?

[vonbeck]

Jul 24, 2021 13:52:26 GMT -6 BigT said:

Jul 24, 2021 12:43:56 GMT -6 nighbor said:

History The National Hockey League (NHL)'s Chicago Blackhawks was named in honor of the U.S. 86th Infantry Division, which was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division" after Black Hawk, a Native American chief; the team's founder, Frederic McLaughlin, having served in that division.

I don’t like chiming in on these things very often due to people’s feelings are too involved. But that is correct and the Chicago BlackHawks are in no way shape or form set up to be racist. It’s an honour to have something named after you.

Here in Canada, a lot of Residential Schools have had their terrible pasts brought out. A lot of indigenous children died from Tuberculosis. Like thousands. There are even cases of a lot of kids dying from neglect. It’s awful. Seeing children suffer is wrong. We all know this. This is Canada’s history. Like it or not. But making teams get rid of names isn’t going to change a thing. If the name is clearly racist against anyone, I think it should be abolished.

I think a name and logo like the Blackhawks is a good thing. It helps celebrate the accomplishments of great people. If Chief BlackHawks family or descendants wanted it abolished, then they should grant the family their wishes.

We can’t change history, but we sure as hell better learn from it. I for one hope the Hawks keep their name and logo. It’s not racist. And no one is saying the atrocities against the said people are justified, or in any way acceptable. We just want to celebrate a great leaders life by using his portrait and name!!!

Well said!

[hsbob]

Jul 24, 2021 13:52:26 GMT -6 BigT said:

Jul 24, 2021 12:43:56 GMT -6 nighbor said:

History The National Hockey League (NHL)'s Chicago Blackhawks was named in honor of the U.S. 86th Infantry Division, which was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division" after Black Hawk, a Native American chief; the team's founder, Frederic McLaughlin, having served in that division.

I don’t like chiming in on these things very often due to people’s feelings are too involved. But that is correct and the Chicago BlackHawks are in no way shape or form set up to be racist. It’s an honour to have something named after you.

Here in Canada, a lot of Residential Schools have had their terrible pasts brought out. A lot of indigenous children died from Tuberculosis. Like thousands. There are even cases of a lot of kids dying from neglect. It’s awful. Seeing children suffer is wrong. We all know this. This is Canada’s history. Like it or not. But making teams get rid of names isn’t going to change a thing. If the name is clearly racist against anyone, I think it should be abolished.

I think a name and logo like the Blackhawks is a good thing. It helps celebrate the accomplishments of great people. If Chief BlackHawks family or descendants wanted it abolished, then they should grant the family their wishes.

We can’t change history, but we sure as hell better learn from it. I for one hope the Hawks keep their name and logo. It’s not racist. And no one is saying the atrocities against the said people are justified, or in any way acceptable. We just want to celebrate a great leaders life by using his portrait and name!!!

And Canada still treated their indigenous populations considerably more humane that the US did,Native American tribes actually fled to Canada to evade the same type of slaughter Chief Black Hawk witnessed. Everybody can do and say what they want but I refuse to ever wear a piece of clothing with the likeness of a dead,tortured human being on it again.

This man saw his family slaughtered by US troops and was paraded around in a cage after his capture.........celebrate that.



  

[jacksalmon]

Jul 19, 2020 1:20:33 GMT -6 vadarx said:

www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/14/sorry-the-chicago-blackhawks-need-to-change-their-name-and-logo/#gsc.tab=0

getting back to the logo debate here, I thought this was an interesting read.

This was a very interesting read and full of insights into why white Americans have named military weapons and sports teams after native tribes.  Also, the explanation of how the Blackhawks came to get their name from the owner who served in the military Blackhawk division shows that there is some distance between the name of the tribe and the team.  However, it is unquestionable that the same myth behind the reasons why so many weapons were named after tribes is also responsible for the naming of the team.  That myth is spelled out as a way of making the tribes seem as equal adversaries in wars the reasons for which were morally justifiable instead of being unequal matches between land grabbing intruders and the victims of their heartless slaughter to assist with the land grab.  It is hard for the average person to see this when the names of sport teams are derived from the names of military weapons/groups that stand for power, honor and bravery.  I also like the author's idea of keeping the name Blackhawks, but changing the symbol to a hawk instead of an Indian head.  To say that the presence of the Indian head is to give honor to a brave and strong Indian leader belies the way that he was treated with disrespect and dishonor after he was forced to surrender in the face of overwhelming odds against his people.  Keeping the name and changing the team symbol to a bird is a pretty good way to compromise the dispute over the team's current name and symbol.  

P.S.  One of the greatest days in American history is the day Custer got whacked at the Little Big Horn.  After what he and the US did to the Sioux in taking away their revered Black Hills because of the presence of gold after they had been given that land as their reservation, Custer and his men got what they deserved.  

[vonbeck]

Jul 24, 2021 17:55:41 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 24, 2021 13:52:26 GMT -6 BigT said:

I don’t like chiming in on these things very often due to people’s feelings are too involved. But that is correct and the Chicago BlackHawks are in no way shape or form set up to be racist. It’s an honour to have something named after you.

Here in Canada, a lot of Residential Schools have had their terrible pasts brought out. A lot of indigenous children died from Tuberculosis. Like thousands. There are even cases of a lot of kids dying from neglect. It’s awful. Seeing children suffer is wrong. We all know this. This is Canada’s history. Like it or not. But making teams get rid of names isn’t going to change a thing. If the name is clearly racist against anyone, I think it should be abolished.

I think a name and logo like the Blackhawks is a good thing. It helps celebrate the accomplishments of great people. If Chief BlackHawks family or descendants wanted it abolished, then they should grant the family their wishes.

We can’t change history, but we sure as hell better learn from it. I for one hope the Hawks keep their name and logo. It’s not racist. And no one is saying the atrocities against the said people are justified, or in any way acceptable. We just want to celebrate a great leaders life by using his portrait and name!!!

And Canada still treated their indigenous populations considerably more humane that the US did,Native American tribes actually fled to Canada to evade the same type of slaughter Chief Black Hawk witnessed. Everybody can do and say what they want but I refuse to ever wear a piece of clothing with the likeness of a dead,tortured human being on it again.

This man saw his family slaughtered by US troops and was paraded around in a cage after his capture.........celebrate that.



  According to the organization this is supposed to be an honorific thing.  The Chicago Blackhawks' name and logo symbolizes an important and historic person, Black Hawk of Illinois' Sac & Fox Nation, whose leadership and life has inspired generations of Native Americans, veterans and the public at large.  

While I totally agree teams like Washington D.C., now known as Washington Football Team and Cleveland's baseball team should of changed their name years ago and Native Americans both in the U.S. and Canada have been treated horribly in the past and even today they are much maligned , at what point do we say these teams names are not really racist.

 I mean what if PETA gets all up in arms about the Buffalo Bills name (in which he killed 100 a day 20,000 in his life time) or the Detroit Tigers (which there are only 3,900 left in the wild).  My point being there are so many other things to worry about today than the BlackHawks logo.  I have no problem if they change it, but imho it's not racist.

Anyway rant over.  Back to hockey and the Hawks...

[jacksalmon]

Jul 24, 2021 19:06:30 GMT -6 vonbeck said:

Jul 24, 2021 17:55:41 GMT -6 hsbob said:

And Canada still treated their indigenous populations considerably more humane that the US did,Native American tribes actually fled to Canada to evade the same type of slaughter Chief Black Hawk witnessed. Everybody can do and say what they want but I refuse to ever wear a piece of clothing with the likeness of a dead,tortured human being on it again.

This man saw his family slaughtered by US troops and was paraded around in a cage after his capture.........celebrate that.



  According to the organization this is supposed to be an honorific thing.  The Chicago Blackhawks' name and logo symbolizes an important and historic person, Black Hawk of Illinois' Sac & Fox Nation, whose leadership and life has inspired generations of Native Americans, veterans and the public at large.  

While I totally agree teams like Washington D.C., now known as Washington Football Team and Cleveland's baseball team should of changed their name years ago and Native Americans both in the U.S. and Canada have been treated horribly in the past and even today they are much maligned , at what point do we say these teams names are not really racist.

 I mean what if PETA gets all up in arms about the Buffalo Bills name (in which he killed 100 a day 20,000 in his life time) or the Detroit Tigers (which there are only 3,900 left in the wild).  My point being there are so many other things to worry about today than the BlackHawks logo.  I have no problem if they change it, but imho it's not racist.

Anyway rant over.  Back to hockey and the Hawks...

You bring up a good example of a team that needs a name change----the Buffalo Bills.  What that jerkoff did to the buffalo herds should have been grounds for lifetime imprisonment, or being deprived of his own hide, not making a lot of money off a show that honored his slaughter of defenseless animals in order to deprive the Native Americans of their traditional food source.  To me, naming the team the Bills is so much worse than naming a team the Blackhawks or Tigers that it doesn't even come close to belonging in the discussion over whether a team's name should be changed..  

[LordKOTL]

Jul 24, 2021 17:55:41 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 24, 2021 13:52:26 GMT -6 BigT said:

I don’t like chiming in on these things very often due to people’s feelings are too involved. But that is correct and the Chicago BlackHawks are in no way shape or form set up to be racist. It’s an honour to have something named after you.

Here in Canada, a lot of Residential Schools have had their terrible pasts brought out. A lot of indigenous children died from Tuberculosis. Like thousands. There are even cases of a lot of kids dying from neglect. It’s awful. Seeing children suffer is wrong. We all know this. This is Canada’s history. Like it or not. But making teams get rid of names isn’t going to change a thing. If the name is clearly racist against anyone, I think it should be abolished.

I think a name and logo like the Blackhawks is a good thing. It helps celebrate the accomplishments of great people. If Chief BlackHawks family or descendants wanted it abolished, then they should grant the family their wishes.

We can’t change history, but we sure as hell better learn from it. I for one hope the Hawks keep their name and logo. It’s not racist. And no one is saying the atrocities against the said people are justified, or in any way acceptable. We just want to celebrate a great leaders life by using his portrait and name!!!

And Canada still treated their indigenous populations considerably more humane that the US did,Native American tribes actually fled to Canada to evade the same type of slaughter Chief Black Hawk witnessed. Everybody can do and say what they want but I refuse to ever wear a piece of clothing with the likeness of a dead,tortured human being on it again.

This man saw his family slaughtered by US troops and was paraded around in a cage after his capture.........celebrate that.



  

Playing Devil's advocate here...christians around the world celebrate the device used to execute their alleged prophet as a symbol of their faith...sometimes even with said prophet nailed to it.

[hsbob]

Jul 26, 2021 10:04:22 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Jul 24, 2021 17:55:41 GMT -6 hsbob said:

And Canada still treated their indigenous populations considerably more humane that the US did,Native American tribes actually fled to Canada to evade the same type of slaughter Chief Black Hawk witnessed. Everybody can do and say what they want but I refuse to ever wear a piece of clothing with the likeness of a dead,tortured human being on it again.

This man saw his family slaughtered by US troops and was paraded around in a cage after his capture.........celebrate that.



  

Playing Devil's advocate here...christians around the world celebrate the device used to execute their alleged prophet as a symbol of their faith...sometimes even with said prophet nailed to it.

Aren't all religious Icons martyrs? Yes,Christians themselves embrace this image of the crucified Christ but could you imagine if it was the crucifiers instead using the image of a crucified Christ?  Maybe a logo of the tortured Chief being paraded around in a cage as he was after his capture would be apropos using this logic.


Interesting and fresh perspective though my friend.
   

[LordKOTL]

Jul 26, 2021 10:31:17 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 26, 2021 10:04:22 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Playing Devil's advocate here...christians around the world celebrate the device used to execute their alleged prophet as a symbol of their faith...sometimes even with said prophet nailed to it.

Aren't all religious Icons martyrs? Yes,Christians themselves embrace this image of the crucified Christ but could you imagine if it was the crucifiers instead using the image of a crucified Christ?  Maybe a logo of the tortured Chief being paraded around in a cage as he was after his capture would be apropos using this logic.


Interesting and fresh perspective though my friend.
   

From what I've gathered the only people who's opinion matters (The Sauk) don't have a problem with the logo...at least I haven't heard of a problem. That being said if they are okay with it, why should it be a big deal? If they aren't then the discussion is moot.

IMHO it's not up to us white boys to tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended by, and I'll go even further to say that neither should other native americans who aren't Sauk (that would be like me, a White American telling one of my friends who is a White Canadian living in Vancouver BC that he should be offended by the name 'Canucks' and their logo of Johnny Canuck. Canuck at one point was a derogatory term but I gather most, if not all who would fall under that umbrella embrace the term and logo.

If the Sauk are okay with the logo, then there's no reason it shouldn't stay in spite of the history. If they want it gone then it should be gone. But IMHO they are the only ones that can make that decision.

[gigecj]

Interesting convos...

Here's merely some musings from mois. Please note that I haven't reached a conclusion as I suppose is the case for many of us.

Musing #1: Should we take the logo and "reverse" it from what was supposed to be a badge of honor in the minds of the white men who created it by, I don't know, placing the Blackhawk logo within a "No" sign i.e. a circle and slash within that spans its diameter? I would think not.

Musing #2: Should we completely annihilate the current logo such that Chief Blackhawk, never really an important figure in American History books (unfortunately), risks becoming almost completely, if not totally, invisible in the minds of everyone?

Musing #3: Should we see this logo in the same light of that of the Washington Redskins? Not saying the logo has no issues, just that it probably isn't in the same category of desecration as that of the 'Skins.

Musing #4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? White men who have a guilt-complex about all things even remotely related to being white without even seeking out the Native American perspective? Or, should it be the consensus of Native Americans? Or, should it be just a few Native Americans that find it offensive?

Musing #5: Should we forsake any photos, videos, sculptures, icons, etc. that have players wearing the Chief Blackhawk logo?

Feel free to add any other musings or expand or contract any of the above.  My intention here is to induce further discussion.

[hsbob]

Jul 26, 2021 10:56:39 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Jul 26, 2021 10:31:17 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Aren't all religious Icons martyrs? Yes,Christians themselves embrace this image of the crucified Christ but could you imagine if it was the crucifiers instead using the image of a crucified Christ?  Maybe a logo of the tortured Chief being paraded around in a cage as he was after his capture would be apropos using this logic.


Interesting and fresh perspective though my friend.
   

From what I've gathered the only people who's opinion matters (The Sauk) don't have a problem with the logo...at least I haven't heard of a problem. That being said if they are okay with it, why should it be a big deal? If they aren't then the discussion is moot.

IMHO it's not up to us white boys to tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended by, and I'll go even further to say that neither should other native americans who aren't Sauk (that would be like me, a White American telling one of my friends who is a White Canadian living in Vancouver BC that he should be offended by the name 'Canucks' and their logo of Johnny Canuck. Canuck at one point was a derogatory term but I gather most, if not all who would fall under that umbrella embrace the term and logo.

If the Sauk are okay with the logo, then there's no reason it shouldn't stay in spite of the history. If they want it gone then it should be gone. But IMHO they are the only ones that can make that decision.

Tryin' to approach your question of who's opinion matters(which is a good one)with a clear mind requires me to ask......where in the hell do you find a 'Sauk' to ask? Historical accounts said the tribe was wiped out......slaughtered. Do we then try to get the opinion of the Fox or Algonquin tribe's descendants from the area at the time and where do we find them? We have to remember that there is no more marginalized and trivialized population in America than it's first inhabitants and I have to imagine issues like overwhelming poverty,alcoholism,drug abuse and the more recent spate of young,missing Native women are more urgent to them than who's on a jersey somewhere.
vadarx posted this link last summer aicchicago.org/statement-on-blackhawks/ in a post on page one of this thread but it's gone now. If I recall,an Illinois Native American association, the American Indian Center of Chicago was very much no longer in favor of the likeness. 

Is 'Johnny Canuck' a factitious character or an actual likeness of a tragic human being who saw his family and people slaughtered? Is 'Johnny Canuck' derogatory to the people of BC......who created 'Johnny Canuck' if not the people of BC themselves?

     
 

[hsbob]

Jul 26, 2021 11:09:25 GMT -6 gigecj said:

Interesting convos...

Here's merely some musings from mois. Please note that I haven't reached a conclusion as I suppose is the case for many of us.

Musing #1: Should we take the logo and "reverse" it from what was supposed to be a badge of honor in the minds of the white men who created it by, I don't know, placing the Blackhawk logo within a "No" sign i.e. a circle and slash within that spans its diameter? I would think not.

Musing #2: Should we completely annihilate the current logo such that Chief Blackhawk, never really an important figure in American History books (unfortunately), risks becoming almost completely, if not totally, invisible in the minds of everyone?

Musing #3: Should we see this logo in the same light of that of the Washington Redskins? Not saying the logo has no issues, just that it probably isn't in the same category of desecration as that of the 'Skins.

Musing #4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? White men who have a guilt-complex about all things even remotely related to being white without even seeking out the Native American perspective? Or, should it be the consensus of Native Americans? Or, should it be just a few Native Americans that find it offensive?

Musing #5: Should we forsake any photos, videos, sculptures, icons, etc. that have players wearing the Chief Blackhawk logo?

Feel free to add any other musings or expand or contract any of the above.  My intention here is to induce further discussion.

#1: We both know this is an unrealistic musing.

#2: Should sports teams be called the 'Crazy Horses' or the 'Sitting Bulls' too so Americans stay or become familiar with their history or should it be taught properly in schools?

#3: The term 'Redskins' alone make the NFL logo worse and I don't really consider Chicago's logo intentionally racist but can anyone say it isn't a likeness of a an actual tragic human figure? The Chief did after all witness his family and people slaughtered at the hands of the US government before they paraded him around in a cage.

#4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? I like this one. Why is okay for white men to use the image in the first place but it isn't okay for white men to have an issue with it now? Ask the Native American now? Did anybody ask em if it as okay in the first place? Do I need F'ing guilt about anything related to being white(my GOD)to be uncomfortable with the likeness of a tortured human being on a sports jersey? 

#5: It's up to the individual but I plan to do exactly that for the reasons I mentioned. 

[gigecj]

Jul 26, 2021 13:51:17 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 26, 2021 11:09:25 GMT -6 gigecj said:

Interesting convos...

Here's merely some musings from mois. Please note that I haven't reached a conclusion as I suppose is the case for many of us.

Musing #1: Should we take the logo and "reverse" it from what was supposed to be a badge of honor in the minds of the white men who created it by, I don't know, placing the Blackhawk logo within a "No" sign i.e. a circle and slash within that spans its diameter? I would think not.

Musing #2: Should we completely annihilate the current logo such that Chief Blackhawk, never really an important figure in American History books (unfortunately), risks becoming almost completely, if not totally, invisible in the minds of everyone?

Musing #3: Should we see this logo in the same light of that of the Washington Redskins? Not saying the logo has no issues, just that it probably isn't in the same category of desecration as that of the 'Skins.

Musing #4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? White men who have a guilt-complex about all things even remotely related to being white without even seeking out the Native American perspective? Or, should it be the consensus of Native Americans? Or, should it be just a few Native Americans that find it offensive?

Musing #5: Should we forsake any photos, videos, sculptures, icons, etc. that have players wearing the Chief Blackhawk logo?

Feel free to add any other musings or expand or contract any of the above.  My intention here is to induce further discussion.

#1: We both know this is an unrealistic musing.

#2: Should sports teams be called the 'Crazy Horses' or the 'Sitting Bulls' too so Americans stay or become familiar with their history or should it be taught properly in schools?

#3: The term 'Redskins' alone make the NFL logo worse and I don't really consider Chicago's logo intentionally racist but can anyone say it isn't a likeness of a an actual tragic human figure? The Chief did after all witness his family and people slaughtered at the hands of the US government before they paraded him around in a cage.

#4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? I like this one. Why is okay for white men to use the image in the first place but it isn't okay for white men to have an issue with it now? Ask the Native American now? Did anybody ask em if it as okay in the first place? Do I need F'ing guilt about anything related to being white(my GOD)to be uncomfortable with the likeness of a tortured human being on a sports jersey? 

Always thoughtful!  Thanks for sharing.

[hsbob]

Jul 26, 2021 13:54:11 GMT -6 gigecj said:

Jul 26, 2021 13:51:17 GMT -6 hsbob said:

#1: We both know this is an unrealistic musing.

#2: Should sports teams be called the 'Crazy Horses' or the 'Sitting Bulls' too so Americans stay or become familiar with their history or should it be taught properly in schools?

#3: The term 'Redskins' alone make the NFL logo worse and I don't really consider Chicago's logo intentionally racist but can anyone say it isn't a likeness of a an actual tragic human figure? The Chief did after all witness his family and people slaughtered at the hands of the US government before they paraded him around in a cage.

#4: Who makes the decision to get rid of the logo? I like this one. Why is okay for white men to use the image in the first place but it isn't okay for white men to have an issue with it now? Ask the Native American now? Did anybody ask em if it as okay in the first place? Do I need F'ing guilt about anything related to being white(my GOD)to be uncomfortable with the likeness of a tortured human being on a sports jersey? 

Always thoughtful!  Thanks for sharing.

I realize these are only my opinions,our sensibilities can vary and that's a good thing.......I guess we all can't be bleeding harts.  

[gigecj]

Jul 26, 2021 13:59:39 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 26, 2021 13:54:11 GMT -6 gigecj said:

Always thoughtful!  Thanks for sharing.

I realize these are only my opinions,our sensibilities can vary and that's a good thing.......I guess we all can't be bleeding harts.  

My wife does all of the heart bleeding in this household.  I'll join in from time to time. 

[jimakablkhwks918]

Some thoughts from various native groups:

However, this stance is markedly different from the one previously taken by the American Indian Center, with the shift coming only in the past few years. In 2010, for instance, Joe Podlasek stated that, "The stance is very clear. We want the Chicago Blackhawks logo to change. For us, that's one of our grandfathers. Would you do that with your grandfather's picture? Take it and throw it on a rug? Walk on it and dance on it?"

In 2019, the American Indian Center of Chicago ended all ties to the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation, stating they will no longer affiliate "with organizations that perpetuate stereotypes through the use of 'Indian' mascots." The AIC noted in its statement that they "previously held a relationship with the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation with the intention of educating the general public about American Indians and the use of logos and mascots. The AIC, along with members of the community have since decided to end this relationship" and stated that "going forward, AIC will have no professional ties with the Blackhawks, or any other organization that perpetuates harmful stereotypes."[34][15]

The Chi-Nations Youth Council (CNYC), an Indigenous youth organization in Chicago, said in 2020, "The Chicago Blackhawks name and logo symbolizes a legacy of imperialism and genocide." "As statues of invaders, slave holders, and white supremacists fall across the nation so too should the images and language of the savage and dead 'Indians'." CNYC also noted "As social consciousness has grown over the past decades so has the Blackhawks performative gestures of buying their reprieve from those willing to sell out the health and humanity of our future generations."[38]


These are excerpts from a Wikipedia article on the matter, and they aren't very ambiguous as to stance.

[T-man2010]

Jul 26, 2021 16:48:03 GMT -6 jimakablkhwks918 said:

Some thoughts from various native groups:

However, this stance is markedly different from the one previously taken by the American Indian Center, with the shift coming only in the past few years. In 2010, for instance, Joe Podlasek stated that, "The stance is very clear. We want the Chicago Blackhawks logo to change. For us, that's one of our grandfathers. Would you do that with your grandfather's picture? Take it and throw it on a rug? Walk on it and dance on it?"

In 2019, the American Indian Center of Chicago ended all ties to the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation, stating they will no longer affiliate "with organizations that perpetuate stereotypes through the use of 'Indian' mascots." The AIC noted in its statement that they "previously held a relationship with the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation with the intention of educating the general public about American Indians and the use of logos and mascots. The AIC, along with members of the community have since decided to end this relationship" and stated that "going forward, AIC will have no professional ties with the Blackhawks, or any other organization that perpetuates harmful stereotypes."[34][15]

The Chi-Nations Youth Council (CNYC), an Indigenous youth organization in Chicago, said in 2020, "The Chicago Blackhawks name and logo symbolizes a legacy of imperialism and genocide." "As statues of invaders, slave holders, and white supremacists fall across the nation so too should the images and language of the savage and dead 'Indians'." CNYC also noted "As social consciousness has grown over the past decades so has the Blackhawks performative gestures of buying their reprieve from those willing to sell out the health and humanity of our future generations."[38]


These are excerpts from a Wikipedia article on the matter, and they aren't very ambiguous as to stance.

The same Joe Podlasek that's partnered with the Hawks now?


"The aim of this exhibit is to teach people that Native Americans are not a chapter in a history textbook, but people of diverse nations living vibrantly today in cities and rural areas throughout the U.S., Canada, Central and South Americas, and islands in between. Through "A Place of Teaching" / "gikinoo'amaadiiwignamig" (Ojibwe), we hope to amplify Native voices collectively, heard as a unified call from their history to the strength of their present being." - Joe Podlasek, CEO of Trickster Cultural Center


The Hawks foundation is a supporter of the Trickster Cultural Center.

[bigbarn27]

Oct 14, 2020 20:35:47 GMT -6 mvr said:

Squishy - If as you suggest the point is to build a legacy for Chief Black Hawk and the other tribes killed in the genocide, I believe this is a good cause.

If so, then the Blackhawks organization really should be jumping in with both feet. Have native tribe leaders (instead of military veterans) standing at centre ice during the national anthem. Provide real space at the arena for the native tribe organizations to promote their histories. Add statues in front of the arena featuring important native historical figures.

Above all, provide generous and public funds each year to help native tribes improve their situation. Use the team as the conduit for First Nations peoples to take pride in their past.

They have done a lot of this stuff they have tribe leaders with military, they have provided them with space at the UC not permanent. I know they have provided funds no idea how much. last years 2 games there was a 5 min video about the 3 tribes and the chief. Is the object of this so we dont see these kind of things? every convention they have provided them with 2 booths for selling  stuff  and educating. Hawks have givin different tribes center stage in between periods to do stuff. I would rather not see that stuff go away but as others have said these are different times. 

[jacksalmon]

Jul 26, 2021 10:56:39 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Jul 26, 2021 10:31:17 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Aren't all religious Icons martyrs? Yes,Christians themselves embrace this image of the crucified Christ but could you imagine if it was the crucifiers instead using the image of a crucified Christ?  Maybe a logo of the tortured Chief being paraded around in a cage as he was after his capture would be apropos using this logic.


Interesting and fresh perspective though my friend.
   

From what I've gathered the only people who's opinion matters (The Sauk) don't have a problem with the logo...at least I haven't heard of a problem. That being said if they are okay with it, why should it be a big deal? If they aren't then the discussion is moot.

IMHO it's not up to us white boys to tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended by, and I'll go even further to say that neither should other native americans who aren't Sauk (that would be like me, a White American telling one of my friends who is a White Canadian living in Vancouver BC that he should be offended by the name 'Canucks' and their logo of Johnny Canuck. Canuck at one point was a derogatory term but I gather most, if not all who would fall under that umbrella embrace the term and logo.

If the Sauk are okay with the logo, then there's no reason it shouldn't stay in spite of the history. If they want it gone then it should be gone. But IMHO they are the only ones that can make that decision.

I'll buy the reasoning of your post.  If the Sauk don't care, why should anyone else?  But, if they do?  

[jacksalmon]

Jul 26, 2021 17:31:50 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

Jul 26, 2021 16:48:03 GMT -6 jimakablkhwks918 said:

Some thoughts from various native groups:

However, this stance is markedly different from the one previously taken by the American Indian Center, with the shift coming only in the past few years. In 2010, for instance, Joe Podlasek stated that, "The stance is very clear. We want the Chicago Blackhawks logo to change. For us, that's one of our grandfathers. Would you do that with your grandfather's picture? Take it and throw it on a rug? Walk on it and dance on it?"

In 2019, the American Indian Center of Chicago ended all ties to the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation, stating they will no longer affiliate "with organizations that perpetuate stereotypes through the use of 'Indian' mascots." The AIC noted in its statement that they "previously held a relationship with the Chicago Blackhawks Foundation with the intention of educating the general public about American Indians and the use of logos and mascots. The AIC, along with members of the community have since decided to end this relationship" and stated that "going forward, AIC will have no professional ties with the Blackhawks, or any other organization that perpetuates harmful stereotypes."[34][15]

The Chi-Nations Youth Council (CNYC), an Indigenous youth organization in Chicago, said in 2020, "The Chicago Blackhawks name and logo symbolizes a legacy of imperialism and genocide." "As statues of invaders, slave holders, and white supremacists fall across the nation so too should the images and language of the savage and dead 'Indians'." CNYC also noted "As social consciousness has grown over the past decades so has the Blackhawks performative gestures of buying their reprieve from those willing to sell out the health and humanity of our future generations."[38]


These are excerpts from a Wikipedia article on the matter, and they aren't very ambiguous as to stance.

The same Joe Podlasek that's partnered with the Hawks now?


"The aim of this exhibit is to teach people that Native Americans are not a chapter in a history textbook, but people of diverse nations living vibrantly today in cities and rural areas throughout the U.S., Canada, Central and South Americas, and islands in between. Through "A Place of Teaching" / "gikinoo'amaadiiwignamig" (Ojibwe), we hope to amplify Native voices collectively, heard as a unified call from their history to the strength of their present being." - Joe Podlasek, CEO of Trickster Cultural Center


The Hawks foundation is a supporter of the Trickster Cultural Center.

This whole thing gets kinda complicated.  It was much simpler when the Sioux kicked Custer's ass.  

[T-man2010]

Jul 26, 2021 18:24:15 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

Jul 26, 2021 17:31:50 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

The same Joe Podlasek that's partnered with the Hawks now?


"The aim of this exhibit is to teach people that Native Americans are not a chapter in a history textbook, but people of diverse nations living vibrantly today in cities and rural areas throughout the U.S., Canada, Central and South Americas, and islands in between. Through "A Place of Teaching" / "gikinoo'amaadiiwignamig" (Ojibwe), we hope to amplify Native voices collectively, heard as a unified call from their history to the strength of their present being." - Joe Podlasek, CEO of Trickster Cultural Center


The Hawks foundation is a supporter of the Trickster Cultural Center.

This whole thing gets kinda complicated.  It was much simpler when the Sioux kicked Custer's ass.  

The Sioux also slaughtered half of the Sauk and several other tribes too.
They were always at war with some tribe.

[LordKOTL]

Jul 26, 2021 18:21:11 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

Jul 26, 2021 10:56:39 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

From what I've gathered the only people who's opinion matters (The Sauk) don't have a problem with the logo...at least I haven't heard of a problem. That being said if they are okay with it, why should it be a big deal? If they aren't then the discussion is moot.

IMHO it's not up to us white boys to tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended by, and I'll go even further to say that neither should other native americans who aren't Sauk (that would be like me, a White American telling one of my friends who is a White Canadian living in Vancouver BC that he should be offended by the name 'Canucks' and their logo of Johnny Canuck. Canuck at one point was a derogatory term but I gather most, if not all who would fall under that umbrella embrace the term and logo.

If the Sauk are okay with the logo, then there's no reason it shouldn't stay in spite of the history. If they want it gone then it should be gone. But IMHO they are the only ones that can make that decision.

I'll buy the reasoning of your post.  If the Sauk don't care, why should anyone else?  But, if they do?  

If they do, we should change it. My vote would be for a Blackhawk helicopter...keeps the military history of the name.

Fun fact I found out: Jim Thorpe was Sauk. Kinda curious about what he felt about the logo.

[hsbob]

Jul 27, 2021 9:41:11 GMT -6 LordKOTL said:

Jul 26, 2021 18:21:11 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

I'll buy the reasoning of your post.  If the Sauk don't care, why should anyone else?  But, if they do?  

If they do, we should change it. My vote would be for a Blackhawk helicopter...keeps the military history of the name.

Fun fact I found out: Jim Thorpe was Sauk. Kinda curious about what he felt about the logo.

I'd be more curious how he felt about being ripped away from his family to attend a notoriously vile Indian school.

 

[hsbob]

Jul 26, 2021 19:12:50 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

Jul 26, 2021 18:24:15 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

This whole thing gets kinda complicated.  It was much simpler when the Sioux kicked Custer's ass.  

The Sioux also slaughtered half of the Sauk and several other tribes too.
They were always at war with some tribe.

And the Europeans who invaded North America had quite the violent history themselves unless you consider Attila the Hun and the rest of the barbarians 'good people'. 

[BigT]

Jul 27, 2021 10:29:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 26, 2021 19:12:50 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

The Sioux also slaughtered half of the Sauk and several other tribes too.
They were always at war with some tribe.

And the Europeans who invaded North America had quite the violent history themselves unless you consider Attila the Hun and the rest of the barbarians 'good people'. 

While agree with you. I’m quite sure everyone has blood on their hands at some point in history. I know I’ve heard stories through my Grandparents on how poorly the Irish were treated back in the 1700s all the way to the 1900s. The “White Slave” they were. But could the Irish of today even think about complaining about being treated bad due to the skin colour? I doubt anyone would seriously listen. That’s why I think it’s best to educate people anyway we can on these subjects.

I live right next door to Tecumseh Ontario. Like 8 mins away. Chief Tecumseh is hailed as a hero here and there’s teams named after him, a town etc. It’s cool to use that mans name and an honour to play for the Tecumseh Chiefs. Eddy Jovanovski played for them when we were in grade 11. They moved to Lasalle now, but that for financial reasons. But the baseball program is still called the Chiefs. Not one person that I know of indigenous decent seems bothered by it one bit.

Anyways. I think everyone in this world can bitch about an overlord at some point. Which ones we choose to look at is where our opinions are stronger. I’m sure the Armenians aren’t to happy with the Turks, and the Mayans aren’t very happy with the Spanish. As long as we learn from it and move on, we can co-exist. Digging up the past and throwing it in someone’s face is not the answer. I never harmed one indigenous human in my life. I have some very good friends who are. I was talking to my buddy about the atrocities at the residential schools here in Canada. He told me this, and he’s indigenous through and through. “You’ve done nothing to anyone, while I appreciate you acknowledging the shitty things that happened, you do not need to apologize for something you didn’t do, or wouldn’t do”. So it makes me feel good to have those conversations with him. If I’m outta line, he’ll definitely tell me. He also has zero problem with the Hawks uni. Some others may!!!

[hsbob]

Jul 27, 2021 13:28:38 GMT -6 BigT said:

Jul 27, 2021 10:29:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

And the Europeans who invaded North America had quite the violent history themselves unless you consider Attila the Hun and the rest of the barbarians 'good people'. 

While agree with you. I’m quite sure everyone has blood on their hands at some point in history. I know I’ve heard stories through my Grandparents on how poorly the Irish were treated back in the 1700s all the way to the 1900s. The “White Slave” they were. But could the Irish of today even think about complaining about being treated bad due to the skin colour? I doubt anyone would seriously listen. That’s why I think it’s best to educate people anyway we can on these subjects.

I live right next door to Tecumseh Ontario. Like 8 mins away. Chief Tecumseh is hailed as a hero here and there’s teams named after him, a town etc. It’s cool to use that mans name and an honour to play for the Tecumseh Chiefs. Eddy Jovanovski played for them when we were in grade 11. They moved to Lasalle now, but that for financial reasons. But the baseball program is still called the Chiefs. Not one person that I know of indigenous decent seems bothered by it one bit.

Anyways. I think everyone in this world can bitch about an overlord at some point. Which ones we choose to look at is where our opinions are stronger. I’m sure the Armenians aren’t to happy with the Turks, and the Mayans aren’t very happy with the Spanish. As long as we learn from it and move on, we can co-exist. Digging up the past and throwing it in someone’s face is not the answer. I never harmed one indigenous human in my life. I have some very good friends who are. I was talking to my buddy about the atrocities at the residential schools here in Canada. He told me this, and he’s indigenous through and through. “You’ve done nothing to anyone, while I appreciate you acknowledging the shitty things that happened, you do not need to apologize for something you didn’t do, or wouldn’t do”. So it makes me feel good to have those conversations with him. If I’m outta line, he’ll definitely tell me. He also has zero problem with the Hawks uni. Some others may!!!

Only one race of people were enslaved in America .....suggesting otherwise is marginalizing the filthy and ungodlike government policy. ONLY ONE RACE! The Irish were white men....please tell me you know this! Of course the Anglos spit on and mistreated the arriving Irish and Italians....that's what Anglos STILL do but only ONE race was enslaved in America and it's a stain on our very existence as a country as is the ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants. 
Why were Africans the ONLY race enslaved in America? Because slave owners and those okay with insidious practice considered those Africans as something less than human our own constitution considered Africans 3/5's of a human being.....the racist rag it is.

It's not cool to use that name either WTF did Tecumseh have to do with hockey and did his descendants get compensated for the use of it?  

Digging up the past is uncomfortable for those who prospered form it's unjust policies but it's that past that has Native Americans living in squalor and poverty to this very day on the reservations they were forced onto and Imagery of a savage with war paint on only perpetuates the image of Native Americans as savages. 

I know an Indian who's okay with the disgusting image......well that justifies it.

Rich white jagoffs feel they can do whatever they want with the likenesses of minorities just to make more money and you know what.....they can.....it's another in along list of privileges. 

If you want to delve into my country's history any further,let me know.

  

[jacksalmon]

Jul 27, 2021 10:29:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 26, 2021 19:12:50 GMT -6 T-man2010 said:

The Sioux also slaughtered half of the Sauk and several other tribes too.
They were always at war with some tribe.

And the Europeans who invaded North America had quite the violent history themselves unless you consider Attila the Hun and the rest of the barbarians 'good people'. 

The Sioux were nasty dudes, no doubt; and I am sure many tribes did not consider it a good day when the Sioux made a trip into the 'hood.  However, the nastiness of the Sioux was just the way humans often behaved back then.  Look at the Europeans in the 1700s, 1800s and even into the 1900s who made life extremely dangerous for each other on a very regular basis. Nut cases like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Herr Hitler were very common back then.   It is kinda amazing that the white Europeans have calmed down so much, given their violent past.  When one thinks about it, the European white dogs did not treat the Native Americans any differently than the EWDs treated each other.  Napoleon treated all his neighbors the same----with disrespect for their humanity and good for nothing other than target practice with rifles and cannons.  All those EWDs weren't going to change their characters just because they crossed an ocean.  It's the way they were back then and it was downright nasty.  That is why I loved the Little Big Horn.  The EWDs finally got a taste of their own tactics.  

[hsbob]

Jul 27, 2021 17:15:10 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

Jul 27, 2021 10:29:14 GMT -6 hsbob said:

And the Europeans who invaded North America had quite the violent history themselves unless you consider Attila the Hun and the rest of the barbarians 'good people'. 

The Sioux were nasty dudes, no doubt; and I am sure many tribes did not consider it a good day when the Sioux made a trip into the 'hood.  However, the nastiness of the Sioux was just the way humans often behaved back then.  Look at the Europeans in the 1700s, 1800s and even into the 1900s who made life extremely dangerous for each other on a very regular basis. Nut cases like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Herr Hitler were very common back then.   It is kinda amazing that the white Europeans have calmed down so much, given their violent past.  When one thinks about it, the European white dogs did not treat the Native Americans any differently than the EWDs treated each other.  Napoleon treated all his neighbors the same----with disrespect for their humanity and good for nothing other than target practice with rifles and cannons.  All those EWDs weren't going to change their characters just because they crossed an ocean.  It's the way they were back then and it was downright nasty.  That is why I loved the Little Big Horn.  The EWDs finally got a taste of their own tactics.  

This is the last I'll have to say on this topic and I'll try to be more objective and less emotional than my last post jack.
To be fair,every society that ever existed throughout human history has seen it's majority population discriminate against it's minority population,America has no monopoly on the practice......it's a human condition.
The Europeans that came to North America's beautiful,virgin shores were violent but so were Asians and Africans,no monopoly here either.......it's a human condition.
The original 'First Nation' tribes were violent too with many tribal wars and atrocities.........it's a human condition. 

When fire was discovered,it was used to burn each other to death.
The Wheel was used for chariots,battering rams,siege towers,catapults and other weapons of war.
Horses,camels and elephants were domesticated for weapons of war. 
Stone age.....better weapons of war.
Bronze age......better weapons of war.
Iron age.......better weapons of war.
Resonance in Europe and the age of enlightenment in Asia resulted in gun powder,firearms and cannons.......better weapons of war.
Our own civil war saw the advent of rifled barrels,the 'mini ball',repeating revolvers and rifles and the death and suffering to follow was horrendous.    
Industrial revolution led to tanks,machine guns and the always fun mustard gas.........awful weapons of war.
The Wright brothers might not have known it at the time but they invented one of the most effective weapon of war ever. The jet engine followed.......as a weapon of war.
The monumental effort of the 'Manhattan project' to split the atom was undertaken for what.......a weapon of war.
The 'Space race' resulted in a few footsteeps on the Moon and also a little deal called the ICBM and mutual assured destruction.

I often wonder if God bestowed Intelligence and reasoning on the wrong species.     

  

[jacksalmon]

Jul 28, 2021 7:35:33 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 27, 2021 17:15:10 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

The Sioux were nasty dudes, no doubt; and I am sure many tribes did not consider it a good day when the Sioux made a trip into the 'hood.  However, the nastiness of the Sioux was just the way humans often behaved back then.  Look at the Europeans in the 1700s, 1800s and even into the 1900s who made life extremely dangerous for each other on a very regular basis. Nut cases like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Herr Hitler were very common back then.   It is kinda amazing that the white Europeans have calmed down so much, given their violent past.  When one thinks about it, the European white dogs did not treat the Native Americans any differently than the EWDs treated each other.  Napoleon treated all his neighbors the same----with disrespect for their humanity and good for nothing other than target practice with rifles and cannons.  All those EWDs weren't going to change their characters just because they crossed an ocean.  It's the way they were back then and it was downright nasty.  That is why I loved the Little Big Horn.  The EWDs finally got a taste of their own tactics.  

This is the last I'll have to say on this topic and I'll try to be more objective and less emotional than my last post jack.
To be fair,every society that ever existed throughout human history has seen it's majority population discriminate against it's minority population,America has no monopoly on the practice......it's a human condition.
The Europeans that came to North America's beautiful,virgin shores were violent but so were Asians and Africans,no monopoly here either.......it's a human condition.
The original 'First Nation' tribes were violent too with many tribal wars and atrocities.........it's a human condition. 

When fire was discovered,it was used to burn each other to death.
The Wheel was used for chariots,battering rams,siege towers,catapults and other weapons of war.
Horses,camels and elephants were domesticated for weapons of war. 
Stone age.....better weapons of war.
Bronze age......better weapons of war.
Iron age.......better weapons of war.
Resonance in Europe and the age of enlightenment in Asia resulted in gun powder,firearms and cannons.......better weapons of war.
Our own civil war saw the advent of rifled barrels,the 'mini ball',repeating revolvers and rifles and the death and suffering to follow was horrendous.    
Industrial revolution led to tanks,machine guns and the always fun mustard gas.........awful weapons of war.
The Wright brothers might not have known it at the time but they invented one of the most effective weapon of war ever. The jet engine followed.......as a weapon of war.
The monumental effort of the 'Manhattan project' to split the atom was undertaken for what.......a weapon of war.
The 'Space race' resulted in a few footsteeps on the Moon and also a little deal called the ICBM and mutual assured destruction.

I often wonder if God bestowed Intelligence and reasoning on the wrong species.     

  

Amen, Brother Bob.  

[squishy24]

Jul 28, 2021 7:35:33 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 27, 2021 17:15:10 GMT -6 jacksalmon said:

The Sioux were nasty dudes, no doubt; and I am sure many tribes did not consider it a good day when the Sioux made a trip into the 'hood.  However, the nastiness of the Sioux was just the way humans often behaved back then.  Look at the Europeans in the 1700s, 1800s and even into the 1900s who made life extremely dangerous for each other on a very regular basis. Nut cases like Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Herr Hitler were very common back then.   It is kinda amazing that the white Europeans have calmed down so much, given their violent past.  When one thinks about it, the European white dogs did not treat the Native Americans any differently than the EWDs treated each other.  Napoleon treated all his neighbors the same----with disrespect for their humanity and good for nothing other than target practice with rifles and cannons.  All those EWDs weren't going to change their characters just because they crossed an ocean.  It's the way they were back then and it was downright nasty.  That is why I loved the Little Big Horn.  The EWDs finally got a taste of their own tactics.  

This is the last I'll have to say on this topic and I'll try to be more objective and less emotional than my last post jack.
To be fair,every society that ever existed throughout human history has seen it's majority population discriminate against it's minority population,America has no monopoly on the practice......it's a human condition.
The Europeans that came to North America's beautiful,virgin shores were violent but so were Asians and Africans,no monopoly here either.......it's a human condition.
The original 'First Nation' tribes were violent too with many tribal wars and atrocities.........it's a human condition. 

When fire was discovered,it was used to burn each other to death.
The Wheel was used for chariots,battering rams,siege towers,catapults and other weapons of war.
Horses,camels and elephants were domesticated for weapons of war. 
Stone age.....better weapons of war.
Bronze age......better weapons of war.
Iron age.......better weapons of war.
Resonance in Europe and the age of enlightenment in Asia resulted in gun powder,firearms and cannons.......better weapons of war.
Our own civil war saw the advent of rifled barrels,the 'mini ball',repeating revolvers and rifles and the death and suffering to follow was horrendous.    
Industrial revolution led to tanks,machine guns and the always fun mustard gas.........awful weapons of war.
The Wright brothers might not have known it at the time but they invented one of the most effective weapon of war ever. The jet engine followed.......as a weapon of war.
The monumental effort of the 'Manhattan project' to split the atom was undertaken for what.......a weapon of war.
The 'Space race' resulted in a few footsteeps on the Moon and also a little deal called the ICBM and mutual assured destruction.

I often wonder if God bestowed Intelligence and reasoning on the wrong species.     

  

pretty much

every new tech is always followed by "how can we use this in war?"

Even the internet was first used by US Dept of "Defense" 

[LordKOTL]

Jul 27, 2021 14:19:04 GMT -6 hsbob said:

Jul 27, 2021 13:28:38 GMT -6 BigT said:

While agree with you. I’m quite sure everyone has blood on their hands at some point in history. I know I’ve heard stories through my Grandparents on how poorly the Irish were treated back in the 1700s all the way to the 1900s. The “White Slave” they were. But could the Irish of today even think about complaining about being treated bad due to the skin colour? I doubt anyone would seriously listen. That’s why I think it’s best to educate people anyway we can on these subjects.

I live right next door to Tecumseh Ontario. Like 8 mins away. Chief Tecumseh is hailed as a hero here and there’s teams named after him, a town etc. It’s cool to use that mans name and an honour to play for the Tecumseh Chiefs. Eddy Jovanovski played for them when we were in grade 11. They moved to Lasalle now, but that for financial reasons. But the baseball program is still called the Chiefs. Not one person that I know of indigenous decent seems bothered by it one bit.

Anyways. I think everyone in this world can bitch about an overlord at some point. Which ones we choose to look at is where our opinions are stronger. I’m sure the Armenians aren’t to happy with the Turks, and the Mayans aren’t very happy with the Spanish. As long as we learn from it and move on, we can co-exist. Digging up the past and throwing it in someone’s face is not the answer. I never harmed one indigenous human in my life. I have some very good friends who are. I was talking to my buddy about the atrocities at the residential schools here in Canada. He told me this, and he’s indigenous through and through. “You’ve done nothing to anyone, while I appreciate you acknowledging the shitty things that happened, you do not need to apologize for something you didn’t do, or wouldn’t do”. So it makes me feel good to have those conversations with him. If I’m outta line, he’ll definitely tell me. He also has zero problem with the Hawks uni. Some others may!!!

Only one race of people were enslaved in America .....suggesting otherwise is marginalizing the filthy and ungodlike government policy. ONLY ONE RACE! The Irish were white men....please tell me you know this! Of course the Anglos spit on and mistreated the arriving Irish and Italians....that's what Anglos STILL do but only ONE race was enslaved in America and it's a stain on our very existence as a country as is the ethnic cleansing of the original inhabitants. 
Why were Africans the ONLY race enslaved in America? Because slave owners and those okay with insidious practice considered those Africans as something less than human our own constitution considered Africans 3/5's of a human being.....the racist rag it is.

It's not cool to use that name either WTF did Tecumseh have to do with hockey and did his descendants get compensated for the use of it?  

Digging up the past is uncomfortable for those who prospered form it's unjust policies but it's that past that has Native Americans living in squalor and poverty to this very day on the reservations they were forced onto and Imagery of a savage with war paint on only perpetuates the image of Native Americans as savages. 

I know an Indian who's okay with the disgusting image......well that justifies it.

Rich white jagoffs feel they can do whatever they want with the likenesses of minorities just to make more money and you know what.....they can.....it's another in along list of privileges. 

If you want to delve into my country's history any further,let me know.

  

I don't want to discount your point of view at all because it is 100% valid, but consider this:  Tragedies have often been used later on as a way to bring light to exactly what happened.  It may not be ideal way to bring light to something and keep it in the forefront, but if it is something that can, why not leverage it?  It doesn't change the past but it can change the future by keeping the past in the limelight.

Corporate gain is a valid sticking point, but if the Blackhawks do a lot of initiatives--financial and otherwise to keep the past injustices in the limelight to ensure history is not forgotten and never repeats itself, I think that's a decent path forward especially since the logo proper would keep things in the limelight.

But again, I think it's up to the descendants of the Sauk nation to make that decision collectively.  In the same vein that a single Sauk descendant who is okay with it shouldn't be the voice of everyone with Sauk heritage, a single Sauk who is against it shouldn't be the voice of everyone with Sauk heritage.

P.S.  Don't get me started on how all the horrible things America has done in the past...that's a record that could keep on playing all night long.