30
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 28, 2021 14:37:01 GMT -6
Angels on the sideline
Puzzled and amused
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they're all confused
Don't these talking monkeys know that
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys
Where there's one you're bound to divide it
Right in two
Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused
Father blessed them all with reason,
And this is what they choose?
Monkey killing monkey killing monkey over
Pieces of the ground
Silly monkeys
Give them thumbs, they forge a blade
And where there's one they're bound to divide it
Right in two
Right in two
Monkey killing, monkey killing monkey over
Pieces of the ground
Silly monkeys
Give them thumbs, they make a club
To beat their brother down
How they've survived so misguided is a mystery
Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability
To lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here
Gotta divide it all right in two
Gotta divide it all right in two
Gotta divide it all right in two
Gotta divide it all right in two
Fight till they die over sun, over sky
They fight till they die over sea, over air
They fight till they die over blood, over love
They fight till they die over words, polarizing
Angels on the sideline again
Benched along with patience and reason
Angels on the sideline again
Wondering where this tug of war will end
Gotta divide it all right in two
Gotta divide it all right in two
Gotta divide it all right in two
Right in two
Right in two
|
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Jul 28, 2021 14:38:38 GMT -6
sorry for the changing of the subject here, but Bob's last line there immediately reminded me of this one...
back to your regularly scheduled programming...
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 29, 2021 7:07:58 GMT -6
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. Tryin' my best to step out of this but I'll ask one question...maybe two... Where do we find these Sauk descendants since historical accounts claim the tribe was wiped out.........anybody know a Sauk to ask? Did anybody ask the Sauk if the image was okay to use in the first place? |
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on Jul 29, 2021 8:13:01 GMT -6
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. Tryin' my best to step out of this but I'll ask one question...maybe two... Where do we find these Sauk descendants since historical accounts claim the tribe was wiped out.........anybody know a Sauk to ask? Did anybody ask the Sauk if the image was okay to use in the first place? I believe the descendants are part of the Sac/Fox confederation. I believe the image was developed in the 1920's, and then refined into current form in the 1960's. While I'm not saying it was right, I don't think anyone was asked at the time. You and I could probably go through a long list of things acceptable then that aren't now. And I do want to reiterate that I'm not seeing your view as wrong--I think this who thing so far has been a good, enlightening discussion trying to encompass many points of view and I think we all should keep an open mind on this. I am fully aware that they might get rid of the logo. Hell, the Winterhawks this summer broke away from theirs thanks to a new ownership group. I think the whole overarching issue with logos in general is where the line is drawn when it comes to something generally regarded as acceptable and what isn't, and the goalposts keep moving. Some logos are deemed okay while others aren't and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason other than what someone thinks should be offensive that day, without giving any reason other than, "it's offensive." Now I have to say that your arguments for why the Blackhawks logo is bad are some of the best given and well thought out that I've heard (Certainly better than, "It's depicting a Native American and thus offensive"). |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 29, 2021 10:01:33 GMT -6
Tryin' my best to step out of this but I'll ask one question...maybe two... Where do we find these Sauk descendants since historical accounts claim the tribe was wiped out.........anybody know a Sauk to ask? Did anybody ask the Sauk if the image was okay to use in the first place? I believe the descendants are part of the Sac/Fox confederation. I believe the image was developed in the 1920's, and then refined into current form in the 1960's. While I'm not saying it was right, I don't think anyone was asked at the time. You and I could probably go through a long list of things acceptable then that aren't now. And I do want to reiterate that I'm not seeing your view as wrong--I think this who thing so far has been a good, enlightening discussion trying to encompass many points of view and I think we all should keep an open mind on this. I am fully aware that they might get rid of the logo. Hell, the Winterhawks this summer broke away from theirs thanks to a new ownership group. I think the whole overarching issue with logos in general is where the line is drawn when it comes to something generally regarded as acceptable and what isn't, and the goalposts keep moving. Some logos are deemed okay while others aren't and there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason other than what someone thinks should be offensive that day, without giving any reason other than, "it's offensive." Now I have to say that your arguments for why the Blackhawks logo is bad are some of the best given and well thought out that I've heard (Certainly better than, "It's depicting a Native American and thus offensive"). I don't know if the goalposts are being moved or if it's a day by day thing,the objections to objectifying Native Americans has been around for some time,gaining traction only recently. |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Jul 29, 2021 12:17:06 GMT -6
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. Tryin' my best to step out of this but I'll ask one question...maybe two... Where do we find these Sauk descendants since historical accounts claim the tribe was wiped out.........anybody know a Sauk to ask? Did anybody ask the Sauk if the image was okay to use in the first place? If you read the history of the Sauk people, when Black Hawk went on a hunting expedition, which takes months of time, the leaders of the tribe signed a treaty with the US Gov. to move from their lands east of the Mississippi to the west side. When Black hawk returned he did not like what the tribe did. That's when 10 years later he led about 500 tribe members back across the river and attacked the settleres that were there. The group included the wives and kids of the warriors he led back across. The other half of the tribe stayed on the west side of the river. The war was over 10 years long and included several other tribes with him and others against him. Black Hawk joined the British soldiers since they were also at war with the US in 1812. The Sioux indians hated the British so they joined the US in the war against both the Sauk and the british. So the massacre was mostly done by the Sioux and the US army. There's a lot more to the history you can look up, but to answer your question, the entire tribe was not wiped out. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Jul 29, 2021 12:33:14 GMT -6
Tryin' my best to step out of this but I'll ask one question...maybe two... Where do we find these Sauk descendants since historical accounts claim the tribe was wiped out.........anybody know a Sauk to ask? Did anybody ask the Sauk if the image was okay to use in the first place? If you read the history of the Sauk people, when Black Hawk went on a hunting expedition, which takes months of time, the leaders of the tribe signed a treaty with the US Gov. to move from their lands east of the Mississippi to the west side. When Black hawk returned he did not like what the tribe did. That's when 10 years later he led about 500 tribe members back across the river and attacked the settleres that were there. The group included the wives and kids of the warriors he led back across. The other half of the tribe stayed on the west side of the river. The war was over 10 years long and included several other tribes with him and others against him. Black Hawk joined the British soldiers since they were also at war with the US in 1812. The Sioux indians hated the British so they joined the US in the war against both the Sauk and the british. So the massacre was mostly done by the Sioux and the US army. There's a lot more to the history you can look up, but to answer your question, the entire tribe was not wiped out. This historian says something different but none the less,I appreciate the insight and I've more than had my say already..... www.counterpunch.org/2020/07/14/sorry-the-chicago-blackhawks-need-to-change-their-name-and-logo/#gsc.tab=0 |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 8, 2021 6:27:24 GMT -6
The team's decision last night to celebrate and embrace the country's native heritage was very important and a positive step in the right direction.
As I have mentioned during the John McD. years, this was what the team needed to do if it intended to maintain its present logo.
Of course, what happened last night is not enough, but it is a start.
Let other sports organizations recognize the troops every night - the Hawks should fully commit to improving the lives of marginalized First Nation communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 8, 2021 6:43:06 GMT -6
The team's decision last night to celebrate and embrace the country's native heritage was very important and a positive step in the right direction. As I have mentioned during the John McD. years, this was what the team needed to do if it intended to maintain its present logo. Of course, what happened last night is not enough, but it is a start. Let other sports organizations recognize the troops every night - the Hawks should fully commit to improving the lives of marginalized First Nation communities. Hawks started this over 10 years ago. The handful of Indians I know can care less about it, |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 8, 2021 10:01:08 GMT -6
Symbolic acts do have meaning to different people.
When the Hawks began the nightly campaign to "honour the troops," it did have political meaning. Some interpreted the troop recognition as an attempt to stifle opposition to militarism (or imperialism) abroad. Given the timing, I am not convinced these critics were entirely wrong.
Whether we support the Hawks' continued use of the Indianhead symbol or not, we must recognize that there are those who find it offensive. Personally, I maintain mixed feelings, much like hsbob.
Actively promoting and welcoming indigenous culture within the Blackhawks' public space to promote healing is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by steamer on Nov 8, 2021 10:14:02 GMT -6
Symbolic acts do have meaning to different people. When the Hawks began the nightly campaign to "honour the troops," it did have political meaning. Some interpreted the troop recognition as an attempt to stifle opposition to militarism (or imperialism) abroad. Given the timing, I am not convinced these critics were entirely wrong. Whether we support the Hawks' continued use of the Indianhead symbol or not, we must recognize that there are those who find it offensive. Personally, I maintain mixed feelings, much like hsbob. Actively promoting and welcoming indigenous culture within the Blackhawks' public space to promote healing is a good thing. Yes - agree this is positive and to do this and keep the logo is preferable IMHO to simply changing the logo to stifle criticism but doing nothing proactively to recognize indigenous culture. |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 8, 2021 10:37:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 8, 2021 12:42:04 GMT -6
Symbolic acts do have meaning to different people. When the Hawks began the nightly campaign to "honour the troops," it did have political meaning. Some interpreted the troop recognition as an attempt to stifle opposition to militarism (or imperialism) abroad. Given the timing, I am not convinced these critics were entirely wrong. Whether we support the Hawks' continued use of the Indianhead symbol or not, we must recognize that there are those who find it offensive. Personally, I maintain mixed feelings, much like hsbob. Actively promoting and welcoming indigenous culture within the Blackhawks' public space to promote healing is a good thing. ^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. |
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 8, 2021 13:24:51 GMT -6
Symbolic acts do have meaning to different people. When the Hawks began the nightly campaign to "honour the troops," it did have political meaning. Some interpreted the troop recognition as an attempt to stifle opposition to militarism (or imperialism) abroad. Given the timing, I am not convinced these critics were entirely wrong. Whether we support the Hawks' continued use of the Indianhead symbol or not, we must recognize that there are those who find it offensive. Personally, I maintain mixed feelings, much like hsbob. Actively promoting and welcoming indigenous culture within the Blackhawks' public space to promote healing is a good thing. ^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. Probably one of the last things I’ll say on this. If the symbol or name is being used to damage or hurt any said person in any way. I agree it should be abolished. In the Hawks case, Frederic McLaughlin served in WW1 and his 86th infantry division was named the Blackhawks. He carried that home to name the Chicago Blackhawks. We all know this. If in promoting and honouring a person is wrong. It’s a slippery slope. If it’s slanderous or in any way demeaning, I fully agree to oust that culture. If in any way McLaughlin intended it to be a racist tool or anything. Get rid of it. I respect others opinions on this and I don’t believe it needs be an angered discussion. Everyone says the right things, but let’s be honest, no one is giving their land away. I believe we all have blood on our hands or have benefited from someone else’s loss. There are children working around the world for diamonds and in factories. Yet we still purchase them. I agree with MVR that this is at least a start. My personal fear is that if the Hawks lose the logo and other teams rename etc. The few Natives that remain will be forgotten about and the ignorance of our society will continue!!! |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 8, 2021 13:44:42 GMT -6
If 10% of Latinos find Speedy Gonzales offensive, is it ok? How about 20 or 30%? What is the line? Who draws it?
Call me part of the "woke crowd" if you wish, but I don't want my kids narrowly defining ethnic groups by stereotypes. This is why I take them travelling and have them learn about the rest of the world. There is plenty to gain from other cultures and historically marginalized groups. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.
Racist stereotyping is not just harmful to the offending groups. It is also destructive to those ignorant victims consuming the false information. It creates myopic and nativist biases that weaken a society's ability to recognize truth.
Each generation has a responsibility to reexamine its cultural biases and respond to it. Those raised in the 1950s-1960s resisted the narrow attitudes of the generation before it, just like that generation did in the decades before when its members came of age.
Now many in the young generation are doing the same thing. They see racism and sexism where we did not. Are their leaders always on target? Perhaps not. But at least they are engaging in debates that need to happen.
As I stated earlier, I would prefer moving forward that the Hawks replace the Indianhead with a Black Hawk bird, leaving the colours and barber stripe trim alone. But if management wishes to keep the present symbol, they need to do everything they can to make sure they respect the people they say they are honouring.
Until management changes the terms of the conversation, they are opening themselves up to "woke culture" criticism. To my mind, it is largely the team's own fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigT on Nov 8, 2021 14:19:11 GMT -6
If 10% of Latinos find Speedy Gonzales offensive, is it ok? How about 20 or 30%? What is the line? Who draws it? Call me part of the "woke crowd" if you wish, but I don't want my kids narrowly defining ethnic groups by stereotypes. This is why I take them travelling and have them learn about the rest of the world. There is plenty to gain from other cultures and historically marginalized groups. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Racist stereotyping is not just harmful to the offending groups. It is also destructive to those ignorant victims consuming the false information. It creates myopic and nativist biases that weaken a society's ability to recognize truth. Each generation has a responsibility to reexamine its cultural biases and respond to it. Those raised in the 1950s-1960s resisted the narrow attitudes of the generation before it, just like that generation did in the decades before when its members came of age. Now many in the young generation are doing the same thing. They see racism and sexism where we did not. Are their leaders always on target? Perhaps not. But at least they are engaging in debates that need to happen. As I stated earlier, I would prefer moving forward that the Hawks replace the Indianhead with a Black Hawk bird, leaving the colours and barber stripe trim alone. But if management wishes to keep the present symbol, they need to do everything they can to make sure they respect the people they say they are honouring. Until management changes the terms of the conversation, they are opening themselves up to "woke culture" criticism. To my mind, it is largely the team's own fault. Whether we like it or not. We live in a society of majority rules. So to answer your question. The majority decides that!!! |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 8, 2021 14:19:19 GMT -6
^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. Probably one of the last things I’ll say on this. If the symbol or name is being used to damage or hurt any said person in any way. I agree it should be abolished. In the Hawks case, Frederic McLaughlin served in WW1 and his 86th infantry division was named the Blackhawks. He carried that home to name the Chicago Blackhawks. We all know this. If in promoting and honouring a person is wrong. It’s a slippery slope. If it’s slanderous or in any way demeaning, I fully agree to oust that culture. If in any way McLaughlin intended it to be a racist tool or anything. Get rid of it. I respect others opinions on this and I don’t believe it needs be an angered discussion. Everyone says the right things, but let’s be honest, no one is giving their land away. I believe we all have blood on our hands or have benefited from someone else’s loss. There are children working around the world for diamonds and in factories. Yet we still purchase them. I agree with MVR that this is at least a start. My personal fear is that if the Hawks lose the logo and other teams rename etc. The few Natives that remain will be forgotten about and the ignorance of our society will continue!!!^ i mentioned this as well my previous posts. It's sad to say, majority of people who knows of specific Native American tribes or even what little they know comes from pop culture or sports teams. i know so-called hardcore Hawks fans that dont even know where the "Blackhawks" came from or that it is associated with a native tribe. |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 8, 2021 14:20:02 GMT -6
If 10% of Latinos find Speedy Gonzales offensive, is it ok? How about 20 or 30%? What is the line? Who draws it? Call me part of the "woke crowd" if you wish, but I don't want my kids narrowly defining ethnic groups by stereotypes. This is why I take them travelling and have them learn about the rest of the world. There is plenty to gain from other cultures and historically marginalized groups. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Racist stereotyping is not just harmful to the offending groups. It is also destructive to those ignorant victims consuming the false information. It creates myopic and nativist biases that weaken a society's ability to recognize truth. Each generation has a responsibility to reexamine its cultural biases and respond to it. Those raised in the 1950s-1960s resisted the narrow attitudes of the generation before it, just like that generation did in the decades before when its members came of age. Now many in the young generation are doing the same thing. They see racism and sexism where we did not. Are their leaders always on target? Perhaps not. But at least they are engaging in debates that need to happen. As I stated earlier, I would prefer moving forward that the Hawks replace the Indianhead with a Black Hawk bird, leaving the colours and barber stripe trim alone. But if management wishes to keep the present symbol, they need to do everything they can to make sure they respect the people they say they are honouring. Until management changes the terms of the conversation, they are opening themselves up to "woke culture" criticism. To my mind, it is largely the team's own fault. Whether we like it or not. We live in a society of majority rules. So to answer your question. The majority decides that!!!you beat me to it |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 8, 2021 14:27:20 GMT -6
If 10% of Latinos find Speedy Gonzales offensive, is it ok? How about 20 or 30%? What is the line? Who draws it? Call me part of the "woke crowd" if you wish, but I don't want my kids narrowly defining ethnic groups by stereotypes. This is why I take them travelling and have them learn about the rest of the world. There is plenty to gain from other cultures and historically marginalized groups. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Racist stereotyping is not just harmful to the offending groups. It is also destructive to those ignorant victims consuming the false information. It creates myopic and nativist biases that weaken a society's ability to recognize truth. Each generation has a responsibility to reexamine its cultural biases and respond to it. Those raised in the 1950s-1960s resisted the narrow attitudes of the generation before it, just like that generation did in the decades before when its members came of age. Now many in the young generation are doing the same thing. They see racism and sexism where we did not. Are their leaders always on target? Perhaps not. But at least they are engaging in debates that need to happen. As I stated earlier, I would prefer moving forward that the Hawks replace the Indianhead with a Black Hawk bird, leaving the colours and barber stripe trim alone. But if management wishes to keep the present symbol, they need to do everything they can to make sure they respect the people they say they are honouring. Until management changes the terms of the conversation, they are opening themselves up to "woke culture" criticism. To my mind, it is largely the team's own fault. i dont mean to call you part of the woke crowd or part of anything, my point is that most of these "offended" complaints comes from a place where they have no relevance to the subject/topic. And it is good to figure out first where it's coming from before making knee-jerk reactions. As for the Speedy Gonzales, i would assume a network exec or some of their marketing genius thought they're offending way too many latinos, which wasnt the case at all. for the Blackhawks it should come down to two entities, the tribe and the Hawks management. If they have a mutual cooperation and agreement, understanding and respect, who are we or anyone outside of the two to dictate what they should and shouldnt do? If a third party, dont agree with it, then they can stop going to Hawks games, stop supporting the team and force them to finally change their name and drop the native indian connection. In turn, the native tribes will lose whatever they were gaining being associated with the Hawks. But who really wins in that scenario? The Hawks? The tribes? or some fucking offended group that chose to cancel them both because they (tribes/Hawks) chose to work together? |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 8, 2021 14:30:46 GMT -6
The majority is not always right. The consensus evolves over time. A hundred plus years ago, most people would have supported a full ban on the teaching of evolution. A generation ago, most believed dope smoking should be a crime.
A few years ago, I bought my young boy a Blackhawk cap to celebrate the 2015 cup run. He wore it a few days to school, but then the hat found its way to the bottom of the hall closet.
I asked him why my sensitive kid was no longer wearing the hat. Kids were teasing him, calling him a racist. It was not one bully, but a group of them (all "woke"). The world changes. Ten years from now, attitudes again will have shifted. The Hawks have an opportunity to shape the debate if they jump in with both feet.
|
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 8, 2021 14:44:33 GMT -6
There is a target on the Blackhawks right now, whether we agree or not.
The "woke" crowd will not give in.
If they spook enough of the sponsors, the owners will cave just like they did in Washington and Cleveland.
If the IndianHead logo is important to Hawk fans, we will have to pressure the Wirtz family to change the narrative before "woke" opinion becomes mainstream. The culture's values are changing, and fairly quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 8, 2021 14:45:00 GMT -6
The majority is not always right. The consensus evolves over time. A hundred plus years ago, most people would have supported a full ban on the teaching of evolution. A generation ago, most believed dope smoking should be a crime. A few years ago, I bought my young boy a Blackhawk cap to celebrate the 2015 cup run. He wore it a few days to school, but then the hat found its way to the bottom of the hall closet. I asked him why my sensitive kid was no longer wearing the hat. Kids were teasing him, calling him a racist. It was not one bully, but a group of them (all "woke"). The world changes. Ten years from now, attitudes again will have shifted. The Hawks have an opportunity to shape the debate if they jump in with both feet. youre all over the place, you debate about how majority is not always right and then give an example of your kid hating something that he previously liked because majority (or group) of woke kids changed him. im pretty sure your kid wore the hat without any racist meaning and youre defending the group that bullied him |
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on Nov 8, 2021 16:28:55 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 8, 2021 20:59:33 GMT -6
Symbolic acts do have meaning to different people. When the Hawks began the nightly campaign to "honour the troops," it did have political meaning. Some interpreted the troop recognition as an attempt to stifle opposition to militarism (or imperialism) abroad. Given the timing, I am not convinced these critics were entirely wrong. Whether we support the Hawks' continued use of the Indianhead symbol or not, we must recognize that there are those who find it offensive. Personally, I maintain mixed feelings, much like hsbob. Actively promoting and welcoming indigenous culture within the Blackhawks' public space to promote healing is a good thing. ^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. Thought we weren't gonna get political? Chief Blackhawk's people where massacred by US troops,Saulk lands were taken and then our namesake was paraded around in a cage as a trophy. Proud fucking heritage indeed! They find it offensive....... www.quora.com/How-do-native-Americans-feel-about-the-claim-that-Chicago-Blackhawks-are-celebrating-a-native-American-hero |
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on Nov 8, 2021 22:15:08 GMT -6
^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. Thought we weren't gonna get political? Chief Blackhawk's people where massacred by US troops,Saulk lands were taken and then our namesake was paraded around in a cage as a trophy. Proud fucking heritage indeed! They find it offensive....... www.quora.com/How-do-native-Americans-feel-about-the-claim-that-Chicago-Blackhawks-are-celebrating-a-native-American-heroI'd be interested to see some of the redesigns the writer of that mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on Nov 9, 2021 9:29:19 GMT -6
^ who finds this offensive? If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. If the people who find it offensive are the "woke crowd" of this stupid cancel culture we are in, then fuck them. There are so many instances of people being offended on things that they have no reason or connection to be offended with. this is just like when the "woke crowd" find Speedy Gonzales as offensive to latinos and tried to cancel him. But the Latino population kicked back and said they dont want Speedy Gonzales canceled. Thought we weren't gonna get political? Chief Blackhawk's people where massacred by US troops,Saulk lands were taken and then our namesake was paraded around in a cage as a trophy. Proud fucking heritage indeed! They find it offensive....... www.quora.com/How-do-native-Americans-feel-about-the-claim-that-Chicago-Blackhawks-are-celebrating-a-native-American-hero“ If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. “ |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 9, 2021 10:11:17 GMT -6
Some do. Some don't. The numbers change from year to year and study to study.
If even 10% find the symbol offensive, to my mind it is too much.
Let's speak truth here. One hundred plus years ago, when sports teams began marketing themselves with nicknames and logos, many chose fierce gladiator names to make their organizations appear intimidating. This is why we see teams named after "Vikings" "Rough Riders" "Barbarians" "Buccaneers" "Fighting Irish" etc.
Native imagery in sports was particularly common - Indians, Braves, Redskins, Eskimos, Fighting Sioux, Mohawks, Warriors. etc.
It is true that the Chicago Blackhawks were named after a war squadron. The War Squadron had been named after a Native chief.
Did the squadron name itself after the chief as a sign of respect or to appear tough and savage-like? Did the Blackhawk team always present itself as an homage to Chief Blackhawk?
Were the lines not blurred for most of the last century with fans until recent years attending games dressed in native headdresses and war paint and banging on drums?
Why do we still see the tomahawk symbolism on the shoulders?
Moving forward, if the Blackhawks do intend to use their platform to promote a better understanding of indigenous causes, my feeling is they need to get moving. As it stands, the present approach seems defensive and watered down.
|
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 9, 2021 10:25:48 GMT -6
“ If Blackhawk or the Sauk (or other tribes associated with Blackhawk) find it offensive that a hockey team is using their name and culture, then by all means, get rid of all of it. “ I said in another post that I try to accept differing opinions because it's a touchy subject and I'll keep trying. Why call anyone 'this,that or the other thing' if they have a different viewpoint? |
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on Nov 9, 2021 10:45:35 GMT -6
Some do. Some don't. The numbers change from year to year and study to study. If even 10% find the symbol offensive, to my mind it is too much. Let's speak truth here. One hundred plus years ago, when sports teams began marketing themselves with nicknames and logos, many chose fierce gladiator names to make their organizations appear intimidating. This is why we see teams named after "Vikings" "Rough Riders" "Barbarians" "Buccaneers" "Fighting Irish" etc. Native imagery in sports was particularly common - Indians, Braves, Redskins, Eskimos, Fighting Sioux, Mohawks, Warriors. etc. It is true that the Chicago Blackhawks were named after a war squadron. The War Squadron had been named after a Native chief. Did the squadron name itself after the chief as a sign of respect or to appear tough and savage-like? Did the Blackhawk team always present itself as an homage to Chief Blackhawk? Were the lines not blurred for most of the last century with fans until recent years attending games dressed in native headdresses and war paint and banging on drums? Why do we still see the tomahawk symbolism on the shoulders? Moving forward, if the Blackhawks do intend to use their platform to promote a better understanding of indigenous causes, my feeling is they need to get moving. As it stands, the present approach seems defensive and watered down. The two minute video and the Native dance demonstration are basically 'feel good moments' for the Org,I'd like to hear about programs to help the folks on the 'Res' deal with overwhelming poverty,alcohol and drug addiction both here and in Canada. www.bing.com/videos/search?q=indigenous+hockey+movie&docid=608048256953570899&mid=4AEB58AEDBA9090C32854AEB58AE |
|
|
|
Post by mvr on Nov 9, 2021 11:02:31 GMT -6
The team is not going to win this public relations battle by only dipping a toe in the water. They need to go all in.
The next generation coming has a very strong moral code about these issues. Soon they will be in charge. They need to be convinced that the Hawks' intentions here are honourable.
So far, I am not seeing it. There is no doubt, however, that the team "supports the troops" (for whatever meaning we attribute to that message).
|
|
