Final Thought on the Logo

CHICAGO--Folks, you've really got to understand something.

When I write something like I did the other day about the logo of the Chicago Blackhawks and how some might consider it racially insensitive, it's not to preach or convince anyone.

It's just an opinion. You can agree or disagree. I certainly didn't attack anyone who might love the Blackhawks Indian head logo, and in fact I went out of my way that the original intent of Frederic McLaughlin, while it had nothing to do with honoring aboriginals (he was honoring his military comrades from World War I), wasn't about insulting aboriginals, either.

It was just thinking from another time.

The funniest thing I've heard is that somehow the fact a poll in The Star showed the majority of respondents in favour of having the Hawks retain their logo should somehow be a lesson to me, and certainly proof that I was dead wrong in my original thesis.

People, people. Many ideas are unpopular, but over time become accepted because people change and times change. Once it was unpopular to suggest women should have the vote. Times changed. Once it was Canadian government policy to ship natives to residential schools. Now it's understood that was a bad idea.

Sadly, people who disagree on these kind of issues always accuse others of political correctness, which has become a catch-all, Palin-like phrase designed to trash any and all ideas that might be different from conservative, mainstream believes. If you express an opinion that supports a minority group, in particular, you will always receive criticisms that you are trying to be politically correct. Usually, that's just an indication that those people are unwilling or incapable to either disseminate independent thought of their own or can't articulate why they disagree.

So they just scream political correctness and believe that somehow legitimizes what they're saying.

There were many thoughtful responses to my column, and probably the best were from native Canadians or those of mixed heritage. Those were split about 50/50 on the issue, some suggesting they weren't offended at all, others applauding me for articulating a certain point of view they supported.

But at the end of the day, it was just my opinion. I'm hardly outraged on the issue, but it seemed to be worth putting it out there for discussion. Sadly, so many people don't want different issues discussed, particularly if those issues make them uncomfortable in any way.

Even worse, it was suggested by some that bringing up the topic on the eve of the Stanley Cup final was somehow unseemly, that only orthodox hockey topics or opinions supportive of the NHL and the Blackhawks are worthy of publishing. Well, that's just silly, but again, I've learned to expect that if you try and put something different out there, people will just try to shout you down.

I was never looking for others to agree with me, although some did. Certainly, I was never trying to articulate an opinion that I believed would be popular. What a waste of my time and your time that would be. Moreover, popular doesn't mean right. History sure tells us emphatically that the most popular beliefs were often the most wrongheaded.

If you're looking for a columnist or blogger who just wants to find which way the wind is blowing before writing, you're looking in the wrong place.

Comments

[hi]

Folks, no one cares. Why bring this up now? Why not 10 years ago? 30 years ago? Why wasn't this brought up when the franchise was established?

Because no one cares.

[Gabriel]

Damien - Native people still go to residential schools. It happens across the country, but particularly in isolated locales.

[ashikawa]

Damien, you know that ad hominem attacks will always be easier than reasoned debate.

[Steve]

Hey Damien,
Your final thought is appreciated, I understand where you're coming from. You've definitely picked a hot topic to write about, which is your job. Although I still disagree with your opinion and don't liken changing Aboriginal rooted nicknames and logos to allowing women to vote, you've given people something worthwhile to think about. I think a logo and name like "Blackhawks" honours Native Americans, and reminds everyone of some of the history of the best continent on Earth.

[Mark Thomas]

The columnist is correct, his is just an opinion. However, if I want musings on racial sensitivity I'll turn to another source; not one paid to write about hockey. It's best for people given a public platform, no matter its size, to remember their place. The columnist/sociology dilettante, clearly, has forgotten his.

[Dom De Luca]

While I missed your original column on this subject, I applaud you for writing something you felt compelled to share with your readers - something you felt was worth discussing - even if it did ruffle a few feathers.

The "this is not the time argument" is just another way of telling someone to shut up. People, generally, do not like discussing controversial subjects, because those subjects often cause them to re-think their own views, biases, values and lifestyle. It will also challenge them to put together a coherent and compelling counter argument, which tests the amount of thought they have actually given to the subject, to their views, and lifestyle.Truthfully, I find that the best time to raise a controversial matter is exactly when most deem it to be "not the right time." And, let's be honest, some will always say it's the wrong time to bring up a touchy subject matter.

As far as the Black Hawk logo is concerned, I actually like it. Though, as I was watching the opening game last night, I did, for just a brief moment, think about whether the Black Hawk logo was racist or offensive in any way. I wasn't certain one way or the other. I guess the people in the best position to make that judgement would be Native North Americans.

And, yes, yelling "Politically Correct" is easy and lazy and does not rise to the level of being a substantive argument. It's the equivalent of name calling.

Having said all that, I've always liked the logo, even when I was a kid. It's colourful and seems to suggest a toughness and a fighting spirit. But these conclusions of mine are superficial. I am in no way an expert on North American Native Tribes. I do, however, know that many tribes were known for their peaceful nature. Some tribes were known for the way in which they adorned themselves, some for their food, some for the egalitarian way in which they organized their societies. Some for all of the above. I don't know if there was a tribe called the Black Hawks and, if there ever was, if they were overly violent or not. But, yes, on a superficial level, I like the logo. But, again, whether it is offensive or not is for Native North Americans to decide.

So, good on you, Mr. Cox. Whether I agree with you on any number of issues, I have always respected your desire to engage your readers in subjects that have more substance than who has the best shot in the league or who is the best body checker - not that I dislike those subjects at all. I will always have more respect for a writer willing to write about what they feel like writing about, what they are compelled to write - popularity be damned.

[anthony]

It's not that some balked at you for bringing up the topic, but that there wasn't any substance to what you wrote. The column may have expressed your opinion, and I'm glad you had the courage to write a sensitive piece like that, but it wasn't based on substantial evidence, and didn't draw effective evidence to lean your opinion on.

But the fact that an overwhelming number of people took the time to disagree with you also carries some weight, doesn't it? I wrote that "there is no racial issue to discuss. The logo is more of a tribute to the settlement of aboriginals which helped found the city, not a disgraceful slight to it."

Perhaps this is nothing more than my own opinion, but I've taken to the time to tour Chicago and its historical roots during my stay in the city, touring the city's oldest buildings with enlightening stories about the natives and taking a trip to Chicago's Public Library. Evidence tells me that there isn't anything disparaging about the Blackhawks' logo and its connection to Sioux Nation.

At one point, you implied that the Blackhawks skated on the ice with the image of a "cigar store Indian on their chests every night." Well, that is a dangerous generalization, one without any affiliation with the Blackhawks, just a stereotype you, ironically, seem to fight in your column.

You bring up the debate over the use of the native Indian on hockey sweaters, and I respect the research gone into this assessment. But what irked me about the column is that not enough research was dedicated to the historical significance of the aboriginal population in the city of Chicago.

They helped found Chicago. Stripping the Blackhawks' logo from them will imply that something is morally wrong with it, when there really isn't.

Say something about the Cleveland Indians' grossly exaggerated depiction of the Native American before the Blackhawks' logo. There, you may have a case I'm willing to support.

[Bill]

I have always wondered why topics/controversies like this one only seem to come up when the team in question has achieved a degree of success and is in the spotlight. Why is this all of a sudden something Damien decided to write about now and not in the past??

[Johnnyk]

I didn't agree with your first blog on the subject but to me there is a distinction to be made between the patronizing cartoon figure on the Cleveland caps and what I consider to be a respectful, dignified portrait of a warrior on the Hawks' jersey.
They say quite different things.

[kraftboy]

Keep writing what you feel Damien. Those of us who are able to see the world in not black and white, but mixed and colourful, appreciate you using your place in the world to raise discussion that is well worth having.

"Mark Thomas" is way off the mark. You're paid to write on hockey, and to suggest that there are not social/political issues in hockey worth commenting on, on a freakin side blog is a scary thought.

And why now, another reader asks? Geez, yeah, journalists writing an opinion piece on a logo for a team that is topically relevant? You honestly think that justifies throwing out the salient points he raises verbatim?

[Roger Leonidas]

Based on Mr Cox's opinion, the Calgary Flames should also change their name. Originally known as the Atlanta Flames, the name was a reference to the burning of Atlanta. This would seem really insensitive to ancesters of that historical event that lost relatives and property during this brutal attack by Sherman. I'm no fan of the south (I'm from NY), but it was still a horrific act and we should not make light if it by showcasing a burning "C" on the Flames jersey. I would suggest that Calgary change their name, and please nothing like "Hitmen", that would glorify gangsters. How about Calgary Diplomats, or Calgary Brotherhood?

[bmuzikal]

Actually Damien, it would be misplaced use of political correctness to not point out how the Star is, or should be, well-known if not renowned for never missing an opportunity to cause a furor over any racial issue. It's pretty much irrelevant as a sporting issue so why is it even here except as a lame excuse and very inappropriate place to stir the pot ? If this type of "journalism" had disappeared 100 years ago from the media, "racism" would be an obsolete word.

[JR Jake]

Damien well stated and the articulation you made the other day was just as profound as this and previous. I can feel for you because when you open a can of worms you have everyone from the fish, to the fisherman and the gulls all going for the grand prize.

It is sad people find reasonable the actions of our past, but it is the present situations I find most disturbing. To ignore the obvious is a right, but to ignore a right is ignorance.

I greatly appreciate the style in which you present your point, don't always agree but you are definitely not afraid to shake the tree. Have a great weekend Damien and all my friends in Canada.

[Rich]

Sorry, again, don't see why Cox finds the Hawks logo offensive. Who is it offending? Groups like AIM who say, "this is deeply offensive to native peoples", they just choose to be offended. "Canucks" was a dirty word for French Canadians at one point wasn't it? And many Canadians use the word "Yankee" derisively. But neither Canadians nor Americans are "deeply offended' by either team name. Why? We choose not to be. And since we're not minorities, no one would care if we were offended.
But, I certainly agree Cox is entitled to his opinion and the Star has the right to publish it. But I am entitled to the opinion that the only reason Cox says the logo should be changed is due to political correctness. There is no real harm or offense intrinsic in the logo.

[Matt B]

Damien: I'm not sure why you took the time to write this blog post — if readers don't understand your position to write about any sports topic — whether it be a logo, suspension or ownership — then they don't even deserve to read your articulate answer.

Even more odd are the people continuing to argue against you in this post.

Don't waste your time on the people who just want to bash anything you say: You use your space, they will abuse their comment space. You should also feel free to just approve the intelligent and well-reasoned comments (both supportive and against you) instead of any bloke's comment. I read you for quality and I hope to read quality comments from readers, not the mindless drivel that took-over your last post.

[Curtis Stanzel]

Never refrain from putting forth an idea, Damien. Whether the subject matter is on-ice-related or poltically-charged, I find that I agree with some of your opinions and take issue with others. Perhaps that's why I read your columns; I'd rather engage with an editorial that is honestly-conceived and well-articulated than read another generic piece designed to not upset anyone. Honest, thoughtful, discussion is always positive, regardless of the subject matter.

[stickhandle]

I'm amused at the passion in the voices. I read Damien's take on this (and by the way folks - its not the first time he or others have expressed the same opinion about the Blackhawks ... or others like Atlanta Braves or Cleveland Indians) to be kind of preceeded and followed with a >sigh< ... kinda like a "musing". Now really -- Chicago has a rich American Indian heritage as a place. The logo itself is respectful to a time long ago. It doesn't reinforce or suggest a bad stereotype. I sorta think its positive. Its not in any way reflective of someone of AmerIndian heritage in the modern day. It has no voice - it expressed no negative stereotype. Am I wrong? The 'Hawks jersey is widely considered the best uniform in sport. As a non-Hawks fan ... if I take my personal fan-dom aside, I almost have to agree. At the very least its right up there. Monday day First Nations folks should be about as offended by this as a German by the depiction of a fatman in lederhosen with a beer stein in either hand in Oktoberfest ads.

[Stormer]

Damien, a very thoughtful response to the many ignorant and insulting responses to your original article. I found it embarrassing that many people, who are not members of a First Nation, thought it was for them to decide if the logo is offensive or not. It also seems that the majority gets to decide whether it is an honour to name a team after or use an image of an aboriginal person. One just had to look at the way some of the fans wore obscene head-dresses to the game last night, to see how much the First Nations people are "honoured" and "respected".

[Carl Hardwick]

At least you didn't use the usual excuse of leftists when their opinions are rejected by virtually everyone "I was only joking...".

The new excuse is now "No one agrees with me today but you all will some day".

So the next time someone says "I like fighting in the NHL" or "I think Bush 43 was a great president" will you then leave them alone because "it's just their opinion"?

[Rob]

@Mark Thomas makes a point that has no basis in reality and I'm glad kraftboy has already commented on this. Is Thomas then suggesting that a movie reviewer should never opine on the political or social issues raised in the film? That the reviewer should stick to story, character development, filmography and costume design? That the engineer should leave political musings to the political class? That the culinary reviewer should not discuss the vagaries of the industrial food system?

Newsflash, Mr. Thomas. Sports is political. What do you think China was doing when it hosted the Olympics? What about the boycotts of South African athletes during apartheid? Jackie Robinson being the first major leaguer in baseball. How about Brendan Burke coming out of the closet and his dad's steadfast support? (Incidentally, the column by John Buccigross at ESPN on this topic was one of the more poignant pieces of writing in the sports world in recent memory.)

Should sports columnists have ignored the broader implications of these "sports" stories or should we have trusted them to use the same intelligence and judgment they bring to their "regular" writing when addressing topics that are a bit more challenging?

Relying on "experts" and not accepting other viewpoints leads to myopia and groupthink. At its worst this leads to NASA engineers dismissing o-rings as potential problems on shuttles. financial wizards to design too-cute-by-half instruments that bring down entire institutions and securities regulators to ignore warnings of potential pyramid schemes. Sometimes fresh air is needed to clean out a dank and dusty barn. Kudos to Damien for deigning himself to be that breath of fresh air. I'll take the colour injected into the world by interesting debates over the black-and-white model being promoted by Mr. Thomas.

[Steve C]

'People, People'...the following is how Damien Cox arrives at these topics: He has a massive inferiority complex, and as such watches the NBC broadcasts to try and see what American's are seeing/hearing. He desperately (and insecurely) searches for ANYTHING that might cause somebody - anybody - to be even slightly offended (rightly or wrongly). Then it's off to defend this phantom peer.

I'd love to see a fight in one of these games and see Damien's head explode.

Damien, you try to charge 'white males' with 'being uncomfortable talking about this subject'. Judging by the reaction to your column it's safe to say many actually DO. Not AGREEING with you is not the same as not being comfortable. And you don't win any points by trying to label your critics as 'mainstream and conservative'. Some of us are quite the opposite, thank you very much.

Once again you fantasize about being some sort of Rosa Parks of hockey. Get over yourself.

[Ami Angelwings]

To Roger: When Atlanta ppl complain, I'll totally support changing the name... and the US National Anthem is about the burning of Washington DC... do you want to change that too? So are you saying we SHOULD change these things, or are you saying because we don't change these things, we shouldn't change ANYTHING? Cuz the latter argument is illogical since we're NOT talking about those issues, we're talking about THIS issue, and if it's the former, then make your case, and if ppl are offended by the Flames name, I'm all for changing it.. it's just a team name after all. xD

to anthony: they rly did a great job of respecting the natives... after they took their land and killed most of them off... but after that... great job...

are we seriously going to be backpatting ourselves for our treatment of our native peoples?

Anything we do that's positive, should be seen as merely a cent in repaying a trillion dollar debt, something we owe and we can never truly repay, not something extra we're giving as charity.

It's just a logo, as many other ppl have pointed out (on both sides)... I don't see the awfulness in changing it (to maybe an actual Black Hawk or maybe, as somebody else suggested the patch of the army unit that it was supposed to represent)... after all, for ppl who think "it's a logo, what's the big deal? why change it?", well since it's not a big deal, then they'd be ok with it.. and for those which it is a personal and hurtful thing, they will be ok too :) so everybody is ok! :] so what's the big deal? :3 if we can have a good logo and not be racist (or racially insensitive or offensive, or whatever word works for ppl), I think that's the way to go :) Unless it's impossible to have a good logo without it being racist :O

[Arthur Bailey]

I voted on that poll. I voted that I did not think it was time to change the logo. However, I understand that above all, to maintain the dignity and rights of any person, minority or otherwise, can't rely on a democratic approach.

Certain things should not be decided based on popular perception (though I admit they must be hard to accomplish until thoughts begin to sway) like legalizing gay marriage. It doesn't matter what the majority thinks, it is the right thing to do, and I am glad it is done. Or the new health care in America. Obama pushed through a very unpopular change, that only helped a tenth of the country (those currently without a health insurance provider) but it was the right thing to do (and we know that, enjoying universal healthcare).

[Scott]

Damion - you are a sports writer, write about sports ... only

[Dave]

This column looks a lot like damage control. I suspect Mr. Cox expected a bit more support for his lame opinion and now he wants to backtrack a bit. Your "opinion" didn't really sit well with all of the "White Males that want to keep women out of the hall" .

Way to alienate your audience.