July 24, 2013

Blackhawks fans defend stereotypical logo

Some anonymous commenters took me to task for my Alternate Logo for Blackhawks posting in 2010. It was about this proposed mascot revamp for the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team:

Here's why I was right and they were wrong:Change the Blackhawk logo? Go ahead and try, you whiny little bitches. At your own peril, of course.It was merely a suggestion, dumbass. And you and your fellow fans are the only whiny babies here. I can still hear you crying over you mascot.Get your references correct. The Chicago Blackhawks are named after Chief Black Hawk of the Sauk tribe of Northern Illinois. He is the only individual in USA history to have a war named after him. The Chicago franchise of the NHL used his name (modified to one word) as a point of honor towards Black Hawk, and to all of the indigenous peoples of North America. So, remember the Blackhawks are not birds, but rather proud braves.Thanks for the info, Anonymous #3. Now tell me something I don't know. In fact, tell me something I didn't know before you were born, unless I miss my guess.

Wow...the stupidity of people who think mascot foes don't know every detail about the mascot they're criticizing. Breathtaking.

Here's a clue, bright boy: The team not only converted Black Hawk's name to one word, it pluralized it. There are no Indian "braves" or other Native groups named "Blackhawks." So your claim that the actual name refers to "proud braves" is false.

The plural "Blackhawks" is about as close to the singular Chief Black Hawk as a black bird would be. And Chief Black Hawk was named for--wait for it--a black hawk. Therefore, a black hawk is equally appropriate as the team's self-image.

Heck, it's more appropriate, since the orange-skinned cartoon logo looks nothing like Chief Black Hawk. The black hawk looks like the chief's namesake, while the cartoon logo looks like a circus clown. It's more of an insult than an honor to the real person.

If you want to honor the Sauk Indians, rename the team the Sauks. Or the Black Sauks, if you want to be clever. Again, the "Blackhawks" name honors the Sauk the same way a "Crazy Horses" name would honor the Lakota. Which is to say, not at all.

The ignorant "honor" claimOne thing no one seems to thing about, is a logo/mascot is a thing of pride. Native Americans should be as honored by the Blackhawks as those of Nordic decent are of the Vikings, or the Irish are of Notre Dame. No one names their team after something they hate, dispise, or intend to mock. The logo was chosen to represent the fierce will and determination shown by this country's proud indigenous people. To say its offensive to Native Americans is offensive to common sense.Actually, I've thought about and disputed that claim hundreds of times. You evidently haven't thought of or even read the responses to that tired, trite claim.

Here's one of many such responses:

Smashing People: The "Honor" of Being an Athlete

One obvious rejoinder is: Who are you to tell Indians they should feel honored? The fact that you're imposing your feelings on them because you consider yourselves superior is part of the problem. You "honor" Indians by telling them to shut up...charming.

More to the point, Natives are challenging the clownish logo more than the name. Get it? The logo, not the name, is offensive because it stereotypes Indians as primitive people of the past.

In fact, none of you have addressed this point: how Bozo the Blackhawk doesn't represent the Sauk chief or his people, much less today's Sauk Indians. Now that you chickens have ducked the issue, try addressing it. If you're not wetting your pants at the thought of the butt-kicking you'll get, that is.

For more on the Blackhawks, see Blackhawks Mascot in The Dilemma and "Authentic" Chiefs from "Blackhawks" Tribe.


dmarks said...

Now, this is the kind of post you excel at, Rob.

But even you missed this one:

A quoted anon said "He is the only individual in USA history to have a war named after him"

You said you agreed.

Well.... cough... And cough.

And these are just two I happen to be well versed in, and knew anyway.

Rob said...

I was referring to the overall thrust of his comments, not to every detail. And knowing something isn't necessarily agreeing with it.

More to the point, your two examples happened before the United States of America existed. So his claim about "the only individual in USA history" is still technically correct.

Have we fought any wars named for individuals since 1776? Some Indian wars were nicknamed for Indians, but the Black Hawk War may be the only one whose primary name is an individual's.

For a full list of US wars, see: