Young Calgary hockey player refuses to wear 'discriminatory' team logo

[doniceage]

Starting hockey should be an exciting moment for any seven-year-old.

But for one Calgary girl, that excitement was spoiled after realizing what emblem would be plastered across her chest — a First Nations "warrior" with war paint and feathers.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/09/02...parks-moms-ire

[kdmmw]

Sit out then

[scarrman]

On May 1, 1926, the NHL awarded an expansion franchise for Chicago to a syndicate headed by former football star Huntington Hardwick of Boston. At the same meeting, Hardwick arranged the purchase of the players of the Portland Rosebuds of the Western Hockey League for $100,000 from WHL President Frank Patrick in a deal brokered by Boston Bruins' owner Charles Adams.^[3] However, only one month later, Hardwick's group sold out to Chicago coffee tycoon Frederic McLaughlin.^[4]
McLaughlin had been a commander with the 333rd Machine Gun Battalion of the 86th Infantry Division during World War I.^[5] This Division was nicknamed the "Blackhawk Division" after a Native American of the Sauk nation, Black Hawk, who was a prominent figure in the history of Illinois.^[5] McLaughlin named the new hockey team in honor of the military unit, making it one of many sports team names using Native Americans as icons.

I read about this in Gretzky's book. Seems more of an honor, than a slanderous stereotype of indigenous people.

[Maggot]

Seems more of an honor, than a slanderous stereotype of indigenous people.

Rational thought and investigation has no place in today's politically correct world, stop it.

[subban7677]

I know this is a hot-button topic, but I can understand how Indigenous people would not want to be portrayed as "mascots". What may have seemed like an honour in 1926, may not today. Times change, and we as a society have to learn to adapt. It's not helpful to just go "bah political correctness" and just ignore the issues.

[piper1]

Seems more of an honor, than a slanderous stereotype of indigenous people.

That was the rationale behind the University of North Dakota's former name and logo but the NCAA made them drop it anyway. If they had been a rich and powerful school like Florida State it probably wouldn't have been an issue.

[bdiam]

Since the Cdn taxpayer more then likely funded/subsidized the registration costs for this kid to play, I wander if the parents will be refunding the funds that were likely already issued?

[30ranfordfan]

Agree very much with this.

Weather we're talking about hockey teams, baseball teams, NCAA teams, or even a particular NFL team: I do not believe any of these names or logos were every chosen with any disrespect, malice, hate, (whatever) in mind. Quite the opposite. They chose to honour those people... teams wanted their players to display many of the traits that were associated with the people (call that stereotypes, good or bad).

But, yes. I do see the problem. "I don't want to be a mascot". I can't really relate to it - but I refuse to tell someone they're wrong to feel that way. I don't imagine these team names will still be around in 25 years - and probably a lot less than that - because, quite frankly, they do offend a large number of people.

What does make me sad about this story though: I have a hard time believing that this 7 year old girl is the one who's offended by the logo. I would be surprised to learn the girl actually refused to wear anything.... and I don't buy (for a second) that anyone signed up for hockey and didn't know what team they'd be playing for.

Most likely: this is a parent (or parents) that wanted to sign their kids up, but have them play on the other team (as the article mentions... the Bruins, rather than the Warriors, play very close to them too) because THEY have a problem with the logo (that's not to say I think they shouldn't have a problem with it, just suggesting that it's the parent's problem - not the kids). So sign up, and fight about it for a while... and when they couldn't change teams, pull out and make a big deal about it.

So instead of a a 7 year old girl playing hockey like she wants, the whole thing gets hijacked to play politics.

I know this is a hot-button topic, but I can understand how Indigenous people would not want to be portrayed as "mascots". What may have seemed like an honour in 1926, may not today. Times change, and we as a society have to learn to adapt. It's not helpful to just go "bah political correctness" and just ignore the issues.

[Gallinator]

To me, this begs the question of what exactly First Nations (and down here, Native Americans in general) would accept in terms of representation in sports team logos and names? This is no "Chief Wahoo" here and it's not like warriors didn't exist. Would a team name like the Peoria Hogandwellers with a symbol of a NA sitting in front of a traditional hogan be found wanting? It sure wouldn't jack up the fans. Team names are all about excitement or reflective of heritage and I just don't see the offense here.

I think when we start seeing offense in every symbol that perhaps only the most sensitive part of a population would find disagreeable, without making some rational attempt to verify if it truly IS some sort of cultural misappropriation or generally offensive representation, we only weaken the argument of the legitimate objections to terms like "Redskins" by turning off an otherwise receptive audience.

[Taxi]

To me, this begs the question of what exactly First Nations (and down here, Native Americans in general) would accept in terms of representation in sports team logos and names? This is no "Chief Wahoo" here and it's not like warriors didn't exist. Would a team name like the Peoria Hogandwellers with a symbol of a NA sitting in front of a traditional hogan be found wanting? It sure wouldn't jack up the fans. Team names are all about excitement or reflective of heritage and I just don't see the offense here.

I think when we start seeing offense in every symbol that perhaps only the most sensitive part of a population would find disagreeable, without making some rational attempt to verify if it truly IS some sort of cultural misappropriation or generally offensive representation, we only weaken the argument of the legitimate objections to terms like "Redskins" by turning off an otherwise receptive audience.

There have been several instances of sports teams consulting with local indigenous groups to come up with representations that are non-offensive. For example, the Seminoles have consulted with the actual Seminoles to portray them in ways that actually pay tribute.

It's a bit of a copout to say "I'm paying tribute" and then do whatever you want. This particular case isn't so offensive, but certainly teams like the Indians and Redskins are beyond offensive. We wouldn't allow that kind of BS for any other race, so I don't see why it's acceptable to do it to North America's indigenous people. Can you imagine a group called the black-skins with a characterized black person as a symbol? Or the yellowskins? It would never happen.