• The Nutbrown Hare

    What part of the word ‘roast’ did the commenting Kings fans fail to comprehend?

    • The Other One

      How do I unsee that Kings Rap? At least when Blackhawk fans do tribute videos, they do it right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zd5iUGG7hY

    • YoAdrienne

      No kidding. They’re doing just what the authors said they’d do: Proving that they are some of the most whiny, insecure idiots you’ll ever meet Based on my experience with Kings fans, the authors were spot-on all around.

      That was actually a great roast. It was the best one after the Blues roast.

    • Andrew Heitman

      Its almost as amusing as the article itself, which is actually well done…

  • joedl42

    ugh waiting for actual trades to start happening instead of rumors is killing me. this part of the offseason sucks, no news and no trades makes Joe something something.

  • jordyhawk

    Washington DC American football team (I’ll call them that so I don’t get in any trouble) lost some patents today. I hope we’re okay on that (I honestly don’t see where our name or logo could be construed as offensive).


    • HawkIPA

      I think the Blackhawks are in the clear for now. The Patent and Trademark Office made the determination based on a finding that “Redskins” was offensive to a “substantial composite” Native Americans.


      From what I’ve read, the Native American community does not believe that “Blackhawks” is disparaging or offensive. The term itself is different from “Redskins” or “Indians,” in that it originally was named for an army unit, and has since been used to honor Chief Black Hawk, a major historical figure, rather than as a slur or nickname for an entire ethnic group.

      This could change in the future, but for now, I don’t think the Blackhawks need to worry. Cleveland should probably give its baseball team another nickname though.

      • Just wait until the Redskins are gone and they start looking for a new target…

        • MySpoonIsTooBig

          There are plenty of targets that are higher on the list that the ‘Hawks. Like the Braves, whose fans still do the tomahawk chop, or the Indians, who have downplayed but not actually officially gotten rid of the horribly offensive Chief Wahoo. I could feasibly see a day where the ‘Hawks are asked to change their logo, but that’s probably so far down the list of concerns (it’s not even being talked about on any level except for, as YoAdrienne points out, sour grapes fans grasping for straws after the ‘Hawks beat their team) that it’d be shocking if it happened anytime in the foreseeable future

          • raditzzzz

            the hawks are really quite unique in terms of their situation. i can’t think of any other pro sports team that is nicknamed (albeit by proxy) after a specific individual. whether it is insensitive to appropriate the usage of an individual for sports brand identity is its own debate.

            the knock on the hawks logo will always be that it is stereotypical (even though the depiction is not wantonly negative), although the organization always has the option to eliminate that by simply making the logo more accurate to actual images of the historical person. then, who’s to say the cultural depiction is a negative one, and not simply “a depiction.”

      • YoAdrienne

        May I add the Atlanta Braves to that list?

        Another thing that helps the Blackhawks keep themselves in the clear is that they don’t engage in the sort of dumbassery the Braves used to do, like like having a teepee set up, where Chief Noc-A-Homa came out and danced every time they homered. And, the Hawks discourage their fans from doing things like that godawful “tomahawk chop” and wearing Native American headdresses and “war paint.”

        The only times I ever hear anyone calling the Blackhawks “racist” is as sour grapes from fans whose teams the Hawks just beat. It’s what they fall back on when they can’t find anything else to legitimately complain about.

        • raditzzzz

          i can’t say i’ve ever seen the organization “discouraging” wearing stereotypical native american garb, and while it is not the majority, there are fans who indulge it.

          • YoAdrienne

            I have read in several places that the organization discourages the stereotypical crap. Maybe not as much as they need to, but they do. They can’t stop it all. There will always be at least one idiot in the crowd.

          • raditzzzz

            i would be interested in reading examples of the organization discouraging that. if you come across any, please share.

            i maintain an interest in the debates concerning iconography in sports.

          • birdhead

            I HATE this so fucking much. (I also don’t like the logo, which makes it fricking difficult to buy Hawks gear.)

          • YoAdrienne

            I don’t mind the logo. I can’t stand what some people do to it (e.g., Kaner mullet version, the skeleton version, the bearded version), however. I think it’s really disrespectful. The same goes for the ignoramuses who insist on playing dress-up.

            Many years ago, I read that the 1964-65 version of the logo, which is
            essentially the current version, is actually Pierre Pilote’s profile. Kind of cool if that’s really the case.

      • I Remember The Roar!

        Totally agree. At the root of things, we’re named after a person, not a tribe or racial slur. In addition to all of the other points everyone else has made, our mascot is actually a black hawk, and our logo is one of the few that doesn’t depict a Native American with red skin.

      • DJ

        The name “Indians” is not so much the problem. It’s a perfectly legitimate term (otherwise, why did the late, great Russell Means call his group the American Indian Movement?). The problem is that the logo has become more stereotypical over time.

        It’s odd. The logo was originally created by Bill Veeck, who never called it “Chief Wahoo.” He always called it either the “Smiling Indian.” The original version had the golden-colored skin that the Hawks’ logo has. Veeck was a noted political liberal, who wrote in his 1962 autobiography that his fantasy (what he called what he wanted to do “when he grew up”) was to get a law degree and devote himself to vindicating the civil rights of American Indians. Before you dismiss it, think about it — how many people even thought about American Indian civil rights in 1962?

        I’m not sure that if he were around today, he’d want Cleveland to keep the logo. Perhaps his son, Mike, could shed light on what he might have thought.

    • DJ

      Not patents. Trademark protection.

  • TitanTransistor

    On the plus side, pretty much every commenter on that Bollig grading article seems to agree he’s terrible and useless. Not much of a ‘dur, we need guys who can hit and fight’ crowd. Maybe the knowledge of the fanbase at large is growing with the team’s continued success…