2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

[ColeJ]

Tribe names as intellectual property is still just hard to wrap my mind around. I'm not disagreeing with it or arguing against it. It just feels so counterintuitive to my brain as a holder of a history degree and fan of geology.

 

Dallas Stars are an intellectual property. A business. No one is born into Dallas Stars. Seminole isn't the same. If I got tired of being a Dallas Stars fan, I could become a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. If someone got tired of being Seminole, they couldn't suddenly become Chippewa. So specific ethnic groups as intellectual property in general does seem very odd.

 

I still take the very selfish and entitled stance of "case by case basis based on my own discretion." lol. Redskins name, racist. Redskins logo, perfectly fine and quite nice. Indians name, feels inaccurate and weird but supposedly natives embrace the term so fine I guess. Indians logo, inappropriate. Blackhawks everything, no issues. Chiefs, Seminoles, Sioux, Braves, no issues. Vikings and Fighting Irish (my two biggest ancestoral groups), awesome identities for teams I don't care about.

 

Is it white privilege to pick and choose what personally offends me? Or is it only white privilege when I care more about what offends me than what offends everyone else?

[Rj0498]

As someone with little native american in my blood I don't have a dog in this fight but I don't exactly hear about the gripes with the Blackhawks logo as with the name of the Redskins or the logo of the Indians  and well the Blackhawks logo is associated with alot of success and their merchanise is constantly bought so I don't really see them changing anytime soon

[Delicate Genius]

The Lightning and Maple Leafs are playing in what appears to be a team scrimmage.

[hockey week]

Today I figured out where the Leafs' jersey design comes from:

[M4One]

On 10/12/2016 at 8:36 PM, fmedges said:

I noticed that the Easton logos on helmets have been covered up on the game that I'm watching tonight. Is this due to Easton not paying the NHL this season because of their financial problems I'm guessing?

 

So I just read that Bauer is buying Easton.  It's possible that the Easton label might be fazed out and that may explain as to why the Easton logo is being covered up.

[Walter Sobchak]

The Sharks wore white at home tonight and because I was only half paying attention I didn't realize the game was in San Jose until overtime.

[Thaumatrope]

19 hours ago, ColeJ said:

Just playing devil's advocate here, but where do names like Vikings and Fighting Irish fall?

 

Oh man...I was hoping this would come up.

 

I think @hockey week said it best:

 

15 hours ago, hockey week said:

Obviously positions of power, a lack of oppression (the opposite seems more accurate), and a lack of ongoing racial tension make this a non-issue. But, if you paint broad brush strokes, it absolutely should be included. 

 

However, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this, as its something my wife and I have talked about at length. 

 

Vikings are different from Indians (or Chiefs and Braves as @ColeJ mentioned) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the Vikings are not part of American history. The viking age ended centuries before the permanent colonization of North America, and while the vikings looted and murdered across northern Europe, this was literally ancient history by the time the Minnesota Vikings came into being. Meanwhile the massacre at Wounded Knee took place in December of 1890. The Cleveland Indians were founded just four years later in 1894. The Braves adopted their moniker just 22 years later in 1912. The Blackhawks were founded 36 years later in 1926. The Redskins were founded 42 years later in 1932.

 

The point being that where as the vikings reference a culture (and events) that existed centuries ago, many of the Native American brands were established within a few short decades of government sanctioned genocide. By all accounts the vikings did some pretty terrible things as well (and I'm hard pressed to come up with any organizations from Europe that use vikings as a mascot), but they are far enough removed from the US both historically and geographically to be benign. I would argue that names like Spartans, and Trojans fall into a similar vein. 

 

The Fighting Irish are a different case entirely, but they illustrate a second major point when determining what makes a name or brand offensive. I'm assuming most of the people on this board are aware of the prejudice, bigotry, and oppression that the Irish faced in America. I've even heard the Irish Famine referred to as a kind of genocide or ethnic cleansing. Which is to say that there are certainly some parallels between the Irish and Native American experiences. However, there are also significant differences that I believe set the two apart and ultimately explain why referencing one is offensive while the other is benign. Over the course of four centuries the native peoples of North America lost everything, effectively becoming outsiders in their own homelands. In spite of their hardships the Irish ultimately gained their independence and went on to become global citizens on equal footing with their neighbors. Those that came to the United State preserved their culture while simultaneously rising in the social and economic ranks. The Fighting Irish name is benign because the people it references are equal participants in both American and global society. While this may not have been the case when the name was first adopted, it was ultimately self-referential and served as a form of empowerment rather than appropriation.

 

I have often wondered what would happen if the Cleveland Indians decided to ditch Chief Wahoo for a tasteful representation of a raja. After all India is one of the fastest growing countries in the world and its citizen are enjoying an increasing presence and importance on the world stage. There is also an immense degree of cultural pride both within India and among those who have come to the US. So long as the work was done well  (ie no racist caricatures), I believe that the team could actually enjoy a degree of popularity and respect that has eluded the organization for some time. 

 

[Sodboy13]

On 10/24/2016 at 10:23 PM, Morgo said:

Starter made a lot of fashion jerseys in the late 90's but none of them had a fight strap.  The numbers are likely custom but the rest of the uniform looks like a legitimate authentic.

 

This is the puzzler for me with that Blues 3rd. Previously, I've seen some Trumpet jerseys pop up on eBay, but they were clearly custom-made sublimated jobs, and advertised as such. Look at that eBay listing again and zoom in on the photos. I own an authentic 96-97 Starter Coyotes jersey, and that looks exactly like the material Starter used. The tagging inside the neck all matches the authentics of the time. The shoulder notes are fully embroidered patches, not just part of the overall sublimation. And most importantly, look at the rear hem. Not only does it have the Gretzky double-tagging, but the Starter logo and NHL shield are not patches - they're direct embroidery into the material, just as the real ones were. So, either this is a real authentic white whale, or someone took white, blank authentic jerseys of the day, got them custom sublimated with the Trumpet design, had the knit neckline dyed to match the real deal, hunted down Blues All-Star jersey patches from 1994-98 to sew onto the shoulders, and then had the Starter and NHL logos embroidered on the tail. I know what my guess is. And even if it is a fake custom job? Holy crap, hats off for the effort and attention to detail.

 

No clue about the legitimacy of the name/number design, though. Someone like Chris needs to get in touch with people who were in the Blues organization at the time and find out how really real that is. Because, jeeeee-zus.

[Kevin W.]

It's not authentic. The jerseys were never made. It's a well-made fake, but it's a fake nonetheless, and it's a violation of trademarks.

[Sodboy13]

You are very confident in your assertion, and I'd like you to explain why. If you have info or proof to share, please do. Because, as I said, if that is a fake, that is a fake with an uncanny attention to detail.

 

Plus, "the jerseys were never made" flies in the face of the fact that, well, if it is a fake, it was based on a photo of a jersey that was in fact made, and has circulated 'round these parts for 15-plus years. There's also the matter of the accepted legend that Keenan banhammered these when he saw them hanging in the locker room, an event that would have required an actual manufacturing of the jerseys. (For the record, I'm not fully on board with that story, because if they were that close to making it on the ice, there would have been retail jerseys produced and ready for sale, and Mom & Pop's Sport Shop in Florissant would have still put them out for sale on the racks even if the team never wore them.)

[KittSmith_95]

The jerseys could have very well made the prototype stage. We honestly don't know. I'm looking at the jersey, & it looks authentic to my knowledge. The stitching, patches, the logos and collar, etc. It all looks like this jersey was made to be used for the 95-96 season, but was cut just before the season started. Meaning a few of these were made as a promotion product. It never left that stage, though. 

[nash61]

They had me until this popped up. Brett Hull Unused Blues Jersey

The way the light hits those numbers looks very much like the material used for knockoff numbers. The guy also admits they're customs.

[pepis21]

13 hours ago, Danny said:

The Lightning and Maple Leafs are playing in what appears to be a team scrimmage.

 

And this is why Lightning desperately need a rebrand or back to previous look.

[Sodboy13]

7 hours ago, nash61 said:

They had me until this popped up. Brett Hull Unused Blues Jersey

The way the light hits those numbers looks very much like the material used for knockoff numbers. The guy also admits they're customs.

 

The stitching closeup on the lettering looks really legit, though. It's possible the slight bubbling of the rear numbers comes from 20 years of storage and the glue betwesn the layers wearing out a bit. I don't know. If I wasn't in phone, I'd take this jersey and photoshop it into the "I WANT TO BELIEVE" poster. The only way I'd weigh in conclusively on this is if some jersey expert got it firsthand, or if one of you with $270 to burn bought it and sent it to me, in which case, much oblige.

[Thaumatrope]

16 hours ago, ColeJ said:

Tribe names as intellectual property is still just hard to wrap my mind around. I'm not disagreeing with it or arguing against it. It just feels so counterintuitive to my brain as a holder of a history degree and fan of geology.

 

Dallas Stars are an intellectual property. A business. No one is born into Dallas Stars. Seminole isn't the same. If I got tired of being a Dallas Stars fan, I could become a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. If someone got tired of being Seminole, they couldn't suddenly become Chippewa. So specific ethnic groups as intellectual property in general does seem very odd.

 

I still take the very selfish and entitled stance of "case by case basis based on my own discretion." lol. Redskins name, racist. Redskins logo, perfectly fine and quite nice. Indians name, feels inaccurate and weird but supposedly natives embrace the term so fine I guess. Indians logo, inappropriate. Blackhawks everything, no issues. Chiefs, Seminoles, Sioux, Braves, no issues. Vikings and Fighting Irish (my two biggest ancestoral groups), awesome identities for teams I don't care about.

 

Is it white privilege to pick and choose what personally offends me? Or is it only white privilege when I care more about what offends me than what offends everyone else?

 

Tribal identity as intellectual property is a very interesting idea, and I agree that it's pretty abstract. It helps to understand that many tribes receive and distribute resources based on bloodline. I knew someone who was part Comanche, and he received a monthly paycheck from the tribe even though he lived nowhere near their reservations. However, the Comanche (like many tribes) have strict lineage requirements, and if a certain percentage of ancestry is not present then those individuals are not entitled to call themselves Comanche or receive the benefits that come with it. So in light of this practice, in which its possible that one's own children or grandchildren can be denied the tribal identity, it makes a bit more sense why some tribes are incredibly defensive about organizations using their name or iconography. 

 

I'm also glad to see you bringing up white privilege. I think thats a very key concept that goes missing when discussing these kinds of things. I would argue that our white privilege allows us to choose whether or not we are offended as these organizations were ultimately founded by white man and are still largely owned and operated by white men as well. We (being white people) can choose to be offended because ultimately we have the luxury of being the dominant culture within our society and we are given agency to accept or reject just about everything. However, I would also argue that there's a spectrum to white privilege, and while your first example certainly qualifies, I'd argue that the more egregious manifestation of white privilege is the refusal to acknowledge that what you find unoffensive may be offensive to others, and that the anger and frustration of others holds the same value as your own. Its this latter privilege that I see at the core of this discussion, and its going to be very interesting to see how it continues to play out both on this forum and in the broader sporting culture.

 

[Ark]

The Florida Panthers should switch all of the blue to red, except the logo. The blue is too dark and takes away from the uniform, and it doesn't even match on the road uniform.

 

 

 

The Panthers are so close to having a timeless uniform set, but they aren't quite there yet. The jerseys themselves are fantastic. 

[NYYNYR]

11 hours ago, Walter Sobchak said:

The Sharks wore white at home tonight and because I was only half paying attention I didn't realize the game was in San Jose until overtime.

Seeing a lotta that orange Ducks sweater... just sayin' !

[NYYNYR]

50 minutes ago, Ark said:

The Florida Panthers should switch all of the blue to red, except the logo. The blue is too dark and takes away from the uniform, and it doesn't even match on the road uniform.

 

 

 

The Panthers are so close to having a timeless uniform set, but they aren't quite there yet. The jerseys themselves are fantastic. 

Those whites are niiiiiiiice !

[CreamSoda]

50 minutes ago, Ark said:

The Florida Panthers should switch all of the blue to red, except the logo. The blue is too dark and takes away from the uniform, and it doesn't even match on the road uniform.

 

 

 

The Panthers are so close to having a timeless uniform set, but they aren't quite there yet. The jerseys themselves are fantastic. 

 

Completely disagree.

The navy blue pants and equipment goes well with the rest of the uniform.  If it were red, that would be way too much red.

[chcarlson23]

45 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

 

Completely disagree.

The navy blue pants and equipment goes well with the rest of the uniform.  If it were red, that would be way too much red.

I agree with you @CreamSoda, the equipment really works with the sweaters. The Reds look fantastic, but the Whites have a little too much blue. Red numbers would make them perfect...