https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/kendall-coyne-schofield-development-coach-1.5812712

Whether you like the fact that they've kept the name or not, I don't think CBC should be calling them the "Chicago NHL Team" unless they actually change the name. Because right now, they're called the Chicago Blackhawks. Will they still be called the Chicago Blackhawks in a year from now? Who knows? But right now, that's what they're called, so that's what I'm going to call them.

I have better things to worry about then if a journalist wants to call them "Blackhawks" in an article.

I'm not here to politicize this post or monopolize this discussion. I have an idea that I want you to mull over. This post doesn't exist to suggest someone is wrong for hating the idea of a prospective name change: play with this idea and draw your own conclusions.

Why do we make buildings wheelchair accessible?

There's a nonzero number of people in our society that physically cannot manage stairs, but a ramp allows them to access these businesses and/or facilities. It's about inclusivity: society is something we all do together, and excluding any portion of the group is counteractive to the thing as a whole.

The NHL's mandate of "everyone can play" fits this same ideology. Hockey isn't owned by any individual, group, race, whatever. Hockey quite frankly is for everyone. Really internalize the "everyone" part of this statement; you can really apply this to any recent professional sports name change. If there exists even one person that feels excluded or offended by the Blackhawks' name, the league and the club (specifically) owes it to however many people that fall into that category to change the team's name. If hockey is truly for everyone, then even the exclusion of one person contradicts the whole mandate. Hockey isn't for everyone except those that take issue with the Blackhawks' namesake. It's supposed to be for everyone. It's supposed to be inclusive.

There's absolutely going to be a crowd of people pissed to the core about any prospective name change, and they'll readily cite the notion of "history". But I look back on history and see nothing but examples from society to learn from and grow beyond. Some of our methods and ideologies used to be barbaric, even flat-out wrong. The moon is not made of cheese, the Earth is not the center of the universe, you cannot turn piss into gold. Cultural ideologies follow this pattern of growth too: I think rooting yourself in the ideologies of the culture from 1942 prevents you from growing and taking advantage of how society as a whole has progressed in the past 78 years. Things are not the same as they were then. What do we as fans stand to gain by blocking the idea of a prospective name change? What exactly are we preserving? Toews and Kane still led one of the most impressive modern-day dynasties we're likely to see. Hull, Mikita, Chelios, Esposito, and the whole crew are still hockey heroes to this day, and it's not because of the name on the front of the sweaters they wore.

I think the league has more to gain - fans, revenues, status - from adopting progressive name changes than doubling down on the past. That's their mandate isn't it? We celebrate those of colour who made it to the NHL despite so many roadblocks that culturally accompanied the sport, we celebrate players who embrace themselves and their identity, and we celebrate what makes us unique. Everyone in the NHL has something different they can bring to the table, and it's past due that we make sure the extra seats are available for those who may not have appreciated the Blackhawks' namesake growing up.

Hockey really is for everyone. If we're already so used to referring to Chicago's hockey team as the Hawks, and there are innumerate examples of names being used across leagues, is there really a conversation to be had here?

Great post. A ton of great points you made. The one thing I will argue is that if anyone is offended by the name, I don't think they're excluding those people by keeping the name. There are people who are mad about the name, and there are people who will be mad if they change the name. And it's not to say that if you're offended by the name you're not allowed to go to the games.

Still, though, you made some great points. I'm not trying to say that calling them the "Chicago NHL Team" is a terrible thing to do, just that I found it a little odd.

I say -- Ask Native Americans if they find it offensive for any reason.
Go with the majority of what they say. I don't think people would name a franchise to purposely offend a group of people.
I've heard that some take pride in teams reflecting their heritage as a thing of honour.

Just another thought/opinion.

Haven't they done that a bunch? They've banned headdresses in their arena and "war paint". They've worked with the Native American communities around Chicago in educating their fan base in culture and history. Not to mention (unlike the former Washington Redskins) "Blackhawk" isn't a tribe or a derogatory term. They're named after an infantry division which was named after a Sauk War Chief that was called Black Hawk.

The organization has listened to all of the push back and they only thing they haven't really addressed is the motif on the front of their jerseys. Which I imagine they will probably end up doing in the near future. I can't see them changing their name.