Write On Sports LLC - "Violent Logos for a Violent Culture" by Cort Reynolds

Violent Logos for a Violent Culture

2006-09-14 18:58:11 | By: Cort Reynolds

ADA - Last week's unveiling of the new ONU logo for athletics raises a lot of issues about the evolution of nicknames and logos in American sports, how they shine a mirror on our increasingly violent, aggressive society. A university release from the official school website last week explained the genesis of the new logo thusly: "Born March 16, 1923, the Polar Bear was officially chosen on that date as mascot for the Ohio Northern athletic teams. The polar bear was chosen by an overwhelming vote of the student body to personify the spirit of ONU. The new Polar Bear embraces the same characteristics that had students in 1923 applauding. The new Klondike is described by the design committee as 'regal, proud, modern, intimidating yet not frightening, and appropriate to represent both female and male teams.' " The question is, is any of this true?

Let's look at the professional sports expansion teams names that have hit the scene since the late 1980s. Teams in the NBA, NHL, NFL (inherently a violent game) and even the supposedly pastoral major league baseball have adopted nicknames for expansion teams that are aggressive-sounding and looking. Gone are the genteel and gentle nicknames of such expansion baseball teams of the 1960s and '70s like Twins, Astros, Expos, Padres, Mets, Mariners, Blue Jays and even Angels, for pete's sake!

Although the Rockies are neutral, how about Diamondbacks of Arizona, a venomous snake. Or Brewers. Yet the other major sports are much worse. In the NFL, the newest teams are the Panthers, Ravens, Texans (non-violent? That depends on which Texans spring to your mind) and Jaguars, with three three displaying voracious-looking logos on their helmets.

Of course, this is not surprising, given the nature of football. New logos of old teams are increasingly made to appear more speedy and aggressive, or at least hyperactive, with most teams in all sports also adopting black as a main part of their uniform wardrobe for looks, new marketing/ merchandising and clothing to sell, and for intimidation purposes. There has also been a subtle move toward teams wearing black or gray uniforms at home instead of the traditional white (except in the NFL, where the road team usually wears white, save for Dallas, where "America's Team" wears white at home so they can be the good guys of westerns gone by), and the pretty silver helmets can shine in the lights. I always wondered why no one ever questioned how dumb the statement about God making Texas Stadium with a whole in the roof so he could watch America's so-called team is, since God could easily see through any roof.

Did anyone notice how boring the NFL games were to watch when teams like the Detroit Lions wore their bland, mundane throwback uniforms a few years ago and the focus was not on the flashy uniforms, helmets, cheerleaders, beer and sex, and revealed instead how vicious the game really is without all the distractions and glitz and glamour which America has become so enamored with and hypnotized by?

In the NBA, the Dallas Mavericks entered the league in 1980 with a relatively tame, and culturally-fitting, original nickname. By the late 1980s though, the Charlotte Hornets (stinging), who since moved to New Orleans/Oklahoma City, and Minnesota Timberwolves (with a glowering, clawed dog clutching a basketball) had been born. They were followed by the voracious Toronto "Raptors" in the early 1990s and Vancouver "Grizzlies" (since moved to Memphis), befit with an angry bear for its logo. Compare those with the old time nickname standbys like Celtics, Lakers, Nationals/76ers and Knickerbockers, or Royals. Only the Warriors from the original NBA six franchises still in existence bear any nickname resemblance to aggression or fighting at all.

Consider some of the old ABA nicknames: the Oakland Oaks, Pittsburgh Pipers, New York Nets, Indiana Pacers, Kentucky Colonels, Dallas Chaparrals, even the Anaheim - get this - AMIGOS! Can you imagine a new team in pro sports now called the California Friends, with David Schwimmer's mug plastered on the team logo?

And if politically incorrect team nicknames are the issue, why isn't "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame considered a negative stereotype? A bearded guy in green with his fists up in a pugilistic, pugnacious stance isn't as offensive as "Redmen" of St. John's? Why not get rid of "Fighting" and just call them the Irish? Because not all Irish people, obviously, are warlike fighters. Marquette changed their generic Warriors to Golden Eagles. And what about DePaul's Blue Demons and Duke's Blue Devils? Shouldn't we change those before the narrow-minded zealots condemn their student-athletes to hell?

The NHL, which over-expanded to the American southeast and southwest in the 1990s, may be the worst for adopting more ornery logos and nicknames for its new or moving franchises, or at least hyper ones with somewhat violent or destructive weather connotations--such as Carolina "Hurricanes", Colorado "Avalanche" and Tampa Bay "Lightning." How about the Atlanta "Thrashers." Or Nashville "Predators." Or San Jose "Sharks", New Jersey "Devils", Florida "Panthers" and Phoenix "Coyotes." Even the Columbus Blue Jackets have a violent basis for their nickname, with its derivation from Civil War uniforms. Only the Anaheim "Mighty Ducks" avoided the violent syndrome, but that was only to capitalize on a marketing campaign aimed at kids due to a popular movie of the times, sort of like the Raptors in the NBA from "Jurassic Park."

The nicknames of 1960s/70s era NHL expansion teams? Blues, Nordiques, Flyers, Sabres (ok, a little suggested violence there, but that supports the aggressive progression of the times), Flames, North Stars, Canucks, Penguins, Capitals, Islanders, Kings and even Golden Seals, for crying out loud. Compare the newest nicknames and logos - of the original six NHL franchises still in existence, the nicknames are: Red Wings, Bruins, Rangers, Canadiens, Black Hawks and Maple Leafs. Quite a difference, eh?

True, hockey is a rugged sport, often violent. But the object of the game is not to hit people, it is to put a puck in the net or stop one with hand-eye coordination, skill and skating ability. It's worth noting that the fighting associated with hockey is basically an NHL phenomenon--European hockey does not feature fighting as a part of its marketing, I mean game. And the NHL European players, much like their NBA counterparts, tend to be among the most skilled and best players in the North American pro leagues.

In the world of women's pro sports, if the names are not more violent, they are at least different. It's interesting to me that so many of the WNBA teams adopted non-plural nicknames in lieu of the traditional ones - Minnesota Lynx, New York Liberty, Phoenix Mercury, Detroit Shock, Charlotte Sting, Seattle Storm, Chicago Sky, Indiana Fever and Connecticut Sun. Only five of the 14 WNBA teams have traditional plural nicknames like the Sparks of LA or Monarchs of Sacramento or Houston Comets. Not sure what that means other than to be different and stand out in a sports- and media-saturated world of 24/7 news and information: only a few teams in the established NBA like the Utah Jazz have such nicknames.

Perhaps in the end the new ONU logo is pretty tame for such a man-eating animal. But like the rest of American society, it seems to be moving toward a more angry, violent, aggressive state--pun intended. Of course merchandising has a lot to do with the new logos, and it's cool to have shirts and sweaters and coats with nasty looking emblems to make one look tougher. America wouldn't sell violence to make a buck would it? Or use sports to teach violence and aggression and justify it in self-serving war, or use it to teach a might-makes-right tmentality to impressionable youth? Say, how much are those new shirts and sweaters with the ONU logo on them going for now?