NHL Stops Marc-Andre Fleury From Wearing Native American Themed Mask

[Keirik]

 

[siddious]

Yea this has reached levels of absurdity far beyond reason. 

[jsm7302]

I'm at a loss for words.....this is ridiculous. To take away a players individual voice is so dumb. Hollywood actors/actresses can say whatever they want, whenever they want even though they represent the film studios etc.

 

This offended culture needs to go away. Let people express themselves as long as it isn't hateful. Don't force others to participate but allow expression. Ugh....

 

What id give to go back to normalcy.....

[Phil]

He wore it anyway, and according to Michael Russo, there's unlikely to be any consequences to him or the Wild organization. The emperor has no clothes.

[Pete]

31 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I'm at a loss for words.....this is ridiculous. To take away a players individual voice is so dumb. Hollywood actors/actresses can say whatever they want, whenever they want even though they represent the film studios etc.

 

This offended culture needs to go away. Let people express themselves as long as it isn't hateful. Don't force others to participate but allow expression. Ugh....

 

What id give to go back to normalcy.....

I don't think what happens is right, but this POV doesn't apply. When you're an employee of the league, they can decide what appropriate uniforms are. That's not taking away his voice. It can do whatever he wants when he's not on the ice, on social, etc.

[jsm7302]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't think what happens is right, but this POV doesn't apply. When you're an employee of the league, they can decide what appropriate uniforms are. That's not taking away his voice. It can do whatever he wants when he's not on the ice, on social, etc.

Fair point; actors/actresses can't express themselves mid movie/show. I get it. 

[Albatrosss]

What was the reasoning behind NHL banning it? The mask does not represent any political statement. Its just done with Indian artwork, much like the Arizona coyotes logo does. Weird 

[jsm7302]

42 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

What was the reasoning behind NHL banning it? The mask does not represent any political statement. Its just done with Indian artwork, much like the Arizona coyotes logo does. Weird 

Fear of the woke response of cultural appropriation......bizarre because it is apparently his wife's heritage he was paying homage to during Native American Heritage Month......overreaction to nothing. Kind of like the pride tape on the sticks. Who cares....  

[H-Dreamer]

6 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

Fear of the woke response of cultural appropriation......bizarre because it is apparently his wife's heritage he was paying homage to during Native American Heritage Month......overreaction to nothing. Kind of like the pride tape on the sticks. Who cares....  

Wasn't it because they made it a rule that no one can wear anything now, so they won't have to talk about players refusing to wear "pride" gear? I don't think fear of a woke response had anything to do with it in this case.

[SaveByRichter35]

I would have worn it in the game too if I were him.

[Ozzy]

There are so many other important things in the NHL, and this is not one of them.

 

Who gives a shit about fucking tape??  UGH...

[Sharpshooter]

Great sport, awful league. I'm glad he wore it anyway. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

23 hours ago, jsm7302 said:

Fear of the woke response of cultural appropriation......bizarre because it is apparently his wife's heritage he was paying homage to during Native American Heritage Month......overreaction to nothing. Kind of like the pride tape on the sticks. Who cares....  

I dont think this is correct, especially because of the reasons you gave. If anything the so-called 'woke' crowd would be more upset about them NOT letting him wear it.

 

its simply the consequences of their own dumb response to the pride tape issue. They thought they were clever in preventing any stories about players refusing to participate in Pride Nights by saying 'no more anything' and now they are facing the consequences of their own decisions (not that it will be harsh consequences, im sure it will all blow over)

[jsm7302]

31 minutes ago, BlairBettsBlocksEverything said:

I dont think this is correct, especially because of the reasons you gave. If anything the so-called 'woke' crowd would be more upset about them NOT letting him wear it.

 

its simply the consequences of their own dumb response to the pride tape issue. They thought they were clever in preventing any stories about players refusing to participate in Pride Nights by saying 'no more anything' and now they are facing the consequences of their own decisions (not that it will be harsh consequences, im sure it will all blow over)

I'm not so sure about that .....see the Washington Redskins or the Cleveland Indians.

 

A happy medium may be allowing players to don what they want during warmups and keep the game time stuff, the approved uniforms. Why this even needs to be discussed is silly really. Life is too short to worry about things like this. 

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

3 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I'm not so sure about that .....see the Washington Redskins or the Cleveland Indians.

 

A happy medium may be allowing players to don what they want during warmups and keep the game time stuff, the approved uniforms. Why this even needs to be discussed is silly really. Life is too short to worry about things like this. 

 

I think those are much different situations. I dont think the Redskins or Indians were meant to honor native american heritage. don't think they are comparable here.

 

But i totally agree with your second point. 

[Phil]

Apparently what the league is worried about isn't specifically Pride tape or Fleury's mask, or things like it, but things that could come in the future that are much more divisive:

 

I still think they went about this the wrong way, but I also kinda understand this. Free speech is free speech, but the league and the teams are sure as fuck not going to want to have to deal with a player wearing a Hamas flag on their helmet, for example.

[Blue Heaven]

33 minutes ago, Phil said:

Apparently what the league is worried about isn't specifically Pride tape or Fleury's mask, or things like it, but things that could come in the future that are much more divisive:

 

I still think they went about this the wrong way, but I also kinda understand this. Free speech is free speech, but the league and the teams are sure as fuck not going to want to have to deal with a player wearing a Hamas flag on their helmet, for example.

If the league is worried about a flag, symbol, etc....in the future.....how about this genius idea, have an approval process within the NHL, set up a specific department for this type of shit.  ex. Fluery has this mask being made, run it by the league for approval?  If they have an issue for a symbol, then ask to have it removed or changed.  

[Pete]

20 minutes ago, Blue Heaven said:

If the league is worried about a flag, symbol, etc....in the future.....how about this genius idea, have an approval process within the NHL, set up a specific department for this type of shit.  ex. Fluery has this mask being made, run it by the league for approval?  If they have an issue for a symbol, then ask to have it removed or changed.  

They can't do that. They don't want to litigate every request and have to deal with complaints and appeals. It's a time suck. I get it. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

I'm not sure how that helps either. Who decides what goes and what doesn't? You'll allow somethings, but not others? You would also have people making decision based on their own believes/agendas if there's no special guideline to follow what goes and what doesn't.

 

I actually think they made the right decision based on what world we live in today. People are gonna bitch and moan no matter what they do, so just say no to everything. If they say yes to everything it's guaranteed that someone eventually will cross the line (as @Phil pointed out). If they go back to how it was before (Voluntary theme nights) where some can opt out, you will have the woke mob bitch and moan about anyone who refuses to participate in something.

 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I actually like the decision to just say "Well OK, fuck you all then" and just refuse to do anything and just play hockey.

[Phil]

1 minute ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

I'm not sure how that helps either. Who decides what goes and what doesn't? You'll allow somethings, but not others? You would also have people making decision based on their own believes/agendas if there's no special guideline to follow what goes and what doesn't.

 

I actually think they made the right decision based on what world we live in today. People are gonna bitch and moan no matter what they do, so just say no to everything. If they say yes to everything it's guaranteed that someone eventually will cross the line (as @Phil pointed out). If they go back to how it was before (Voluntary theme nights) where some can opt out, you will have the woke mob bitch and moan about anyone who refuses to participate in something.

 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I actually like the decision to just say "Well OK, fuck you all then" and just refuse to do anything and just play hockey.

 

A potential solution here is better empower the Player Inclusion Committee — a group that already exists and is home to large cross-section of people from different backgrounds who want to see the sport grow. I have no idea what that process would look like, but it might make sense to democratize that group, give them ruling authority, and essentially decentralize this entire thing out of the hands of Bettman and the NHL's front office, who can't seem to stop stepping on rakes re: special initiatives/causes that players wish to represent. Maybe gave requests to wear whatever go through them and have the committee vote on whether or not a cause is OK?

 

There's no perfect solution here. You have it exactly right that one group or another will get vocal on social media and cry foul whenever they feel short-changed, or feel like the league is backing something that offends them. But in my experience, more democracy is always the answer. I'd try this.