The London Rippers

It seems that London's has a new baseball team.   The team's origin is a deal made on October 1st by some American owners with local council to use the local ballpark for Fronteir League play.  They decided to take a name that would jump out and grab you (or in this case, stab you) something that couldn't be ignored. Marketing theory at its best.

Welcome to the London "Rippers"!   Yes, they chose to have serial murderer Jack "The Ripper" as their central theme, though they claim they don't.  Their logo has a stylized Jack "The Ripper" looking very menacing in Victorian garb.   He wields a bat and dall, only the bat looks more like a billy club than a baseball bat.   Their mascot is "Diamond Jack", which along with the "Rippers" nickname proves without any doubt that the serial murderer of women is, in fact, their inspiration.  If it wasn't, why not choose "Diamond Jim" or "Diamond Fauntleroy" for that matter?

This may be the worst marketing decision ever made!  Worse than New Coke!

To call this gambit insensitive is an exercise in understatement.  This choice is intentionally disrespectful.  It's disrespectful of every person who can trace their relationship to one of Jack's victims.  It's disrespectful to anyone who has lost someone to a murderer.  It is disrespectful of every woman that has been attacked in any fashion and every person that cares for these women.  That should leave just about nobody to appreciate their marketing 'genius'.  Sure, the owner has a corny, thin veil of an explanation that the similarity is 'coincidental'.   If it is coincidental, why does even he consider the theme 'edgy'.  Edgy doesn't begin to address how wrong this is.

The pathetically contrived 'back story' is that "Diamond Jack" is a"Phantom of the Opera" inspired character.  A rogue that is not wanted anywhere because he always 'rips' the covers off of baseballs when he hits them.  So, he creates his own team to have a place to hang out.  GIVE ME A BREAK!  Do they really think that anyone is going to swallow that tripe?

Part of the problem is that the owner came up with this plan on his own.  At no point did he consult with city officials -- or the public for that matter.  Ideas that get acted upon before they've been vetted almost always turn out badly and this is perhaps the perfect, classic example.

Already, within 48 hours of the 'brand's' unveiling the public has given its verdict: FAIL!  Megan Walker, executive director of the London Abused Women’s Centre is on the case.  She stresses what should have been obvious to even the most obtuse person, that this theme is disrespectful of women in general and even more disrespectful for people with specific experiences. She goes on to predict that the team will fail miserably, noting that the last local team, the London Werewolves -- an allusion to both a popular song by Warren Zevon in 1978 and a popular (fictional) 1981 horror movie -- also failed and that was with the approval of the community.  Without it the team is doomed!  The owner thinks the public has overreacted.  Nonsense!  This is EXACTLY the reaction he was looking for.  There is no way that the team could have gotten even half as much attention with ANY other name. It was chosen entirely for shock value and shock it certainly has.

Politicians have picked up on the pulse of the city and have also expressed their concern.  London has been very proactive about ending violence against women.  Actually, they're pretty much leaders where this is concerned.  David Martin, the obviously mentally or morally challenged owner, has said a great deal about the controversy. Here are some quotes...

His response to the political flak and fallout:

“The mayor was in attendance [at the unveiling of the team nickname, logo and mascot Tuesday night]. Everything was fine last night.”

“That’s probably the way a politician would answer [the controversy].”

His stance on why there's controversy:

[It's] “negative spin” [from a] “loud minority.”

On the idea itself:

“It’s a great logo. It’s a great look. We took a lot of time putting it together and thinking the storyline out.”

No doubt! I'm sure it took a lot of creativity to come up with a rationalization for getting away with a Jack "The Ripper" theme. Again, this was done to shock and outrage. It follows the woeful incorrect and mostly immoral or amoral philosophy that 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.

So far, I've intentionally been leaving out one key detail. This isn't happening in London, England. It's happening in London, Ontario, Canada! If this had happened in England, someone who really wanted to make a case for the legitimacy of this 'brand' could say that Jack "The Ripper" is not just a 19th Century serial killer. He's a piece of London's history and culture. They effectively 'own' the legacy and phenomenon that is "Jack." London, Ontario has absolutely no connection to Jack "The Ripper" other than the fact that the cities share the same name. So, not only is Martin using a terribly insensitive and insulting 'brand' but he's using it without even a remote connection to the history, folklore or mystery that surrounds "Jack." He has absolutely no leg to stand on for justifying this pathetic 'brand'!

What is it about White, Christian (Western) society that makes them think that they can do whatever they want whenever they want and if it offends someone, that's their problem!? I've got news for those people that think the world has gone too far in political correctness and is oversensitive about everything. It isn't that they are oversensitive, it's that you are completely insensitive. Frankly, I think it borders on being sociopathic, being completely unable to place one's self in other people's shoes and see how things appear/feel for them.

"The Rippers" certainly aren't the first team nickname in ridiculously poor taste. There are tons of teams that have stolen Native American culture for their own fun and profit. Why this is considered acceptable but a hypothetical sports team from Mississippi that called itself the N-----s is considered obviously wrong! Here's the short list of nicknames that 'white man' has no business using to represent themselves, but does anyway:

Atlanta Braves
Chicago Black Hawks
Cleveland Indians
Edmonton Eskimos
Kansas City Chiefs
Washington Redskins
...and MANY more college/university/high-school nicknames

It wasn't enough that Europeans came to North America and leveraged the fact that they had more technology than the indigenous peoples to slaughter them and steal their land. By doing so, they showed that they were technologically 'superior' to the dozens of cultures and civilizations that they destroyed and inferior to them in EVERY other way!. Today, many wonder if worshiping rampant technology was somehow better than living in harmony with the land. The ongoing collapse of the environment says otherwise.

What gave them the right to kill indiscriminately? Does the Bible authorize it? Does it even condone it? Where does it say it's OK to kill and then steal so long as the 'enemy'/'others' have something you covet? To me, that's 3 out of Ten Commandments broken and all the while they felt they had the moral imperative to sin! To this day the vast majority of people think that the actions of this era were just and that modern society has no obligation to apologize or provide reparations. Now, centuries later, the descendants of those butchered, marginalized and criminalized peoples are all too often living on the fringes of society, frequently with the worst kind of poverty and addiction. If they're lucky, they have been 'granted' land by the government on which they can live as they please. Only they can't, because the quality and quantity of the land is pathetic and in some cases quite distant from their traditional territory. They are also forced from time to time to accept 'white man's law' which directly prevents them from living as they please. BTW, how do you 'grant' someone something that already belongs to them? No, it wasn't enough -- now, they misappropriate their cultural symbols as though these symbols have something to do with European heritage or history. It's a mockery. It's an insult. It's completely wrong.

But it won't change. We still live with that same sense of moral superiority and refuse to consider that our actions infringe on other's freedoms or identities. We still believe 'might makes right'. We live it every day, both politically and in terms of economics -- what are modern capitalism and class warfare if not 'might makes right'? Ultimately, sports are more important to the typical North American than the sum value of the lives of every single Native American that ever lived. They don't matter. "Didn't we beat them into submission enough? What the hell are they whining about? Maybe we should have gotten rid of all of them while we had the chance?" Disgusting!

The only possible exception to this rule is the Florida Seminoles. Florida State University had the surprising good sense to consider changing their nickname out of deference to and respect for the modern Seminole people. But the Seminole tribe spoke up and lobbied for the retention of their name. To them, it was a source of pride. In the end, they are the only people whose opinions matter! If they accept the nickname as a form of respect and acknowledgement then that's that. To the best of my knowledge no other tribe has EVER stepped up to support a team nickname that refers to Native peoples, so none of the other franchises get a pass. For teams to justify a 'brand' that refer generically to Native Americans they would have to get permission from ALL tribes.

Only slightly less offensive are the following:

Calgary Hitmen
Oakland Raiders
Minnesota Vikings
Pittsburgh Pirates
Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The Raiders, Buccaneers and Pirates all refer to the same thing, the same culture. When exactly was piracy an aspect of American culture? There were pirates and privateers from every seagoing culture in the world.  If they are associated with any one location it's likely the islands of the Caribbean and those of the South Pacific. Besides, why is it OK to celebrate criminals? While we're doing that why not the Rapists, Embezzlers or Killers?

The Calgary Hitmen derive their name from one of the original owners, world famous and local ex-WWE wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart.  Further, it is supposed to be an allusion to hockey's ubiquitous bodychecking, which is often called 'hitting'.  Unfortunately, the logo features a 'player' that is reminiscent of "Jason", the goalie-mask-wearing serial killer from the "Friday the 13th" movie franchise.  If he carried a goaltender's stick then he would just look like a goaltender, but he carries a normal stick and holds it in a fashion somehwere between the wielding of a long gun (e.g. Tommie gun) or an axe.  Which forces one to think of the original meaning of "hitman", namely that of a murderer-for-hire generally employed by "the Mob."  Actually, I don't think most people need a cartoon-like character on the logo to make that connection.  Again, and maybe completely inadvertently, this is an example of glorifying criminals.  Try to explain to your 4-year old son taking in his first hockey game what a "hitman" is.

The Minnesota Vikings are only marginally offensive.  Actually, it's possible that they offend no one.  In 2005 17% of the Minnesota population could trace their roots to Norway. Another 10% came from other Scandinavian countries.  These numbers were likely much higher generations ago, but are now falling steadily as immigrants settle in Minnesota and the Hispanic population outstrips the growth of the other demographics. If this 25%-or-less-and-falling of the population wanted to lend their heritage and culture to their professional football team, then more power to them.  As far as I know, the team was named to reflect Minnesota's traditionally strong Norwegian background.   2 of the 5 businessmen that founded the franchise in 1960 were of Norwegian descent.  One of those owners went to a high school whose nickname was also the Vikings, but that was in Wisconsin where Norwegians make up less than 10% of the population.  He also owned a professional football team prior to the Vikings and it was the Duluth Eskimos, so he already had a history of misappropriating the culture and heritage of others.  Besides which, Duluth is 1000 miles removed from actual Eskimo (now considered a pejorative term, replaced by self-referential names including Inuit) habitat.  I am not aware of the public having been consulted about their feelings regarding being represented by the team nickname "Vikings"  This is perhaps most important because of the standard inclusion of a cartoonish, stereotypical reflection of the culture it adopts.  At least here, there IS a cultural connection of the local people to that of the nickname, and if they chose it or openly accepted it, no harm, no foul.

"The Rippers" puts all of them to shame for sheer political incorrectness.  Let's hope that Martin steps outside of himself for just a moment and allows the idiocy of his idea to penetrate to his consciousness. Unless the city boycotts the team I doubt he'll have any such revelation.  Decisions like this have nothing to do with ethics or morals, they are entirely about money.  So long as the money rolls in the name will remain the same.  If tumbleweeds start to blow through the bleachers, the "Rippers" will have a new name in a heartbeat.