New Jets Logo

[YeahBud]

I realize sports are an exercise in manufacturing consent by releasing pent up aggression on one's enemies but isn't the new logo a little too obvious in its appeal to jingoism?

thoughts?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I don't like it, for the following reasons:

1. It's too close to the Conservative Party of Canada logo for my liking.

2. But of course, the real parallel is with the logo of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, which it deliberately apes.

3. 1 and 2 above are related, because the Conservatives are consciously trying to shift Canadian political culture in a more militaristic direction (hence their campaign ads describing us as "brave warriors").

4. While all Canadians should be respectful of the armed forces, whose members make great sacrifices and undertake great risks in our name, for a hockey team to so glaringly align itself with militarism is in effect, if not in intention, a political statement. There are those of us who see war as a fearful necessity of last resort - the most morally serious undertaking in which a people can engage. Now the Jets are demanding that their entire community rally around a glib expression of militarism, turning a matter of life and death into nothing more important than a hockey team. This is the sort of de facto propaganda that helps to condition a society to celebrate war rather than resist or lament it. And that in turn leads to tragic lunacies, such as the mindless and catastrophic American rush to go into Iraq.

Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era had a much more mature attitude to war, which contributed to our self-definition as peacekeepers and supporters of international law. Unfortunately we have taken a step back in this regard, back toward an adolescent rah-rah militarism. A shame the Jets chose to roll with that.

[bbp]

I don't like it, for the following reasons:

1. It's too close to the Conservative Party of Canada logo for my liking.

2. But of course, the real parallel is with the logo of the Royal Canadian Armed Forces, which it deliberately apes.

3. 1 and 2 above are related, because the Conservatives are consciously trying to shift Canadian political culture in a more militaristic direction (hence their campaign ads describing us as "brave warriors").

4. While all Canadians should be respectful of the armed forces, whose members make great sacrifices and undertake great risks in our name, for a hockey team to so glaringly align itself with militarism is in effect, if not in intention, a political statement. There are those of us who see war as a fearful necessity of last resort - the most morally serious undertaking in which a people can engage. Now the Jets are demanding that their entire community rally around a glib expression of militarism, turning a matter of life and death into nothing more important than a hockey team. This is the sort of de facto propaganda that helps to condition a society to celebrate war rather than resist or lament it. And that in turn leads to tragic lunacies, such as the mindless and catastrophic American rush to go into Iraq.

Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era had a much more mature attitude to war, which contributed to our self-definition as peacekeepers and supporters of international law. Unfortunately we have taken a step back in this regard, back toward an adolescent rah-rah militarism. A shame the Jets chose to roll with that.

I agree with every word of that.

Plus they look awkward with the jerseys.

[kenadian]

They could wear garbage bags for all i care, just happy we got them back..........no thanks to Bettman

[saskhab]

4. While all Canadians should be respectful of the armed forces, whose members make great sacrifices and undertake great risks in our name, for a hockey team to so glaringly align itself with militarism is in effect, if not in intention, a political statement. There are those of us who see war as a fearful necessity of last resort - the most morally serious undertaking in which a people can engage. Now the Jets are demanding that their entire community rally around a glib expression of militarism, turning a matter of life and death into nothing more important than a hockey team. This is the sort of de facto propaganda that helps to condition a society to celebrate war rather than resist or lament it. And that in turn leads to tragic lunacies, such as the mindless and catastrophic American rush to go into Iraq.

Sorry, don't see that at all. I get that it aligns itself with the air force, but co-opting that logo does not represent a political agenda, or make a statement on the usage of such force. You can be supportive of the people involved in the pursuit and even wear their colours and still believe that war is reprehensible and should only be used in the manner you subscribe. Heck, you can wear the colours in support of the men and women that make up the force and be 100% pacifist.

I hate it when people use the honouring of the military, the deceased, etc., as a means to their political agenda. But because you honour the military does not mean you honour a political agenda.

I'd prefer the Jets did not homage the military because in hockey that tends to lead to Don Cherry style grandstanding. It definitely seems to align itself with conservative Canada, something quite prevalant in the hockey community, but it does not necessarily do so simply by using a logo like this, holding military nights, etc.

Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era had a much more mature attitude to war, which contributed to our self-definition as peacekeepers and supporters of international law. Unfortunately we have taken a step back in this regard, back toward an adolescent rah-rah militarism. A shame the Jets chose to roll with that.

No offence, but you want to know why generations of people find the Liberal party arrogant and condascending? Part of it is in the first sentence in that paragraph. A 'much more mature attitude to war' is completely a matter of perspective, not a fact. Quite frankly, Trudeau's handling of the October Crisis didn't seem to align with this line of thinking at all.

Anyways, I don't like the military motif, either because it simply opens up the logo to misuse and what not. Also, I'm not entirely sure why they have to be so blunt about the fact that the team is located in Canada, as if anyone was going to forget. There were also way better designs out there put forth by amateurs, so when this came out it was very disappointing even from an aesthetic point of view.

The uniforms themselves look pretty good, though. The striping on the sleves on the whites is kind of awkward because they decided to put a blue stripe all the way down the arms, but other than that it's a nice, clean design.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Sorry, don't see that at all. I get that it aligns itself with the air force, but co-opting that logo does not represent a political agenda, or make a statement on the usage of such force. You can be supportive of the people involved in the pursuit and even wear their colours and still believe that war is reprehensible and should only be used in the manner you subscribe. Heck, you can wear the colours in support of the men and women that make up the force and be 100% pacifist.

I hate it when people use the honouring of the military, the deceased, etc., as a means to their political agenda. But because you honour the military does not mean you honour a political agenda.

I'd prefer the Jets did not homage the military because in hockey that tends to lead to Don Cherry style grandstanding. It definitely seems to align itself with conservative Canada, something quite prevalant in the hockey community, but it does not necessarily do so simply by using a logo like this, holding military nights, etc.

No offence, but you want to know why generations of people find the Liberal party arrogant and condascending? Part of it is in the first sentence in that paragraph. A 'much more mature attitude to war' is completely a matter of perspective, not a fact. Quite frankly, Trudeau's handling of the October Crisis didn't seem to align with this line of thinking at all.

Anyways, I don't like the military motif, either because it simply opens up the logo to misuse and what not. Also, I'm not entirely sure why they have to be so blunt about the fact that the team is located in Canada, as if anyone was going to forget. There were also way better designs out there put forth by amateurs, so when this came out it was very disappointing even from an aesthetic point of view.

The uniforms themselves look pretty good, though. The striping on the sleves on the whites is kind of awkward because they decided to put a blue stripe all the way down the arms, but other than that it's a nice, clean design.

On the first point, I'm not sure we disagree. You say that using the logo doesn't intrinsically align itself to militarism - which may be true - but basically concede that in the present context, it does, as per the boldfaced part. And we both dislike the kind of statement implied, in the present context. There's nothing to be gained in putting our hands over our ears and singing la-la-la while the practical reality is that the Jets are symbolically aligning themselves with a realignment of Canadian values. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

On the second point, I didn't say that Pearson and Trudeau had a more mature attitude; I said that Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era - actually, I should have said the Pearson/Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien eras - had a more mature attitude to war. Proving this would require a sophisticated use of running public opinion surveys, and it may be that the wider public hasn't changed, so much as the governing and media elites. I'll grant that it can be hard to distinguish between the public and elite opinon. What we can say is that the current government would have poured Canadian blood and treasure into Iraq while the Chretien government did not.

Now, what's a "mature" attitude to war? Clearly, this is a matter of opinion, but that shouldn't rule out any discussion of the matter. There's a school of thought that sees any form of "squeamishness" about war as a form of pie-in-the-sky immaturity; and it's worth noting that the proponents of this supposedly "realistic" view were hot to trot to drag Canada into the Iraqi bloodbath, as though that were self-evidently a requirement of sensible foreign policy. These "realists" also poured scorn on "Taliban Jack" Layton for proposing that we negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, when two years later the generals were conceding that we would have to do precisely that. Who has been the "realist" here? The "bleeding heart peaceniks" who wanted crazy things like actual evidence of WMDs in Iraq, or a rational discussion of our objectives in Afghanistan; or the "realists" who want to rush in with unclear goals, waste billions of dollars, incinerate and kill untold thousands of innocents as "collateral damage," not to mention our own soliders, and then withdraw with relatively little accomplished? You can guess which position I'd consider "mature." The "realists" seem to hold a view of the world as a gigantic first-person shooter video game.

[saskhab]

On the first point, I'm not sure we disagree. You say that using the logo doesn't intrinsically align itself to militarism - which may be true - but basically concede that in the present context, it does, as per the boldfaced part. And we both dislike the kind of statement implied, in the present context. There's nothing to be gained in putting our hands over our ears and singing la-la-la while the practical reality is that the Jets are symbolically aligning themselves with a realignment of Canadian values. These things don't happen in a vacuum.

On the second point, I didn't say that Pearson and Trudeau had a more mature attitude; I said that Canadians in the Pearson/Trudeau era - actually, I should have said the Pearson/Trudeau/Mulroney/Chretien eras - had a more mature attitude to war. Proving this would require a sophisticated use of running public opinion surveys, and it may be that the wider public hasn't changed, so much as the governing and media elites. I'll grant that it can be hard to distinguish between the public and elite opinon. What we can say is that the current government would have poured Canadian blood and treasure into Iraq while the Chretien government did not.

Now, what's a "mature" attitude to war? Clearly, this is a matter of opinion, but that shouldn't rule out any discussion of the matter. There's a school of thought that sees any form of "squeamishness" about war as a form of pie-in-the-sky immaturity; and it's worth noting that the proponents of this supposedly "realistic" view were hot to trot to drag Canada into the Iraqi bloodbath, as though that were self-evidently a requirement of sensible foreign policy. These "realists" also poured scorn on "Taliban Jack" Layton for proposing that we negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, when two years later the generals were conceding that we would have to do precisely that. Who has been the "realist" here? The "bleeding heart peaceniks" who wanted crazy things like actual evidence of WMDs in Iraq, or a rational discussion of our objectives in Afghanistan; or the "realists" who want to rush in with unclear goals, waste billions of dollars, incinerate and kill untold thousands of innocents as "collateral damage," not to mention our own soliders, and then withdraw with relatively little accomplished? You can guess which position I'd consider "mature." The "realists" seem to hold a view of the world as a gigantic first-person shooter video game.

One of the traditions of our parliamentary system is that it makes the Official Opposition party essentially not so much left or right wing, but anti-whatever the government is doing. In that light, we can't say for sure that the Alliance Party of 2003 would have went into Iraq if they were the governing party... they wouldn't have had the same obligations to the Canadian people in their role as the government as they did back then (which was to represent an opposing view). Certainly, after the fact, Harper has admitted that his party's stance was wrong back then, but we can't know for certain that they would have followed, although their reasoning for following back then (both US and UK were going, essentially) would lend itself to the conclusion that they would have went. The Canadian public back then was against going, though, and politicians do realize that entering a war without public support isn't exactly a good move.

In your last paragraph, you talk about a rational discussion of objectives, but I guess if you are accepting war you are accepting the loss of life, including bystanders. Cold rational analysis would calculate that into the 'worthiness' of going to war. The goal of Afghanistan was actually pretty clear: to remove a regime that harboured international terrorists, who attacked the United States in their territory. To get to the terrorists, the Taliban had to be toppled. Once the Taliban were toppled, a new regime would have to be installed and they would have to be able to run a secure nation. Right from the start, there was warnings about the 1980s conflicts and that we could be in Afghanistan for over a decade in order to stabilize it. NATO invoked a clause that the member nations considered it an attack on a fellow member, and all countries within NATO were called into action. It wasn't a NATO force, but it had the full support of the allies, of which Canada was one.

As per Iraq, you're correct in your skepticism, as were many other nations at the time. Canada didn't act alone in their refusal to enter that war, a majority of the European Union and I believe New Zealand and Japan didn't join, etc. The Iraq invasion also compromised the Afghanistan mission and exposed Canadian troops to the full force of the conflict. The goals of Afghanistan remained the same in this time, but unfortunately the Iraq invasion helped the Taliban make it into a guerilla war. The goals weren't obtuse or unknown anymore: the strategy was terrible and the results were the issue.

To me, the shift of Canada to the right is simply a matter of the country's age. The sellout generation is at retirement age now, and the rest of us are left to pick up the slack for them.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

One of the traditions of our parliamentary system is that it makes the Official Opposition party essentially not so much left or right wing, but anti-whatever the government is doing. In that light, we can't say for sure that the Alliance Party of 2003 would have went into Iraq if they were the governing party... they wouldn't have had the same obligations to the Canadian people in their role as the government as they did back then (which was to represent an opposing view). Certainly, after the fact, Harper has admitted that his party's stance was wrong back then, but we can't know for certain that they would have followed, although their reasoning for following back then (both US and UK were going, essentially) would lend itself to the conclusion that they would have went. The Canadian public back then was against going, though, and politicians do realize that entering a war without public support isn't exactly a good move.

In your last paragraph, you talk about a rational discussion of objectives, but I guess if you are accepting war you are accepting the loss of life, including bystanders. Cold rational analysis would calculate that into the 'worthiness' of going to war. The goal of Afghanistan was actually pretty clear: to remove a regime that harboured international terrorists, who attacked the United States in their territory. To get to the terrorists, the Taliban had to be toppled. Once the Taliban were toppled, a new regime would have to be installed and they would have to be able to run a secure nation. Right from the start, there was warnings about the 1980s conflicts and that we could be in Afghanistan for over a decade in order to stabilize it. NATO invoked a clause that the member nations considered it an attack on a fellow member, and all countries within NATO were called into action. It wasn't a NATO force, but it had the full support of the allies, of which Canada was one.

As per Iraq, you're correct in your skepticism, as were many other nations at the time. Canada didn't act alone in their refusal to enter that war, a majority of the European Union and I believe New Zealand and Japan didn't join, etc. The Iraq invasion also compromised the Afghanistan mission and exposed Canadian troops to the full force of the conflict. The goals of Afghanistan remained the same in this time, but unfortunately the Iraq invasion helped the Taliban make it into a guerilla war. The goals weren't obtuse or unknown anymore: the strategy was terrible and the results were the issue.

To me, the shift of Canada to the right is simply a matter of the country's age. The sellout generation is at retirement age now, and the rest of us are left to pick up the slack for them.

Not sure about the last part - it's elderly voters who are sending right-wingers to power, not the disaffected young, who for the most part don't vote. The rest is solid analysis. My only quibble is that I never accepted that destroying Al-Qaeda required wiping out the Taliban; that seemed to me (and a number of experts) to be a classic case of redefining an unconventional "war" to suit conventional methods. The point, though, is that we never even had that discussion, because everybody was uncritically rushing to the side of the U.S. in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 atrocity. As for whether the hundreds of thousands of killed and maimed innocents are factored in by the hawks, I think that it's clearly not so. I doubt that most Americans, or their leaders, gave five minutes' thought to the Iraqi children and families whose lives their government was gearing up to destroy (a cataclysmic moral failure typical of any war-minded country, not just America under Bush). The "realists" couldn't care less about such "bleeding heart" considerations. But those are precisely the sort of considerations that would constitute an honest and therefore mature approach to war. And that's why I'm uneasy with the Jets' decision to align themselves to this sadly hawkish turn in our political life.

[YeahBud]

I'm uneasy with the Jets' decision to align themselves to this sadly hawkish turn in our political life.

Agree. Great discussion.

Its becoming harder to ignore the relationship between corporate hockey and the war machine.

e.g. 'Military Days', Don Cherry's weekly parade of fallen soldiers, and so on.

I think Mark Chipman/True North and the Reebok designers took the easy way out.

I'm sure the old reform folks and 'Big C' conservatives all love it though.

[Habsy]

Canadian jingoism???? Now that would be a first. I'm no Don Cherry fan, but the word "parade" never comes to mind when he gives our fallen soldiers a 15 second spotlight between periods. I travel for work, and drove back east to Montreal from Toronto on a weekday not long ago. Every overpass from Toronto to Trenton was preparing to honor the convoy of vehicles bringing home our dead. It was powefull stuff, very moving. I'm fine with the new Winnipeg jerseys. And was impressed when I heard they sold out both games, football and hockey, on the same night, at the same time. Hopefully the Jets are there to stay.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Canadian jingoism???? Now that would be a first. I'm no Don Cherry fan, but the word "parade" never comes to mind when he gives our fallen soldiers a 15 second spotlight between periods. I travel for work, and drove back east to Montreal from Toronto on a weekday not long ago. Every overpass from Toronto to Trenton was preparing to honor the convoy of vehicles bringing home our dead. It was powefull stuff, very moving. I'm fine with the new Winnipeg jerseys. And was impressed when I heard they sold out both games, football and hockey, on the same night, at the same time. Hopefully the Jets are there to stay.

Actually Canadian jingoism has been fairly rampant for many years now. We need to get over this myth that Canadians are so unpatriotic and humble - it's total hokum. We're as loud and smugly self-congratulating as any people on the planet. This in itself is harmless when hooked up to (say) the Olympics, it can have nasty consequences when militarism accompanies it.

[BTH]

YeahBud, on 12 September 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

Its becoming harder to ignore the relationship between corporate hockey and the war machine.

I have noticed this too.

Embedded in each sport is a set of values. Hockey is all about manliness, toughness, and respect. Blocking shots, taking a hard hit, and playing through injury are three of the most respectable things a teammate can do, while players that dive, are small, are non-physical, are European or French Canadian, turn down fights, or fight smaller players are to be avoided. Even if a player does fight, his reputation can take a hit if he fights in the wrong way. e.g. Subban throws a punch at Lupul too early therefore he is a pansy. In middle of a fight, one player grabs the other's legs and flips him on his back, therefore he is a coward that doesn't fight like a man. A player with a visor fights one without a visor therefore he is dishonourable and lacks class. "Slew-footing" is one of the most despicable crimes one can commit.

Hockey players have historically rejected change, especially in regards to player safety. Jacques Plante's manliness was questioned when he insisted on a mask. Helmets were rejected by many players at first. Many players still don't wear visors. Now there are controversies over hits to the head and fighting, yet the majority of players are adamant about keeping violence in the game. For many of them, it is probably what attracted them to the sport.

The conservatism of hockey culture became especially obvious last season. Many of the biggest controversies of the year were of one of two kinds and, as a Habs fan, we got an in-depth look at both kinds: 1) Player X is too disrespectful (the controversy among conservative fans), 2) Player X is too dangerous (the controversy among liberal fans).

If there was one thing to learn from last season it is that over-celebrating an overtime goal, being eccentric in interviews, attempting fancy moves in the shootout, and taunting your opponents are more serious crimes than driving somebody's head into a post or punching them point blank in the face. The league's most hated players are those that are "disrespectful" by showing too much personality and paying too little attention to tradition, while the league's most beloved players, on the other hand, are generally those that can outmuscle and overpower others. Hence the popularity of Jody Shelley in Columbus and goons in general around the league.

Those that play recklessly and injure their opponents are worth defending because they are making "hockey plays" and, after all, "hockey is a rough sport." This reasoning leads to us saying that Chara is a hero for personifying conservative hockey values while targeting players like Subban, Lapierre, and Omark as blemishes on the game.

There was a backlash to each of these controversies but usually only from fans of the team whose player was being criticized. The "Player X is too dangerous" arguments were not just minority views, but were even shot down by league executives like Bettman and Campbell. Case in point, their dubbing of Chara's hit on Pacioretty as an unfortunate hockey play. They reinforced the commonly held belief that injuring each other is an unavoidable consequence of hockey and that we must therefore embrace violence and let the NHL work by a sort of "natural selection" process where only the biggest bullies succeed, the others being forced to retire early with concussion problems.

These values can definitely be applied to the "real" world. For a comedic example, look at how George Carlin famously compares the rural 19th Century values of baseball versus the modern, militaristic values of football.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmXacL0Uny0

That being said, I like the look of this logo. And it's not like calling your team the Canadiens, Canucks, Maple Leafs, or Senators is much better. Too nationalistic for my taste.

[bbp]

That being said, I like the look of this logo. And it's not like calling your team the Canadiens, Canucks, Maple Leafs, or Senators is much better. Too nationalistic for my taste.

Nothing is wrong with a little pride in your nation, nationalism can be taken too far especially when military is brought into it... but pride in ones nation and culture is great by my standards, I think it is needed. Canada is a great nation. No harm in being proud. I feel good knowing I am Canadian.

[BTH]

Nothing is wrong with a little pride in your nation, nationalism can be taken too far especially when military is brought into it... but pride in ones nation and culture is great by my standards, I think it is needed. Canada is a great nation. No harm in being proud. I feel good knowing I am Canadian.

I too am happy that I live in Canada as opposed to Saudi Arabia but what is there to be proud about? My living in Canada has nothing to do with me, I was simply lucky to be born here. Pride therefore would be delusional.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

In fact I have no problem with love of one's country. I do have a bit of a problem with the mindless shallowness of many people's patriotism, but that's more an aesthetic than a principled objection. We are beings of a particular time and place and I think it behooves us to love that which is our own - whether it be family, friends, town, region, or country.

Militarism is a whole other matter, and it disappoints me to see my country redefining itself - or being redefined - in terms of military 'achievements' that generally amount to the unnecessary slaughter of innocent people. But love of country and militarism don't have to go hand in hand.

[YeahBud]

love of country and militarism don't have to go hand in hand.

good point. lets not confuse the issue.

its a slippery slope.

Obama recently announced that they had assassinated a US citizen for being a terrorist. Anwar al-Awlaki.

No Judge, No Jury, No day in court.

People clapped at the press conference... I have no doubt they felt very patriotic.

just an idea. If you want to stop terrorism. Stop being a terrorist.

[BrenDittero]

I too am happy that I live in Canada as opposed to Saudi Arabia but what is there to be proud about? My living in Canada has nothing to do with me, I was simply lucky to be born here. Pride therefore would be delusional.

This comment makes no sense to me.

A train of thought that would dictate that no one should be proud of their community and by proxy - their city, province and country.

After all, it's all luck of the draw. No reason to be invested in a place you didn't choose.

That is bananas.

I don't pretend to be an uber - flag waving Canadian.

I'm not interested in war or being part of a conquering nation but I'm pretty happy with the country I live in.

When I travel I have no problem mentioning where I'm from for the simple fact that it's a nice place to live. A luxury not everyone enjoys.

It's funny that when it comes to topics of pride and country the conversation will splinter off into 1000 debates and rants.

Though not one of us has any problem unconditionally being proud of / worshiping / devoting literally 100's of hours a year to a hockey team.

Crying tears of joy or being emotionally exhausted at the end of a Cup run. Halfheartedly plotting the murder of a certain Bruins defencemen.

These things are normal and ok but being proud of your country is delusional?

Hahahaha.

Oh...and the Jets logo is fine. No need to read too much into it.

They are the "Jets" so it's reasonable that a jet would be in the logo. After that it's all clean lines from a graphic design stand point and a little maple leaf for color.

I don't think the corporate war machine has won the day.

[Habsy]

Seems some of you are confusing Canada with the USA. That's the slippery slope.

[bbp]

Seems some of you are confusing Canada with the USA. That's the slippery slope.

The fact Canada and the states can be confused is a huge problem...

*cough* blame the conservatives *cough*

[Fanpuck33]

Did I stumble into the lounge or something? Geez. Talking about making a mountain out of a mole hill, people.

[Habsy]

Ya, you're right. What were we thinking? Ok, get puck, shoot puck, score goal.

[BTH]

In fact I have no problem with love of one's country

This comment makes no sense to me.

A train of thought that would dictate that no one should be proud of their community and by proxy - their city, province and country.

After all, it's all luck of the draw. No reason to be invested in a place you didn't choose.

That is bananas.

I don't pretend to be an uber - flag waving Canadian.

I'm not interested in war or being part of a conquering nation but I'm pretty happy with the country I live in.

When I travel I have no problem mentioning where I'm from for the simple fact that it's a nice place to live. A luxury not everyone enjoys.

It's funny that when it comes to topics of pride and country the conversation will splinter off into 1000 debates and rants.

Though not one of us has any problem unconditionally being proud of / worshiping / devoting literally 100's of hours a year to a hockey team.

Crying tears of joy or being emotionally exhausted at the end of a Cup run. Halfheartedly plotting the murder of a certain Bruins defencemen.

These things are normal and ok but being proud of your country is delusional?

Hahahaha.

You two are confusing comfort/love/satisfaction with pride. Pride is what you should feel (if at all - but that's another conversation) when you accomplish something, or, at the very least, when you vicariously feel proud of your peer for their accomplishment. You should not feel proud of something that was completely out of your control, that thinking is delusional. That being said, of course we're all lucky and happy to be living in Canada or the USA instead of in Afghanistan.

By the way, I don't feel proud of myself when the Habs win a game, nor do I worship or "devote" myself to the team. On this note, I actually think sports would be taken a lot more seriously as a practice if fans stopped devoting themselves to a single team and feeling like disloyalty to that company is the greatest offense possible. Imagine if every season, on any given night even, most people cheered for the team whose style of play they liked more and felt no compulsion to be loyal a single brand for their entire lives. In other words, bandwagon jumping. It would force teams to compete because they would not have an unshakable fan base supporting them no matter how weak their product. I can understand wanting to watch a single team develop over a few consecutive seasons and wanting to be a part of your local community but the black-and-white, us-vs-them, slavish mentality behind most sports fandom is imo not very healthy or interesting.

Also, I don't think pride in a sports team is as nonsensical as pride in your heritage. That kind of pride is different because it is not necessarily delusional to feel pride vicariously through hockey players. "Wow, Gorges broke his ankle and kept playing. I'm so proud of him" makes a lot more sense than "The country I happened to be born in is better than most. I'm so proud of myself." The first statement is relatively harmless. The second leads to vulnerability to propaganda and then dangerous actions.

[BrenDittero]

I knew I should have added the dancing banana somewhere in my last comment to take the edge off.

Good talk BTH.

Here's one for the road

[goalerexpert86]

I like it

[JoeLassister]

Totally with BTH here.

If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong. - NOFX