From the article:

"But team president and general manager David Martin was unapologetic, saying the name, Rippers, is a common baseball term that speaks to the bat prowess of the cartoon character they've created as part of a marketing strategy"

Does that pass the sniff test?

Clever marketing or not, I wouldn't bet on a long stay in London. This town failed to support the Tigers' AA team in the early 90's, and the Tigers are terrifically popular here. And every two-bit team from every two-bit league that has come since has not been able to make a go of it. And that's even with the wonderful Labatt Park in the equation.

Not only all that, but isn't it a bit of an insult to the city of London to choose a mascot based on its connection to another city that has the same name? 

Many things in London reflect the original city of the same name: the Thames River, White Oaks, Jalna, Wellington, etc. So I don't think it's necessarily offensive to use connections to the original city when naming teams. It's been done before and no one took offense then. In fact, the whole Warren Zevon connection was considered kind of cool.

Too soon

Apparently.  Too bad there isn't a Gilbert and Sullivan version of Jack The Ripper like there is of Pirates.  Because nobody's offended by Pirates.  Let's celebrate their legacy of rape and pillage instead.

The age of the crime is why I thought there was no problem. I grew up with Jack the Ripper as a CHARACTER, almost like Frankenstein or Dracula.

The reason I changed my view is that I spoke to someone who said that the symbolism of someone who specifically murdered women transcends the act itself. I understand this. Much in the same way the Polytechnique massacre symbolizes violence against women.

THEN, they claim it has no connection with Jack the Ripper, proving themselves both liars and by makign that claim acknowledge that it isn't appropriate to use Jack the Ripper incongraphy in this context.

All-around lose.

I think your "temporary sanctuary" comment is a good insight, and is the way many of us feel about sports. 

I'm just saying that the only reason "Jack the Ripper" occupies a mental bookmark in any of our conciousnesses today, is because "he" has been sensationalized and commercialized beyond recognition.  In contrast, no one will be talking about Robert Picton a hundred years from now.  I think it's a bit too late to take the position that we shouldn't sensationalize or glorify Jack the Ripper.  Horse has long left barn.  

You've got to draw the line somewhere.

I agree with this statement.  Taking offense to a cartoon of Jack the Ripper seems to cross it to me.  I don't consider this to be a glorification of violence against women.

It's just a gut feel though.  I can be convinced otherwise.

I don't think any one on this board disagrees with you that the team is being named after him.  Anyway, if your position is "we shouldn't glorify a serial killer of women", it should apply in all contexts -- not just baseball.  A "code" that you can glorify a killer for the purposes of shock, but not in the context of baseball, is a strange one. 

I think those of us who disagree/don't care do so because for us, Jack the Ripper is not much more than a cartoon character.  The one I am most familiar with is the version that fought Batman.

A "code" that you can glorify a killer for the purposes of shock, but not in the context of baseball, is a strange one.

Rock music is, ostensibly, counter-culture. Of course it's really been long ago consumed by corporate America and only now plays at being counter-culture, but nevertheless, Marilyn Manson is an "artist" commenting on the world in a "provocative" way. Doing so is, ostensibly, the role of an artist in society.

When professional sports plays at being counter-culture, it is always for thinly veiled marketing purposes. Whether it's the outre world of (heavily corporately sponsored) X-Games or a junior hockey team calling itself the Hitmen or a pissass baseball team calling itself the Rippers, the ambition is not to be provocative in any artistic sense, but to be controversial to get attention and generate revenue. Yes, Marilyn Manson's behaviour is likely fueled by those very same motives, but he, at least, can purport to be an artist fulfilling an artist's role. That posture, however dubious, would stand up in court.

The owner of the Rippers is not even pretending to be intentionally provoking a discussion that questions the merits of a long-ago dead murderer being appropriated for modern day use as a mascot. He is not pretending to wear an artist's hat to suggest, perhaps, that a statute of limitations of sorts has expired and that the historical figure, having been superceded by numerous fictionalized versions, is no longer a figure of any real stature. Rather, he has concocted an "alibi" that is so clearly disengenuous that it implies that he's not comortable defending his decision with integrity.

Like many issues discussed on these boards, I'd be surprised if this one doesn't also find itself with age as the biggest determinant of a person's opinion.

ayj,  people aren’t offended by the cartoon in itself, but by what is represented by the figure it depicts.

I don't think the intent was to name the team after a serial killer, but to name the team "Rippers".  Rippers is not synonomous with "Jack".   They then chose a cartoon logo that they thought might have some appeal and generate revenue.  I can see how this is problematic as it makes the connection. 

I think I just am a bit offended by society's sensitivities.  It's probably the only thing that offends me.

Chuck, at what age can I expect to take offense to things like this?  Maybe it's a level ofwisdom that I'll never achieve? 

I'm 41.

It's probably the only thing that offends me.

I'm also adverse to groupthink, which is why I probably made the comment in the first place.  It's been a good discussion, though.

This is a difficult distinction to delineate Chuck: I'm not sure the line between artist and non-artist, and culture vs. counterculture is a sharply drawn one.  

I also think that once you stand up in defence of artistic license (Marilyn Manson's), it's a bit of strain to deny it to someone setting up a baseball team. 

As for whether any of this will stand up in Court, I would hope it all would.  So far we have (mercifully) not been talking about whether calling a team the "Rippers" is legally permitted, but rather whether it is offensive.

Anyway, I don't want to piss off any more of the knowledgeable baseball posters on this site.  Presumably they come hear to discuss baseball, and not my philosophical views.  So I won't rag the puck anymore on this.   

Chuck, at what age can I expect to take offense to things like this?  Maybe it's a level ofwisdom that I'll never achieve? 

I'm not suggesting that the two camps are 100% defined by age, nor am I suggesting that it takes wisdom to be offended by this. I'm arguing that, generally speaking, what offends one age group may not offend another. This seems to me to be on of those issues where there is an age-based cultural divide (again, generally speaking). I often have conversations with my son, who is 17, about what we consider offensive. You'd think we were from different planets.

As for whether any of this will stand up in Court, I would hope it all would. 

My reference to court was purely metaphoric. I wasn't intending to suggest that this should be a legal issue.

It's even more offensive that the team claims there's no connection at all.

To me, that's the most offensive thing about this whole affair. Just how stupid does the team owner think everyone is?

 I called them the Adolphus (a real city) HiTTers, not HiTLers. May be hard to tell with quick reading of lowercase letters.

I only read the beginnings and ends of words.

Adolphus Hitters....that`s gold, Gerry, gold!

I read some where that there is a theory that Jack The Ripper may in fact  have been a doctor from southern Ontario and near London Ont. For the life of me I can't remember where I got that info.

Listening to 640 in Toronto Friday afternoon, a lot of callers surprisingly thought the whole controversy was much ado about nothing.  One caller said, why not call them the Lorena Bobbitts. 

I went to a Majors game in Labatt Park this year and I'd like to go again to see Indy ball because I missed out on the Werewolves due to my personal snobbery of unaffiliated ball at the time.  My year in Edmonton during the Scott Richmond days changed my mind about indy ball. I hope they do change the name or at least the logo because I'd like to check out a game at that park.  I miss the London Tigers.