Chiefs Woman behind the Redskins name change says the Chiefs should be on guard - Page 4

**BigRedChief** · 06-25-2014, 11:01 PM

The fight took a monumental shift at a protest nine years at Arrowhead Stadium and it’s about to come full circle. No matter what you think of the issue, it will soon be ubiquitous in and around Kansas City’s greatest obsession other than barbecue.

The Chiefs are aware of it, and are preparing accordingly.

Back in 2005, a group calling itself Not In Our Honor protested before the Chiefs played Washington. The protesters were predominately American Indians, united in their anger over what they perceived as offensive stereotypes passed off as nicknames for sports teams. An older woman, Suzan Harjo, one of the leaders of the protest, met a younger woman named Amanda Blackhorse, then a student at Kansas.
They bonded over their passion for the issue, and that’s how the case known as Blackhorse et al v. Pro-Football Inc. came to be. Last week the plaintiffs prevailed when the United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademarks of the Washington Redskins.

The case is under appeal, but you should know that the woman who took on and (at least for the moment) defeated the corporate entity that owns Washington’s NFL team would like to see the same type of case brought against the Chiefs.
As she says, the spark that started back in 2005 at Arrowhead has created a fire that will probably soon return.

“What happens there, it’s just insane the things they allow to go on,” Blackhorse says of the Chiefs and Arrowhead. “They are definitely in the group (of offensive teams), for sure.”

For now, the Chiefs are publicly silent on this. But they know the fight is likely coming, and they hope a few things work in their favor — most notably that it’s tough to compare their nickname with the one in Washington that is a dictionary-defined racial slur. Blackhorse’s group has also protested baseball’s Cleveland Indians, and that team has greatly scaled back its use of the cartoonish Chief Wahoo logo.

The Chiefs have similarly scaled back some of their more obvious plays on Indian stereotypes, and they hope they have some other advantages when the fight comes. The team is named after H. Roe Bartle, the mayor who was key in Kansas City landing the team from Dallas in 1962. Bartle’s nickname was “The Chief.”

The team stopped using a man dressed in traditional headgear as a mascot during pregame festivities many years ago. In the early 1990s, many of the Chiefs’ defensive players posed for a poster that today both looks absolutely ridiculous and would never be recreated.
The team does, however, play the tomahawk chop during games and welcomes fans in headgear and other stereotypes of Native American dress.

Those are some of the parts of the game day experience that Blackhorse calls “insane,” and why she expects a fight that’s gaining momentum and support nationally to come to Kansas City.

She knows that the vast majority of Chiefs fans will oppose her, but she also knows that the vast majority of fans in Washington opposed her, as well.

She says there is “no middle ground with this issue,” that once an ethnic group is used as a nickname for a sports team, the people in that ethic group lose control of their identity and humanity.

“I don’t want people to think I’m going around pointing fingers, like, ‘You’re a racist, you’re a racist, you’re a racist,’ ” she says. “That’s not the point. The point is we’re offended. You can love Native Americans to death. You can have admiration, love what we do, how we are, whatever, and still (hijack) our culture without understanding it that way.”

Wherever you stand on this issue, there is no denying that Blackhorse’s side is making progress. Teams are sensitive to and aware of perpetuating stereotypes so much more than in the past, in response to public sentiment.

The issue is further complicated by context, that this is a fight centered around Indians, who make up about 1 percent of the nation’s population and who, in Blackhorse’s words, “are invisible sometimes to people.”
That makes getting the message out a bit more difficult. A group of people that feels offended by widespread stereotyping isn’t big enough to get critical mass on its own.

That’s why Blackhorse says the movement needs the help of non-Indians, and part of why she’s so encouraged by developments in Congress and with the trademark case.

There is a lot of momentum here, which can be dangerous for teams like the Chiefs that will likely soon find themselves directly in the fight.
“I’m not sure there’s anything the (Chiefs) can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse says. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing.

“If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...#storylink=cpy

Early 90's

Art Vader · 06-26-2014, 05:39 AM

I can understand the cartoonish imagery of fans dressing up like Native Americans being offensive, and possibly the profiting off of such imagery maybe being wrong and cheapening the Native American legacy, but the names themselves are completely different in connotation.

'Chief' is a vague term and ultimately a respectful word which honors the power structure of the Native American hierarchy. I feel like the 'Chiefs' actually benefit Native Americans by keeping their positive history and imagery alive in modern times, and I don't understand why Native Americans would want to do away with that form of respectful publicity which is driven by relevant regional history.

On the other end of the spectrum.. 'Redskin', is a racially driven term, pointing to the savage stereotype non-Native American people have used throughout US History to stir up fear and group disrespect against Native Americans. It doesn't help that it's in the US Capital where our citizens expect a message of equality. I can see the problem with this... not so much with the 'Chiefs'.

We live in the touchiest of times, but I feel like the 'Chiefs' and 'Redskins' monikers are night and day in terms of offensiveness.

Warrior5 · 06-26-2014, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCUnited

I casino reason the Chiefs should have to change their name.

I see what you did there!

Warrior5 · 06-26-2014, 05:44 AM

Piss on these people...

ForeverChiefs58 · 06-26-2014, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Vader

I can understand the cartoonish imagery of fans dressing up like Native Americans being offensive, and possibly the profiting off of such imagery maybe being wrong and cheapening the Native American legacy, but the names themselves are completely different in connotation.

'Chief' is a vague term and ultimately a respectful word which honors the power structure of the Native American hierarchy. I feel like the 'Chiefs' actually benefit Native Americans by keeping their positive history and imagery alive in modern times, and I don't understand why Native Americans would want to do away with that form of respectful publicity which is driven by relevant regional history.

On the other end of the spectrum.. 'Redskin', is a racially driven term, pointing to the savage stereotype non-Native American people have used throughout US History to stir up fear and group disrespect against Native Americans. It doesn't help that it's in the US Capital where our citizens expect a message of equality. I can see the problem with this... not so much with the 'Chiefs'.

We live in the touchiest of times, but I feel like the 'Chiefs' and 'Redskins' monikers are night and day in terms of offensiveness.

You couldn't be more wrong on redskins name. This is the popular media spin, only it isn't based on history, knowledge or facts.

|Zach| · 06-26-2014, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Vader

I can understand the cartoonish imagery of fans dressing up like Native Americans being offensive, and possibly the profiting off of such imagery maybe being wrong and cheapening the Native American legacy, but the names themselves are completely different in connotation.

'Chief' is a vague term and ultimately a respectful word which honors the power structure of the Native American hierarchy. I feel like the 'Chiefs' actually benefit Native Americans by keeping their positive history and imagery alive in modern times, and I don't understand why Native Americans would want to do away with that form of respectful publicity which is driven by relevant regional history.

On the other end of the spectrum.. 'Redskin', is a racially driven term, pointing to the savage stereotype non-Native American people have used throughout US History to stir up fear and group disrespect against Native Americans. It doesn't help that it's in the US Capital where our citizens expect a message of equality. I can see the problem with this... not so much with the 'Chiefs'.

We live in the touchiest of times, but I feel like the 'Chiefs' and 'Redskins' monikers are night and day in terms of offensiveness.

Pretty much agree with this.

Though aside from all this the Chiefs name feels stale and really all it represents is mediocrity. Wouldn't mind at all if they blew it up and went with something else.

UK_Chief · 06-26-2014, 06:05 AM

The word chief isn't offensive. I just don't see how that can hold up in court. There aren't just indian chiefs in the world.

Arrowhead isn't offensive either - other people have been shooting arrows for centuries. Maybe we're talking about Roman chiefs?

They will cut down on the American indian stuff though, I think that is unavoidable.

Like someone else said, if the sports references to Indians go then they will be ignored even more.

|Zach| · 06-26-2014, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UK_Chief

They will cut down on the American indian stuff though, I think that is unavoidable.

Like someone else said, if the sports references to Indians go then they will be ignored even more.

More than anything its just sort of an awful look to build around visually.

Kman34 · 06-26-2014, 06:07 AM

Any team with an animal name: Peta
Teams with Indian connections : Stupid Indian Bitch
Buccaneers, Raiders : Somali Pirates
Cleveland Browns: NAACP
San Diego Chargers: Weathermen
Vikings: Scandinavians?
Patriots: Decedents of the Redcoats
Saints : Devil Worshipers
Texans: Santa Annas Army decedents
Steelers; Soft Metal lovers

I could go on and on..............

Gravedigger · 06-26-2014, 06:08 AM

Change the name, I'm still going to yell out CHIEFS at the end of the national anthem.

**007** · 06-26-2014, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kman34

Any team with an animal name: Peta
Teams with Indian connections : Stupid Indian Bitch
Buccaneers, Raiders : Somali Pirates
Cleveland Browns: NAACP
San Diego Chargers: Weathermen
Vikings: Scandinavians?
Patriots: Decedents of the Redcoats
Saints : Devil Worshipers
Texans: Santa Annas Army decedents
Steelers; Soft Metal lovers

I could go on and on..............

Don't forget about the Packers.

Marcellus · 06-26-2014, 06:09 AM

No chance in hell they win this battle. It will be like Little Big Horn.

Kman34 · 06-26-2014, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru

Don't forget about the Packers.

Packers: Homosexuals

Why Not? · 06-26-2014, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kman34

Any team with an animal name: Peta
Teams with Indian connections : Stupid Indian Bitch
Buccaneers, Raiders : Somali Pirates
Cleveland Browns: NAACP
San Diego Chargers: Weathermen
Vikings: Scandinavians?
Patriots: Decedents of the Redcoats
Saints : Devil Worshipers
Texans: Santa Annas Army decedents
Steelers; Soft Metal lovers

I could go on and on..............

It's 5am here in AZ and I'm up to early reading CP in bed. I literally had to stop myself from laughing my ass off out loud and pissing off still sleeping family members at "soft metal lovers". Hahahah. Well done.

|Zach| · 06-26-2014, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kman34

Any team with an animal name: Peta
Teams with Indian connections : Stupid Indian Bitch
Buccaneers, Raiders : Somali Pirates
Cleveland Browns: NAACP
San Diego Chargers: Weathermen
Vikings: Scandinavians?
Patriots: Decedents of the Redcoats
Saints : Devil Worshipers
Texans: Santa Annas Army decedents
Steelers; Soft Metal lovers

I could go on and on..............

Excuse my while I forward this in email form to a bunch of relatives. It's so spot on...a true gotcha moment.

Just Passin' By · 06-26-2014, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UK_Chief

The word chief isn't offensive. I just don't see how that can hold up in court. There aren't just indian chiefs in the world.

Arrowhead isn't offensive either - other people have been shooting arrows for centuries. Maybe we're talking about Roman chiefs?

They will cut down on the American indian stuff though, I think that is unavoidable.

Like someone else said, if the sports references to Indians go then they will be ignored even more.

It is offensive. The ~~Indians~~ native Americans just told you so. Why would you want to keep a name that's offensive to people?

06-25-2014, 11:01 PM
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $3159627 VARSITY	Woman behind the Redskins name change says the Chiefs should be on guard The fight took a monumental shift at a protest nine years at Arrowhead Stadium and it’s about to come full circle. No matter what you think of the issue, it will soon be ubiquitous in and around Kansas City’s greatest obsession other than barbecue. The Chiefs are aware of it, and are preparing accordingly. Back in 2005, a group calling itself Not In Our Honor protested before the Chiefs played Washington. The protesters were predominately American Indians, united in their anger over what they perceived as offensive stereotypes passed off as nicknames for sports teams. An older woman, Suzan Harjo, one of the leaders of the protest, met a younger woman named Amanda Blackhorse, then a student at Kansas. They bonded over their passion for the issue, and that’s how the case known as Blackhorse et al v. Pro-Football Inc. came to be. Last week the plaintiffs prevailed when the United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademarks of the Washington Redskins. The case is under appeal, but you should know that the woman who took on and (at least for the moment) defeated the corporate entity that owns Washington’s NFL team would like to see the same type of case brought against the Chiefs. As she says, the spark that started back in 2005 at Arrowhead has created a fire that will probably soon return. “What happens there, it’s just insane the things they allow to go on,” Blackhorse says of the Chiefs and Arrowhead. “They are definitely in the group (of offensive teams), for sure.” For now, the Chiefs are publicly silent on this. But they know the fight is likely coming, and they hope a few things work in their favor — most notably that it’s tough to compare their nickname with the one in Washington that is a dictionary-defined racial slur. Blackhorse’s group has also protested baseball’s Cleveland Indians, and that team has greatly scaled back its use of the cartoonish Chief Wahoo logo. The Chiefs have similarly scaled back some of their more obvious plays on Indian stereotypes, and they hope they have some other advantages when the fight comes. The team is named after H. Roe Bartle, the mayor who was key in Kansas City landing the team from Dallas in 1962. Bartle’s nickname was “The Chief.” The team stopped using a man dressed in traditional headgear as a mascot during pregame festivities many years ago. In the early 1990s, many of the Chiefs’ defensive players posed for a poster that today both looks absolutely ridiculous and would never be recreated. The team does, however, play the tomahawk chop during games and welcomes fans in headgear and other stereotypes of Native American dress. Those are some of the parts of the game day experience that Blackhorse calls “insane,” and why she expects a fight that’s gaining momentum and support nationally to come to Kansas City. She knows that the vast majority of Chiefs fans will oppose her, but she also knows that the vast majority of fans in Washington opposed her, as well. She says there is “no middle ground with this issue,” that once an ethnic group is used as a nickname for a sports team, the people in that ethic group lose control of their identity and humanity. “I don’t want people to think I’m going around pointing fingers, like, ‘You’re a racist, you’re a racist, you’re a racist,’ ” she says. “That’s not the point. The point is we’re offended. You can love Native Americans to death. You can have admiration, love what we do, how we are, whatever, and still (hijack) our culture without understanding it that way.” Wherever you stand on this issue, there is no denying that Blackhorse’s side is making progress. Teams are sensitive to and aware of perpetuating stereotypes so much more than in the past, in response to public sentiment. The issue is further complicated by context, that this is a fight centered around Indians, who make up about 1 percent of the nation’s population and who, in Blackhorse’s words, “are invisible sometimes to people.” That makes getting the message out a bit more difficult. A group of people that feels offended by widespread stereotyping isn’t big enough to get critical mass on its own. That’s why Blackhorse says the movement needs the help of non-Indians, and part of why she’s so encouraged by developments in Congress and with the trademark case. There is a lot of momentum here, which can be dangerous for teams like the Chiefs that will likely soon find themselves directly in the fight. “I’m not sure there’s anything the (Chiefs) can do at this point other than look for another name,” Blackhorse says. “They could be the team that says, ‘You know what? We understand the issue and we don’t want to be Dan Snyder and fight this in court forever. We want to do the right thing and move forward and avoid this entire battle.’ I’m sure fans will be upset, but still, that’s doing the right thing. “If they want to be sensitive to Native American people, that’s the thing to do.” Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt...#storylink=cpy Early 90's
Posts: 79,008

06-26-2014, 05:39 AM	#46
Art Vader Geronimo! Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Krug Park Casino cash: $10006752	I can understand the cartoonish imagery of fans dressing up like Native Americans being offensive, and possibly the profiting off of such imagery maybe being wrong and cheapening the Native American legacy, but the names themselves are completely different in connotation. 'Chief' is a vague term and ultimately a respectful word which honors the power structure of the Native American hierarchy. I feel like the 'Chiefs' actually benefit Native Americans by keeping their positive history and imagery alive in modern times, and I don't understand why Native Americans would want to do away with that form of respectful publicity which is driven by relevant regional history. On the other end of the spectrum.. 'Redskin', is a racially driven term, pointing to the savage stereotype non-Native American people have used throughout US History to stir up fear and group disrespect against Native Americans. It doesn't help that it's in the US Capital where our citizens expect a message of equality. I can see the problem with this... not so much with the 'Chiefs'. We live in the touchiest of times, but I feel like the 'Chiefs' and 'Redskins' monikers are night and day in terms of offensiveness.
Posts: 600

06-26-2014, 05:44 AM	#48
Warrior5 Stram was Cav Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $9174010	Piss on these people... __________________ The best pass defense is attacking the passer.
Posts: 5,232

06-26-2014, 06:05 AM	#51
UK_Chief Veteran Join Date: Nov 2012 Casino cash: $6856512	The word chief isn't offensive. I just don't see how that can hold up in court. There aren't just indian chiefs in the world. Arrowhead isn't offensive either - other people have been shooting arrows for centuries. Maybe we're talking about Roman chiefs? They will cut down on the American indian stuff though, I think that is unavoidable. Like someone else said, if the sports references to Indians go then they will be ignored even more.
Posts: 1,723

06-26-2014, 06:07 AM	#53
Kman34 My Mamma Says Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Glass Cage Of Emotion Casino cash: $1991786 VARSITY	Any team with an animal name: Peta Teams with Indian connections : Stupid Indian Bitch Buccaneers, Raiders : Somali Pirates Cleveland Browns: NAACP San Diego Chargers: Weathermen Vikings: Scandinavians? Patriots: Decedents of the Redcoats Saints : Devil Worshipers Texans: Santa Annas Army decedents Steelers; Soft Metal lovers I could go on and on..............
Posts: 13,880

06-26-2014, 06:08 AM	#54
Gravedigger Plays to win the game! Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $7313101	Change the name, I'm still going to yell out CHIEFS at the end of the national anthem.
Posts: 7,540

06-26-2014, 06:09 AM	#56
Marcellus Diablo Negro Join Date: Sep 2003 Casino cash: $3102662	No chance in hell they win this battle. It will be like Little Big Horn.
Posts: 69,210