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

[BigRedChief]

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

[blaise]

Why don't they oppose cities, rivers, lakes or streets using Native American names?

[Basileus777]

The name "chiefs" is completely neutral, it need not even be specific to Indians. It's not a slur like Redskins. And you'd have a hard time trying to make the case that the team's logo or use of the word arrowhead is offensive.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

1/128 here and have a long blood line of Cherokee in my family on both sides...

We don't find the Redskins offensive, nor do we find the Chiefs and its Indian tradition offensive either...

But if the Redskins change, you can damn well bet the Chiefs, Indians, Braves, etc will all be next...

I think when that time comes, it might just shed some light on how overly PC this nation has become and expose the lunacy for what it is.

[Oxford]

Originally Posted by Guru

Don't forget about the Packers.

No way... that's a good (ghey) name

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by aturnis

Redskins I get. But Chiefs is a title/rank. Are they going to make it illegal to make chief executive officer a job title?

Chiefs weren't named after Indians, they were named after the former mayor who was heavy into the scouts I believe. It was his nickname.

The fact that they then took that name and for years portrayed it as an Indian thing, to me, is a secondary issue if you ask me. Maybe an apology is in order? Whatever.

****, it's not even an Indian word.

Time to boycott Halo. Down with Master Chief!

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by hometeam

Except.. there is no malicious intent behind it. All these teams are honoring the traditions and people behind the imagery they use.

Not to mention, racism, pseudo racism, implied racism is not illegal.

They can bitch all they want. The problem occurs when the government gets involved.

This whole movement is similar to the sharia law movement in the Europe. Next thing you know muslims will start suing newspapers for printing images of mohammed. Where does it end?

That's your opinion but what if its not the opinion of an Indian tribe?

Now what?

We can try and split hairs and twist it to make sense because its the franchise we root for. But someone could find the name and so called traditions of this franchise offensive.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Am I reading that right? One one-hundred and twenty-eighth?

Yes that is correct. Now please keep paying your taxes, so I can continue to get my free dental and health care for life.

And you want to know a kicker... My kids whom are 1/256 get the same benefits as I do and as my grandpa and grandma got whom where both 1/32...

Stop offending me....

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Yes that is correct. Now please keep paying your taxes, so I can continue to get my free dental and health care for life.

And you want to know a kicker... My kids whom are 1/256 get the same benefits as I do and as my grandpa and grandma got whom where both 1/32...

Stop offending me....

Benefits come by choice. I'm 1/16th and get/want none.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by eDave

If Snyder loses, so will Hunt. It will just be a matter of time as these chicks will never give up. Then were does it stop? Is "Arrowhead" stadium offensive too?!! PETA going after animal names?!!!!

In the end, we will end up as the Kansas City Football Club. Kansas City Football Stadium.

We better hope that Snyder stands his ground. Firmly.

Actually. Maybe there needs to be a movement. End all counties, rivers cities named after tribes and Indian names. They are people not things.

Personally I would love a fighting whities hat.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Benefits come by choice. I'm 1/16th and get/want none.

I am around a quarter and had/wanted no benefits as I do not know language or history, nor look indian.

[Lonewolf Ed]

Well, since Freedom from Offense is an Amendment to the Const... wait a sec... I''ll be darned, it's not in there! Maybe after the next election, they can fix that.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by underEJ

I don't care if they change the chiefs or not, but using Bartle as an excuse to keep the name is bull shit. He was a grown man in a cheap boy scout Indian costume. His image is way more offensive than warpaint ever was.

No it isn't.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

But there is nothing racist about white people dressing up as Indians, or a football team players posing in ceremonial dress, the tomahawk chop or some dufus dressing up as an indian in the stands with arrows in him...

Yeah, I agree, I don't see anything racist about that either...

White power!!!!

Racism usually contains some form of negative connotation about said race. Do the above examples show negativity?

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

That's your opinion but what if its not the opinion of an Indian tribe?

Now what?

We can try and split hairs and twist it to make sense because its the franchise we root for. But someone could find the name and so called traditions of this franchise offensive.

Then they can go **** themselves. I find religion deeply offensive to common sense, but you don't see me asking the government to act on my behalf. Guess what, religious folks would tell me to go **** myself! And I'm fine with that, because I can understand that in America, just because something is offensive (in this case, I am in a much LARGER minority of atheists, as compared to a tiny tiny tiny minority of Indians) does not mean there is any legal basis to GET RID OF IT.

This is how we get started on becoming 40 year old virgins, sitting around in our pajamas, drinking banana milkshakes, singing im an Oscar Meyer weiner.

[hometeam]

I just don't get it.

Since when does something being offensive mean it has to go away? Oh, when a big fat lobby with casino money behind it gets a bug up its ass. I forget. Merica and all.