What bothers you about those things? :deevee:

Truly amazes me how sensitive people are.

The national anthem is just an old song. Singing that old song "right" doesn't make you any more or less American.

It's an even more meaningless thing to emote about than the team name or the arrowheads

Most Natives I know dont give a shit about any of it, not even the Redskins. I only know two but that's a pretty good sample of their entire population.

It wasn't even official until the great depression, it's hard to sing, and is to the tune of a ****ing drinking song.

But by all means, let's deify the **** out of it.

[img]<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ls1YVhcLD2c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/img]

It only takes 1 nowadays

Oh and because I said "I'm pretty liberal" means I only vote for Dems? So are you the only person in the whole wide world that doesn't just check a box with a R or D next to it???

You have no idea who I voted for. I have my own mind, and I vote for who I feel is best for the job, and usually there is no one best for the job running, IMHO. And when I go to the polls, I don't worry about small things like football team names. I don't politicize this shit, or put it in a R box or D box, but unfortunately people do. Like you obviously.

I have been reading you for many years.. Ray Charles could see how you vote...

It's a political issue, you just need to turn off American Idol long enough to dig deeper and quit reading the headlines.

It don't even care to be honest. I just think they are stupid. Oh look, I'm a local celeb, I'll beat that drum for you. Now pay me.

I've always felt the tomahawk chant was copied from Florida St. We don't need to copy other teams shit.

The one thing that truly annoys the **** out of me though is the "thats another Kansas City Chiefs FIRST DOWN" That was fun in the Trent green years. It's old and played out now.

Soon football players will be required to show camel toe.

That's just it... So you go to a game and they play war drums you become offended? War drums?!

People showing team pride and dressing up offends?! Someone will probably have a pic at arrowhead with Indian headdress on and get fired from work some day in the near future. (That is until we become the KC Wolves)

I don't even give real opinions on anything anymore, you never know who's recording what.

Wtf has happened to the world?

Some are such whiny bitches they already do. Oops. not very PC.

The stupid logic displayed in this thread sometimes makes me rethink this entire thing.

You all need to go home and wrap your vagina's up in an aidspox laced blanket.

:facepalm:

That actually ALL makes sense.

It's the people that want it gone so as not to offend "someone". I truly believe some people want to be offended to illicit sympathetic responses. That's a ****ing certifiable sickness no one speaks of so as not to offend. (Ironically) Where the f does it stop?

It's TIC asshole...grow a sense of humor....you have to look at the post I was responding to..the Italian american...bla. bla bla

I didn't read through all the replies so it may have been stated, but what the hell is so offensive about the title of a person in charge?

I mean a Chief is in charge of a tribe.
A Chief is in charge of is sailors below him.
We have a Commander in Chief ( I know the current one is offensive to some and the latter one was offensive to others)
We have Chief Financial Officers in charge of finances at companies.
We Have Chiefs in charge of the Police that serve under him.

Its not a class of people it is a title of a person. That is what I would argue.

Ahhh.... so its not the you lack logic. You just can see alternate realities so you know the outcomes of all possibilities.

Right. And I'll bet the Raiders are still losers in all of them.

The people pushing the issue are the reason it's gottwn traction. Your assumptions to the alternatives are just that and worthless.

But typical armchair politician. Let's just place blame somewhere and act like you know what's best.

ROFL

The problem with that argument will be we have an arrowhead on the helmet as well as the name of the stadium.
Now if they were to remove all of the "Indian" stuff that goes along with the version of Chiefs that our team is portraying.

Arrowheads are offensive?

This whole thing has gotten ****ing stupid.

There is zero reason for any Native American to walk into Arrowhead for a Chiefs game and be offended by a damn thing. Period.

Why arent all Americans pissed at NE portrayal of a Patriot? That dude looks stupid.

I would still contend that Chief is a word of someone in charge. It therefore cannot be offensive. It is not a derogatory term. Now if they want to argue about Arrowheads and Head Dresses then you come back with items of culture. Again they too are not offensive. Didn't the Indians celebrate their Chiefs?

As much as I don't believe the Redskins should change their name and I don't find it offensive. I can almost understand an Indian taking offense to the term. It doesn't bother me if someone calls me Whitey, but then again I have never been persecuted for the color of my skin.

Native Americans are not the only people who have made and used arrowheads.

Boy Scouts must be offensive to them as well.

I already thought you were disgusting because you're a Broncos fan. And then you went and said this, confirming that it's not just your Broncos fandom that makes you a disgusting human being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead

Great!!! Now we're pissing of South Africans too!!!

I WANT SOMETHING TO BE OFFENDED ABOUT BECAUSE MY LIFE SUCKS!!!!

Let it go people.
:cuss:

I'm offended that the Chiefs can't win a ****ing playoff game. We should put together a class action suit.

Pretty amazing, I wasn't old enough to drink (no offense to Indians on the alcohol reference) last time they won a playoff game. We'll always have Joe Montana which is ironically a 49ers re-tread and wore a uniform that used gold miners as a mascot. Many Chinese were gold miners and have relatives in San Francisco.

Justice to the gold miners!!! Get mad San Francisco, scratch someones eyes out!!!

:cuss:

https://fellowshipofminds.files.word...012/07/ny2.jpg

Sorry, couldn't find a gay Chinese pic. Huh, no gay Chinese?


Hehe, had headphones on and wife walked up behind me while going through Google Images search results for "gay parade san francisco" and said "something you need to tell me?".

Bad timing.

How the **** haven't the Village People been sued yet for past damages? They are offensive to-

Sailors (maybe not), Indians, Construction workers, and Cops.

Been happening for 14 years. It's hilarious.

Just saw this.

I personally have not seen it used that I remember. But I'm not a Native American and have not been around very many Native Americans.

This article from Politco breaks down some of the complaints/claims made by the plaintiffs in Washington case. Useful, I think. This includes a 1993 resolution from the National Congress of American Indians that defines Redskin as a slur.

If a minority racial group says something is offensive to them, I'm of the opinion that common human decency dictates I should respect its wishes.

Holy shit, LMAO

FROM WIKI:

Hunt, with a roster replete with players who had played college football in Texas, wanted to maintain a lineage to the team’s roots and wanted to name the club the Kansas City Texans.[2] "The Lakers stayed the Lakers when they moved from Minnesota to California," he reasoned. "But Jack Steadman convinced me that wasn’t too smart. It wouldn’t sell." The team was renamed the Kansas City Chiefs—one of the most popular suggestions Hunt received in a name-the-team contest.[4] A name also considered at the time for the team was the Kansas City Mules.[4]

The name, "Chiefs" is not only derived from a fan contest, but also from Mayor Bartle, who 35 years prior, founded the Native American-based honor society known as The Tribe of Mic-O-Say within the Boy Scouts of America organization, which earned him the nickname, "The Chief."[2]



So...If KC used to be the MULES...which is a half Donkey..that means....Denver is like your brother from another mother.

I guess your Obamaphone and other handouts don't have autocomplete, sperm dropping.

Chiefs + tomahawk chop + arrowhead logo + red and yellow + horse named "Warpaint" + stadium named Arrowhead = connection with Native American/Indian/Indigenous American stereotypes = offensive.

I hate political correctness in all of its insidiously fascist infamy, but you cannot defend the above things about the Chiefs' gameday and fan culture whilst admitting Redskins is racist and warranting change.

If the Redskins goes away, then the Chiefs, Indians and Braves logically follow.

I don't like it, but that's the way it's going to be... And the Hunt family ****ed themselves (presuming they treasure the name) by allowing the PA to play the tomahawk chop song and reviving Warpaint after the noted absence of both. It's an effective admission of guilt that those two things went away as it's understood that they probably stopped as a reaction to criticism.

So the Chiefs culture is what's racist now? Not necessarily the name.

It's subjectively racist by employing stereotypes of indians as being warlike, aggressive, what have you.

you cant keep or take land from a tribe as another tribes unless you are aggressive..so literal history is offensive to this Blackhorse idiot ?

I suppose he could be Japanese, but what's the difference! Amirite?
http://media.salon.com/2010/08/george_takei_is.jpg

Redskins matched my list just fine, thanks. It doesn't fit in yours, though.

:cuss: so by your thinking the Vikings should go to. The Patriots even? :cuss:

That's an impressively stupid position.

The only living people who could be "offended" by Vikings would be Icelanders or Danes.. Odds are a) the ones living here don't give a shit b) there aren't enough of those that give a shit for it to be an actual issue.

Concerning the Patriots... Well.. they relate to the group of revolutionaries who fought for Independence. None of them are alive to be offended.

That's just, like, your opinion man...

It comes to this for me: If a racial minority says something is offensive to them, who am I to tell them how they should feel?

Many Native Americans are of the opinion that Redskins is and always was a derogatory term. If that's the way they feel, I'll respect that.

Feel free to explain to European and Australian blacks why they should be offended by the use of "black", but ok with African American. When you realize that you can't come up with a satisfactory answer, re-visit your earlier, stupid, position.

Many people are offended by a lot of stupid shit. Don't be such a ****ing idiot.

There isn't a sports franchise in the United States that uses imagery associated with racial stereotypes of black people.

Kansas City Camaros has a nice ring to it.

Some black people don't like the term African American as well. I have a friend that prefers black because in his words: "I wasn't born in Africa, my parents weren't born in Africa, I have never been to Africa, I have nothing to do with Africa. I am an American"

****in' A.

What the hell does that have to do with the nickname "Chiefs" or "Redskins"?

Nothing.

What does that have to do with a discussion about whether or not mascots are racist?

Nothing.

Personally, I think it's a little disrespectful that it's played before sporting contests.

The National Anthem?

Errrrbody offended about errrthing. Well **** you. Get over it. Sorry life can't be EXACTLY how you'd like it.

America the Beautiful should be the national anthem, IMO.

The Star Spangled Banner is supposedly about perserverance but it's really about how America was getting its ass kicked in a war it had no business fighting in the first place.

My post fits as a contextual reply to the post it was responding to, which was "It comes to this for me: If a racial minority says something is offensive to them, who am I to tell them how they should feel?". Your post does not meet that same easily obtainable standard.

Now that I see that, I get what you're saying, and that's an entirely different conversation.

Yeah. I really don't understand why it's played before everything from the World Series to a goddamn monster truck rally. What's the point? Why sports? Why doesn't the damn thing get played before art gallery openings, happy hour and the start of breakfast service at McDonald's? Cheapens it, IMHO. I want to watch a game, not get into a fight because I'm not going to stand up for some out of context song.

Alright. I understand where you are coming from.

Nice straw man. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I wouldn't explain to anyone in a minority group how they should feel. That's up to them. How they say they feel about a term that refers to them is up to them and I have no place to say they're wrong because I'm not part of that group and have not experienced what they have experienced.

That's my whole point.

Ideally, it's the evocative reminder that despite differences in fandom (and other things) we are all Americans and are united by all the great things in this country.

The guys beating the snot out of each other in the parking lot because they're wearing competing logos from different departments of the same company must have been taking a piss during the song.

To reiterate, I say "ideally."

There's no straw man there, at all, and it's absolutely on point with what you were talking about. I gave you an example of where minorities can't even agree on an acceptable appellation.

Like I said, you're being impressively stupid with this. How does the history of


Negro
Colored
Black
African American

and now, mostly, back to

black

not clue you in to this?

You guys do realize that it wasn't officially the National Anthem until 1931, and that playing the song at baseball games is what fueled its popularity and ultimately made it the National Anthem, right? We literally owe it to sports as the reason the song even exists in it's current form. Ken Burns did a great segment on this in the third inning portion of his documentary 'Baseball.'

And do you think that if non-Caucasian / Asian / NA / Hispanic Americans ever settled on a definitive label for themselves that it would be okay for any sort of business to appropriate that label for business purposes?

Also, my grandpa was a Nordic descendent steel worker who went on to own a ranch where he prospected for gold before marrying my grandmother who worked In a cheese factory.
The Vikings, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, and Packers names are therefore offensive and hurtful to me. We are people, not mascots.

I don't care what a subgroup settles on, or doesn't settle on. That's Duncan Idaho's windmill.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with it, but the companies would have to be careful. I mean, "Inscrutable But Excellent Calligraphers Electronic Gizmos" might be an advantageous name, while "Bone Through the Nose Electronic Gizmos" might struggle to find a market.

None of those terms are understood to be pejoratives.

Well, except the one relating to the franchise from Green Bay when coupled with "fudge", but I digress.

The problem is the second most common association of the word "Redskin" in America is that of an epithet.

Between potentially offended human groups and angry PETA protesters, there are few NFL nicknames that can really hold up under scrutiny, if all it takes is having some asshats claiming offense.

If the Cleveland baseball franchise ends up having to change its name, I pray they give serious consideration to The Steamers.

I guess they should just change the names to all sports franchises to the cities then. Ex. Missouri citizens of Football. The Denver football Team. Ect.

Because if not, when you start with one, as you've pointed out, you can find something offensive with any mascot name if you try hard enough.

absolutely not, there is no proof of that anywhere on any document that would prove anything of the opinion you just gave.

From this CNN article:

[

Like I said, that proves absolutely nothing. Its just his opinion. Dictionaries have forever just defined a word based on societal bends and waves and defined slang words. But there no proof anywhere in history that the word was used the way they claim it too as far as skinning or racism. The Smithsonian did extensive research and found nothing

THAT STORY BEGINS, as so many tales in modern American sports do, with Babe Ruth. History records various games in which "The Star-Spangled Banner" was played dating from the mid-1800s, but Ruth's last postseason appearances for the Boston Red Sox coincided with the song's first unbreakable bond with the sports world, in 1918. Game 1 of that year's World Series was notable for many reasons. For starters, the Red Sox and the opposing Cubs were considered champs back then. After 1918, they would serve as symbols of futility; neither won a title for the rest of the century. But at the time, the Cubs were so highly regarded that their World Series home was not Wrigley Field (then Weeghman Park), which seated only 14,000 fans; the National League champs instead rented out the White Sox's Comiskey Park, which accommodated about 30,000.

There was also World War I, which blackened everything, including the national pastime. The U.S. had entered the war 17 months earlier, and in that time some 100,000 American soldiers died. Veterans who survived often came home maimed or shell-shocked from encounters with modern warfare's first

mechanized mass-killing machines. At home, the public mood was sullen and anxious. The war strained the economy and the workforce, including baseball's. The government began drafting major leaguers for military service that summer and ordered baseball to end the regular season by Labor Day. As a result, the 1918 Series was the lone October Classic played entirely in September.

World War I wasn't the only issue weighing heavily on fans. On Sept. 4, the day before the first game, a bomb ripped through the Chicago Federal Building, killing four people and injuring 30. The Industrial Workers of the World were thought to be behind the attack, a retaliation for the conviction of several IWW members on federal sedition charges in the court of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. (Two years later, Landis was appointed commissioner of baseball, a position he held until 1944.) Domestic terrorism didn't exactly generate interest in a lighthearted day at the ball game. For the opener at Comiskey, newspapers optimistically estimated that a sellout crowd would drop anywhere from 50 cents for a bleacher ticket to $3 for a box seat. When only 19,000 and change showed, a Chicago Herald-Examiner headline proclaimed, "Scalpers Are Making No Money."

Although the Cubs festooned the park in as much red, white and blue as possible, the glum crowd in the stands for Game 1 remained nearly silent through most of Ruth's 1-0 shutout victory over Chicago's Hippo Vaughn. Not even the Cubs Claws, the forerunners to Wrigley's Bleacher Bums, could gin up enthusiasm. "For a baseball game in a world's Championship series," the Chicago Tribune wrote, "yesterday's combat between the Cubs and Red Sox was perhaps the quietest on record."



The Red Sox beat the Cubs in the 1918 World Series -- and wouldn't win another title for 86 years. The "Star-Spangled Banner" would have a better run.
With one exception: the seventh-inning stretch. As was common during sporting events, a military band was on hand to play, and while the fans were on their feet, the musicians fired up "The Star-Spangled Banner." They weren't the only active-duty servicemen on the field, though. Red Sox third baseman Fred Thomas was playing the Series while on furlough from the Navy, where he'd been learning seamanship at the Great Lakes Naval Training Station in Chicago. But Thomas' months of military training had hardly dulled his diamond skills. According to the Society of American Baseball Research, the station's commander, Capt. William Moffett, was a baseball fanatic who actively recruited athletes for the training center's team. Thomas, who started playing professionally right out of high school in Wisconsin, later said he "had it made at Great Lakes. All [I] had to do was play baseball." So after the Red Sox went through nine third basemen during the season, they took a shot and asked the Navy whether he could join them as they took on the Cubs. The military said yes, and Thomas stood at his usual position on the diamond during Game 1's seventh-inning stretch, present at the creation of a tradition.

Upon hearing the opening notes of Key's song from the military band, Thomas immediately faced the flag and snapped to attention with a military salute. The other players on the field followed suit, in "civilian" fashion, meaning they stood and put their right hands over their hearts. The crowd, already standing, showed its first real signs of life all day, joining in a spontaneous sing-along, haltingly at first, then finishing with flair. The scene made such an impression that The New York Times opened its recap of the game not with a description of the action on the field but with an account of the impromptu singing: "First the song was taken up by a few, then others joined, and when the final notes came, a great volume of melody rolled across the field. It was at the very end that the onlookers exploded into thunderous applause and rent the air with a cheer that marked the highest point of the day's enthusiasm."

The Cubs front office realized it had witnessed something unique. For the next two games, it had the band play "The Star-Spangled Banner" during the seventh-inning stretch, to similarly enthusiastic crowds. By Game 3, a bigger crowd of 27,000 was in attendance. Not to be outdone, the Red Sox ratcheted up the pageantry when the Series relocated to Boston for the next three games. At Fenway Park, "The Star-Spangled Banner" moved from the seventh-inning stretch to the pregame festivities, and the team coupled the playing of the song with the introduction of wounded soldiers who had received free tickets.

Like the Chicago fans, the normally reserved Boston crowd erupted for the pregame anthem and the hobbled heroes. As the Tribune wrote of the wounded soldiers at Game 6, "[T]heir entrance on crutches supported by their comrades evoked louder cheers than anything the athletes did on the diamond."

THE RED SOX ended up winning the Series in six games, their third championship in four years and their last for the next 86. Not for the first time, and not for the last, Ruth etched his name in the record books. He pitched 16 straight scoreless innings in his two wins, which, along with 13 shutout innings in 1916, set a Series mark for consecutive scoreless innings that wouldn't be broken for 43 years. Meanwhile, Thomas typified a near-flawless fielding performance by the Red Sox, making several spectacular plays in the Series-clinching sixth game on Sept. 11. In the seventh inning that night, he snagged a scorcher down the line from Chicago's Fred Merkle, a play The Times called an act of "downright grand larceny." After the game, he had the ball autographed by his Boston mates. A Thomas family member bought it at auction in 2007, and today the old third sacker's descendants keep his memory alive at the Fred Thomas Resort, a fishing camp on Big Lake Chetac in Wisconsin that Thomas started after retiring from baseball in 1924.

Still, the Series' most enduring legacy belongs to a song. Other major league teams noticed the popular reaction to "The Star-Spangled Banner" in 1918, and over the next decade it became standard for World Series and holiday games. In subsequent years, through subsequent wars, it grew into the daily institution we know today.

But with ubiquity comes backlash -- and those, like the folks at Goshen College, who prefer to decouple the anthem from sports. What, after all, does an antagonistic, difficult-to-sing 200-year-old tune about a flag have to do with playing ball?

Quite a bit, actually. Congress didn't officially adopt the "The Star-Spangled Banner" until 1931 -- and by that time it was already a baseball tradition steeped in wartime patriotism. Thanks to a brass band, some fickle fans and a player who snapped to attention on a somber day in September, the old battle ballad was the national pastime's anthem more than a decade before it was the nation's.

Luke Cyphers is a senior writer for ESPN The Magazine; Ethan Trex is a contributing editor for mental_floss and the co-creator of the blog Straight Cash Homey.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6...-espn-magazine

Lets just be the Kansas City Mascots. Can you offend a mascot?

I think the name change is inevitable. It might be 10 years, or 20, or possibly five.

But it'll happen soon after the Redskins are forced to change.

**** the wolfpack idea.. or Red Wolves.

KC should steal a name from football history and go with the Dons.