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

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Strongside

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.

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.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Strongside

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.

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.

[ClevelandBronco]

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

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by Strongside

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 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.

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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.

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

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

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:

The political leaders' remarks are repeated in the radio ad advanced by the Oneida Indian Nation and its leader Ray Halbritter, who's also CEO of Oneida Nation Enterprises, which operates a casino and other businesses.

Halbritter acknowledged his tribe's "Change the Mascot" campaign faces an uphill struggle.
He refers to the mascot as "the R-word," without explicitly stating it.

"Well, history is littered with people who have vowed never to change something -- slavery, immigration, women's rights -- so we think one thing that's really great about this country is when many people speak out, change can happen," Halbritter said.

When asked about other team mascots such as the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs and Chicago Blackhawks, Halbritter cited how "redskin" is defined in the Merriam-Webster Unabridged online dictionary as "usually offensive."

[Crying Ramtard]

[

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

[DTLB58]

Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco

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.

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

[007]

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

[Discuss Thrower]

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.

[007]

The Kansas City Misery

[Chiefshrink]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

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.

I get the 'Redskins' but how is 'Chief/Chiefs' offensive ?

Merriam Webster - Full Definition of CHIEF

1
: accorded highest rank or office
2
: of greatest importance or influence

[007]

Originally Posted by Chiefshrink

I get the 'Redskins' but how is 'Chief/Chiefs' offensive ?

Merriam Webster - Full Definition of CHIEF

1
: accorded highest rank or office
2
: of greatest importance or influence

Because one person says it is. Duh

And you call yourself a shrink?

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Chiefshrink

I get the 'Redskins' but how is 'Chief/Chiefs' offensive ?

Merriam Webster - Full Definition of CHIEF

1
: accorded highest rank or office
2
: of greatest importance or influence

Q'ing myself, but

Chiefs + Arrowhead logo and stadium + de facto official team chant that involves tomahawk chopping + red and yellow color + mascot called "Warpaint" = imagery consistent with stereotypical depictions of Native Americans. That has been construed as offensive by some.. Namely, Native Americans.

Rename Arrowhead, turn away fans wearing headdresses, change the name of the horse and actively depict a "Chief" as a police, fire or military leader and there isn't a problem.

How much of those measures the Hunt family is willing to take remains to be seen.

Also, consider who actually owns Arrowhead...

[007]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Q'ing myself, but

Chiefs + Arrowhead logo and stadium + de facto official team chant that involves tomahawk chopping + red and yellow color + mascot called "Warpaint" = imagery consistent with stereotypical depictions of Native Americans. That has been construed as offensive by some.. Namely, Native Americans.

Rename Arrowhead, turn away fans wearing headdresses, change the name of the horse and actively depict a "Chief" as a police, fire or military leader and there isn't a problem.

How much of those measures the Hunt family is willing to take remains to be seen.

Also, consider who actually owns Arrowhead...

Kansas City Chiefs with camouflage for their uniforms. Would that offend the military?