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

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Many Native Americans view redskins as a racial/ethnic slur. Which puts them in the same category.

Why, what's wrong with having red skin?

I fully get that some have intended it as a slur. But I applaud those NAs who refuse to take it as one. Those who are offended are simply accepting the marginalization seeking to be imposed by bigots for no good reason.

I analogize it to fit persons being offended by muscle head as a slur. 'Yes, my body is composed of muscle and not fat. . . and?'

If insist on convincing me that having red skin makes you an inferior person, I suppose I'll eventually cave, though. If for no other reason than to avoid the headache of discussing the issue to death.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by KC native

Don't get butt hurt because I pointed out how terrible your response was.

Warrior or not, the point stands.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

The fact that they're even considering going after a name like CHIEFS should tell you their true motive. And for the record it's not the first time that the Redskins have been stripped of the trademark. And each time it's happened it's been overturned.

This lady has said she is going after anyone that she perceives has a Native American theme/mascot.

She can go after the Chiefs all she wants. That doesn't mean she'll win.

Also, the previous stripping of the trademark was overturned because the plaintiffs were too old. They found younger people to file this suit, so it has almost no chance of being overturned this time.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Why, what's wrong with having red skin?

I fully get that some have intended it as a slur. But I applaud those NAs who refuse to take it as one. Those who are offended are simply accepting the marginalization seeking to be imposed by bigots for no good reason.

I analogize it to fit persons being offended by muscle head as a slur. 'Yes, my body is composed of muscle and not fat. . . and?'

If insist on convincing me that having red skin makes you an inferior person, I suppose I'll eventually cave, though. If for no other reason than to avoid the headache of discussing the issue to death.

I see your stroke recovery is not progressing very well. I'm sorry.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by 505 Chief

Warrior or not, the point stands.

No, it doesn't.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by KC native

No, it doesn't.

Do you live in Native country? Just curious.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by 505 Chief

Do you live in Native country? Just curious.

Where I live is irrelevant, but Texas.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

I see your stroke recovery is not progressing very well. I'm sorry.

Likewise, I see your ability to address the substance of issues remains fatally impaired.

You are wearing me down, though. I'm starting to see that it's not polite to point how NA's complexion illustrates what filthy mongrels they are. I'll try to refrain, as is my burden as a pasty white male.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Likewise, I see your ability to address the substance of issues remains fatally impaired.

says the poster that is still arguing that redskins is not a slur.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

says the poster that is still arguing that redskins is not a slur.

WHY is it a slur? What is WRONG with red skin?

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

WHY is it a slur? What is WRONG with red skin?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...nglish/redskin

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by KC native

Where I live is irrelevant, but Texas.

Well, you see, I do. And let me tell you, it's a sad state of shit. These folks can have their "culture". I'd rather be associated with a wolf or other noble animal at this point.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by 505 Chief

Well, you see, I do. And let me tell you, it's a sad state of shit. These folks can have their "culture". I'd rather be associated with a wolf or other noble animal at this point.

Who gives a shit whether you live in "native country"? That's completely irrelevant to your terrible response.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...nglish/redskin

That is why some bigot INTENDED it as a slur. WHY is it a slur by an objective standard? What about having red skin makes a person inferior?

Fat is a slur, because being fat isn't healthy
reerun is a slur because mental impairment is an unfortunate handicap
Dark skinned people have accepted Black as a slur due to Christian notions of the Mark of Cain.

What about Redskin, particularly as it referred to self-applied red clay, is an OBJECTIVE slur?

You can do it. You've nearly convinced my polite side that it's not nice to point out to NAs how inferior they are. Don't give up now.

[Isupportthename]

Originally Posted by KC native

This lady has said she is going after anyone that she perceives has a Native American theme/mascot.

She can go after the Chiefs all she wants. That doesn't mean she'll win.

Also, the previous stripping of the trademark was overturned because the plaintiffs were too old. They found younger people to file this suit, so it has almost no chance of being overturned this time.

But the fact is that there's a legal precedent for this not standing up in court. And the law isn't supposed to be about who's offended by what.