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

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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?

Yes, let's just ignore how language evolves and is used today.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

Yes, let's just ignore how language evolves and is used today.

AS it is USED TODAY is EXCLUSIVELY as reference to an NFL football team, fool. You can't have you Revolutionary War era cake and eat your 2014 cake too.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

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.

You aren't very smart.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

AS it is USED TODAY is EXCLUSIVELY as reference to an NFL football team, fool. You can't have you Revolutionary War era cake and eat your 2014 cake too.

It is by definition a slur. Take it up with the dictionary people if you feel that they have defined it incorrectly.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

It is by definition a slur. Take it up with the dictionary people if you feel that they have defined it incorrectly.

If Merriam Webster told you jump off a bridge. . . Ahhh **** it. If you can't see that dictionary literalism is as dumb as biblical literalism. If you can't see that this a fatal 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.

You ask 100 people what they think about the redskins, how many do you think will go off on a rant about filthy drunks of the plains and how many do you think will talk about RGIII or the NFL in general?

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by KC native

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

The point is, they don't want their culture on parade by whitey. My point is, I don't want their ****ing culture.

Get it now?

[Isupportthename]

Originally Posted by KC native

You aren't very smart.

No, actually I am. I'm using my brain in terms of what's legal under our laws and what's not. People arguing against names like Redskins and now Chiefs are the ones who are using their hearts to make that decision and then thinking that the law is applicable to what their feelings tell them.

To use the classic Seinfeld episode as an example, if I've been approved to rent an apartment, is it really fair that it should arbitrarily go to someone else (say an Andrea Doria survivor) simply because he's already had so much pain and suffering in his life? I've gone through the process, done everything right, and am good to go - and then it's ripped away from me "just because?" Granted we're talking about two different things, but you get the point. Feelings shouldn't be able to override the law "just because."

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

If Merriam Webster told you jump off a bridge. . . Ahhh **** it. If you can't see that dictionary literalism is as dumb as biblical literalism. If you can't see that this a fatal 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy.

You ask 100 people what they think about the redskins, how many do you think will go off on a rant about filthy drunks of the plains and how many do you think will talk about RGIII or the NFL in general?

Alternatively, go find 100 people living on reservations and ask if they'd be offended if a stranger called them a redskin.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Alternatively, go find 100 people living on reservations and ask if they'd be offended if a stranger called them a redskin.

Be sure and ask them why.

It's different in person to person interactions, because if someone is going to the trouble to use that term in interpersonal discourse, it's reasonable to assume that they INTEND offense. And it's reasonable to be offended by people who intend to offend you. That doesn't make the term objectively offensive, particularly in instances where people intend it, to the extent it even applies to you, with respect.

I could just as easily walk up to you and call you a dirty discus thrower and sufficiently impart to you that I intend to slur you with that appellation. That doesn't make 'discus thrower' a de facto slur.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

No, actually I am. I'm using my brain in terms of what's legal under our laws and what's not. People arguing against names like Redskins and now Chiefs are the ones who are using their hearts to make that decision and then thinking that the law is applicable to what their feelings tell them.

To use the classic Seinfeld episode as an example, if I've been approved to rent an apartment, is it really fair that it should arbitrarily go to someone else (say an Andrea Doria survivor) simply because he's already had so much pain and suffering in his life? I've gone through the process, done everything right, and am good to go - and then it's ripped away from me "just because?" Granted we're talking about two different things, but you get the point. Feelings shouldn't be able to override the law "just because."

If you were smart, you'd realize that the stripping of the trademark is not an opinion on the legality of the redskins name.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Be sure and ask them why.

stroked out poster is stroked out.

[Isupportthename]

Originally Posted by KC native

If you were smart, you'd realize that the stripping of the trademark is not an opinion on the legality of the redskins name.

I'm well aware of that. The PTO is simply stating that in their opinion it's a slur which means they aren't going to continue trademarking it. But you see my point I presume. Incidentally, the Redskins still own the trademark while the case is under appear (last time it took four or five years to decide). Furthermore they still own the common law trademark, so there's still protection for them in that sense.

Daniel Snyder has said on numerous occasions that the name will never change (regardless of trademarks). I take him at his word. Many people argue that "the league will make them change it." I suppose that's possible, but I've always maintained that if they had the power to do that they would have done so a long time ago. Not because they truly believe it's a racist term, but because they don't like controversy and/or legal action against them. So without knowing the bylaws of the league, I have to assume that the commissioner couldn't force them to change it.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

I'm well aware of that. The PTO is simply stating that in their opinion it's a slur which means they aren't going to continue trademarking it. But you see my point I presume. Incidentally, the Redskins still own the trademark while the case is under appear (last time it took four or five years to decide). Furthermore they still own the common law trademark, so there's still protection for them in that sense.

Daniel Snyder has said on numerous occasions that the name will never change (regardless of trademarks). I take him at his word. Many people argue that "the league will make them change it." I suppose that's possible, but I've always maintained that if they had the power to do that they would have done so a long time ago. Not because they truly believe it's a racist term, but because they don't like controversy and/or legal action against them. So without knowing the bylaws of the league, I have to assume that the commissioner couldn't force them to change it.

The current suit is more or less a continuation of the previous suit. The filers made sure to correct what caused it to be overturned previously.

As soon as the process is done and anyone can make their merchandise without licensing it, then you'll see the name change.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

The current suit is more or less a continuation of the previous suit. The filers made sure to correct what caused it to be overturned previously.

As soon as the process is done and anyone can make their merchandise without licensing it, then you'll see the name change.

No they can't, common law trademark still stands, and PTO recognition is not relevant to its consideration. PTO recognition simply means that customs won't automatically confiscate violating goods on import and the like.

Common law trademark looks to the extent of use AS a trademark. The Redskins are firmly implanted with their logo and likeness as intended to signify the NFL team it represents. Infringement for gain is still against the common law when it is firm in the populace's mind that Redskins insignia indicates an item comes from and is marketed to the benefit of the NFL team that goes by Washington Redskins.

[Isupportthename]

Originally Posted by KC native

The current suit is more or less a continuation of the previous suit. The filers made sure to correct what caused it to be overturned previously.

As soon as the process is done and anyone can make their merchandise without licensing it, then you'll see the name change.

Keep in mind that the only part of the trademark that was stripped was WASHINGTON REDSKINS. The logo itself (which I think most people would agree is a fairly respectful-looking Indian head) is still under trademark. So yes, someone could make a shirt or hat that said just WASHINGTON REDSKINS. Knock yourself out. But the minute the logo is slapped on there it becomes a different story.