Chiefs Woman behind the Redskins name change says the Chiefs should be on guard - Page 33

**BigRedChief** · 06-25-2014, 11:01 PM

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** · 06-27-2014, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

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.

Actually, as I pointed out above, WASHINGTON REDSKINS is protected in the common law as well, the PTOs decision simply means that the Federal government won't do any heavy lifting/de facto enforcement on their behalf any more.

Strongside · 06-27-2014, 10:39 AM

I've said this before. I hold a CDIB card. My dad grew up on a rez. This does not offend me in the slightest. I'm more worried about the lack of support for NA communities from our government. They think designating a spot of land to a people and throwing money at them will heal the wounds of the past...the only thing that will do that is restoring the relationship that Natives have with the land, not giving it to them. The culture is hanging on by a thread, and alcoholism/drug abuse has overrun reservations everywhere. Let's focus the same energy on solving that issue, and not spend precious time, money and resources complaining about the name of a football team.

Discuss Thrower · 06-27-2014, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside

I've said this before. I hold a CDIB card. My dad grew up on a rez. This does not offend me in the slightest. I'm more worried about the lack of support for NA communities from our government. They think designating a spot of land to a people and throwing money at them will heal the wounds of the past...the only thing that will do that is restoring the relationship that Natives have with the land, not giving it to them. The culture is hanging on by a thread, and alcoholism/drug abuse has overrun reservations everywhere. Let's focus the same energy on solving that issue, and not spend precious time, money and resources complaining about the name of a football team.

Too much effort is required for that.

It's better to distract people with things that are "easier" to fix.

Discuss Thrower · 06-27-2014, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isupportthename

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.

I'd bet the name changes once the other owners decided to withhold revenue sharing from Snyder.

Or, if the TV networks refuse to televise games the Redskins are playing.

Garcia Bronco · 06-27-2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I'd bet the name changes once the other owners decided to withhold revenue sharing from Snyder.

Or, if the TV networks refuse to televise games the Redskins are playing.

They can't and they can't

The other owner would get sued and Synder would win

and the networks would get their FCC lic yanked.

Garcia Bronco · 06-27-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside

I've said this before. I hold a CDIB card. My dad grew up on a rez. This does not offend me in the slightest. I'm more worried about the lack of support for NA communities from our government. They think designating a spot of land to a people and throwing money at them will heal the wounds of the past...the only thing that will do that is restoring the relationship that Natives have with the land, not giving it to them. The culture is hanging on by a thread, and alcoholism/drug abuse has overrun reservations everywhere. Let's focus the same energy on solving that issue, and not spend precious time, money and resources complaining about the name of a football team.

This

Isupportthename · 06-27-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I'd bet the name changes once the other owners decided to withhold revenue sharing from Snyder.

Or, if the TV networks refuse to televise games the Redskins are playing.

Also keep in mind that Snyder is one of the highest contributors to revenue sharing, so he's paying more into it than he's taking from it. So based on that premise, maybe the onus should be on the rest of the league to help fight people trying to strip the name.

Xanathol · 06-27-2014, 10:52 AM

Quote:

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.

We've been there, done that. The results overwhelmingly didn't fit the libtard agenda, so instead they threw up countless articles on why Native Americans 'just don't get it' and thus liberals must change it for them, whether Native Americans want it changed or not! ( Seriously - google that shit - it is insane. )

Typical libtard: "You will be offended if I tell you to, damnit! The rest of you stop saying it is flattering or a tribute to your people! This 1 bitch complaining represents you because it fits my agenda! Now go back to drinking the liquor I put in your teepees! Savages..."

Strongside · 06-27-2014, 10:55 AM

Ban Looney Tunes.

Fish · 06-27-2014, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strongside

I've said this before. I hold a CDIB card. My dad grew up on a rez. This does not offend me in the slightest. I'm more worried about the lack of support for NA communities from our government. They think designating a spot of land to a people and throwing money at them will heal the wounds of the past...the only thing that will do that is restoring the relationship that Natives have with the land, not giving it to them. The culture is hanging on by a thread, and alcoholism/drug abuse has overrun reservations everywhere. Let's focus the same energy on solving that issue, and not spend precious time, money and resources complaining about the name of a football team.

That makes way too much sense. Why are you not offended!?

Crying Ramtard · 06-27-2014, 11:04 AM

Buffalo Bill killed lots of indians

SPATCH · 06-27-2014, 11:13 AM

Chiefs should be a little bit proactive. Cut out the tomahawk chant music and war drum at the stadium.

We got rid of the old Chiefs logo that had the Indian on it a long time ago. We got rid of the guy on the horse with a head dress a long time ago.

Just cut out the native-american inspired chants playing over the loud-speaker. And MAYBE ask people not to wear head-dresses to the game, MAYBE (although you can't really stop that).

After that, there won't be too much to find offensive.

And if it ever went to court I don't think there would be any way that the plaintiff side could prove that our name/logo was disparaging.

Crying Ramtard · 06-27-2014, 11:17 AM

@spatch that's not proactive. that's called backpedaling and giving in to fools

Discuss Thrower · 06-27-2014, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPATCH

Chiefs should be a little bit proactive. Cut out the tomahawk chant music and war drum at the stadium.

We got rid of the old Chiefs logo that had the Indian on it a long time ago. We got rid of the guy on the horse with a head dress a long time ago.

Just cut out the native-american inspired chants playing over the loud-speaker. And MAYBE ask people not to wear head-dresses to the game, MAYBE (although you can't really stop that).

After that, there won't be too much to find offensive.

And if it ever went to court I don't think there would be any way that the plaintiff side could prove that our name/logo was disparaging.

Then it's not really the "Chiefs" then.

The tomahawk chop, the Indian related imagery a la headdresses and red face paint is what pretty much every Chiefs fan associates with the team.

If you get rid of some that stuff, then you might as well get rid of all of it.

**Baby Lee** · 06-27-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Then it's not really the "Chiefs" then.

The tomahawk chop, the Indian related imagery a la headdresses and red face paint is what pretty much every Chiefs fan associates with the team.

If you get rid of some that stuff, then you might as well get rid of all of it.

I associate them more with defensive [and Raiders] dominance in the 90s, great RBs since 2000 or so and playoff futility since 1993.

06-25-2014, 11:01 PM
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $2859627 VARSITY	Woman behind the Redskins name change says the Chiefs should be on guard 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
Posts: 79,212

06-27-2014, 10:39 AM	#482
Strongside Mahomes or GTFO Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: KC Casino cash: $5874282	I've said this before. I hold a CDIB card. My dad grew up on a rez. This does not offend me in the slightest. I'm more worried about the lack of support for NA communities from our government. They think designating a spot of land to a people and throwing money at them will heal the wounds of the past...the only thing that will do that is restoring the relationship that Natives have with the land, not giving it to them. The culture is hanging on by a thread, and alcoholism/drug abuse has overrun reservations everywhere. Let's focus the same energy on solving that issue, and not spend precious time, money and resources complaining about the name of a football team. __________________
Posts: 13,201

06-27-2014, 10:55 AM	#489
Strongside Mahomes or GTFO Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: KC Casino cash: $5874282	Ban Looney Tunes. __________________
Posts: 13,201

06-27-2014, 11:04 AM	#491
Crying Ramtard Veteran Join Date: Jun 2014 Casino cash: $10012670	Buffalo Bill killed lots of indians
Posts: 1,199

06-27-2014, 11:13 AM	#492
SPATCH birth of spatch Join Date: May 2008 Casino cash: $10006207	Chiefs should be a little bit proactive. Cut out the tomahawk chant music and war drum at the stadium. We got rid of the old Chiefs logo that had the Indian on it a long time ago. We got rid of the guy on the horse with a head dress a long time ago. Just cut out the native-american inspired chants playing over the loud-speaker. And MAYBE ask people not to wear head-dresses to the game, MAYBE (although you can't really stop that). After that, there won't be too much to find offensive. And if it ever went to court I don't think there would be any way that the plaintiff side could prove that our name/logo was disparaging.
Posts: 4,569

06-27-2014, 11:17 AM	#493
Crying Ramtard Veteran Join Date: Jun 2014 Casino cash: $10012670	@spatch that's not proactive. that's called backpedaling and giving in to fools
Posts: 1,199