Chiefs Should the Chiefs change their name for more Respect?

Deberg_1990 · 10-24-2013, 04:48 PM

Well....should they?

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/24...-redskins.html

Read more Yael T. Abouhalkah

But what about the Kansas City Chiefs? Should the team alter its name, too?

In a lengthy report released this month, the National Congress of American Indians indicated its displeasure once again with the Redskins name. But it added some pretty tough language about other major league teams in other cities that have long ago adopted Native American names for their squads.

The Chiefs, in fact, were among those singled out for shame.

As the Congress noted:

“Often citing a long-held myth by non-Native people that ‘Indian’ mascots ‘honor Native people,’ American sports businesses such as the NFL’s Washington ‘Redsk*ns’ and Kansas City ‘Chiefs,’ MLB’s Cleveland ‘Indians’ and Atlanta ‘Braves,’ and the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.”

“Each of these professional sports businesses attempt to establish a story of honoring Native peoples through the names or mascots; however, each one — be it through logos or traditions (e.g., fight songs, mascots, human impersonators and fan culture) — diminishes the place, status and humanity of contemporary Native citizens.

“What is true about many of the brand origin stories is that team owners during the birth of these brands hoped to gain financially from mocking Native identity. As a result, these business perpetuated racial and political inequity. Those who have kept their logos and brands continue to do so.”

The report goes on to note that hundreds of universities and high schools have changed their Indian-related names.

And the Congress pointed out that — since the Chiefs were born in 1963 — “no professional teams have established new mascots that use racial stereotypes in their names and imagery.”

The point: The teams found out long ago this practice was offensive and stopped adding new names with American Indian references.

The further point: The professional teams still using the names — such as the Chiefs — are being offensive to Indians as well.

What do you think?

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/24...#storylink=cpy

WhitiE · 10-24-2013, 04:49 PM

**The Franchise** · 10-24-2013, 04:50 PM

What is this "Redsk*ns" bullshit?

MTG#10 · 10-24-2013, 04:51 PM

If they didn't want us naming our sports franchises after them the pussies should have fought harder.

Disclaimer: Im 1/4 Blackfoot so I'm allowed to say that.

**Bugeater** · 10-24-2013, 04:54 PM

What ****ing racial stereotypes are in our name or imagery? Hell I'm offended by the author's last name, he clearly intentionally spelled it that way so no white person could pronounce it.

**Easy 6** · 10-24-2013, 04:57 PM

The Kansas City Respect

Deberg_1990 · 10-24-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

What ****ing racial stereotypes are in our name or imagery? Hell I'm offended by the author's last name, he clearly intentionally spelled it that way so no white person could pronounce it.

I can't say for certain because I'm not Native American....but the Arrowhead maybe? Warpaint the horse? Do they still have that?
Posted via Mobile Device

Aries Walker · 10-24-2013, 05:00 PM

The litmus test is to apply it to a different ethnicity and see how it looks. By that standard, "Redskins" (which is roughly analogous to "Darkies" or "Yellows") is atrocious, as is the Cleveland Indians' unbelievably racist Chief Wahoo character. "Indians" is on the fence - some Native Americans don't like it at all, but some (most notably Russell Means) actually prefer it.

"Seminoles" or "Blackhawks" are like "Celtics" or "Spartans" - they should be OK, if treated with cultural sensitivity, and preferably with the backing and support of the tribe for which they are named - as FSU, incidentally, has. "Braves" are a term for a warrior caste within the culture, and is therefore on the same level as "Vikings". And "Chiefs" are no worse than "Kings", "Monarchs", or "Generals".

We could probably do without the tomahawk chop and the giant feathered headdresses, but Native Americans are an important part of our cultural history and identity, and we can't just pretend they're not there, or forbid their representation in our national sports.

**KcMizzou** · 10-24-2013, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

The litmus test is to apply it to a different ethnicity and see how it looks. By that standard, "Redskins" (which is roughly analogous to "Darkies" or "Yellows") is atrocious, as is the Cleveland Indians' unbelievably racist Chief Wahoo character. "Indians" is on the fence - some Native Americans don't like it at all, but some (most notably Russell Means) actually prefer it.

"Seminoles" or "Blackhawks" are like "Celtics" or "Spartans" - they should be OK, if treated with cultural sensitivity, and preferably with the backing and support of the tribe for which they are named - as FSU, incidentally, has. "Braves" are a term for a warrior caste within the culture, and is therefore on the same level as "Vikings". And "Chiefs" are no worse than "Kings", "Monarchs", or "Generals".

We could probably do without the tomahawk chop and the giant feathered headdresses, but Native Americans are an important part of our cultural history and identity, and we can't just pretend they're not there, or forbid their representation in our national sports.

Exactly. Well said.

**Bob Dole** · 10-24-2013, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

What ****ing racial stereotypes are in our name or imagery? Hell I'm offended by the author's last name, he clearly intentionally spelled it that way so no white person could pronounce it.

They should just change the name to "Kansas City" and keep everything else the same.

Except for the moronic tomahawk chop thing in which Bob Dole refuses to participate.

**CrazyPhuD** · 10-24-2013, 05:13 PM

WTH is wrong with the KC Chiefs...the team is named after the mayor....there is a WOLF for the mascot and the stadium is named after a bottle of water!

Mother****erJones · 10-24-2013, 05:14 PM

Kansas City TrapGames

JoeyChuckles · 10-24-2013, 05:14 PM

Kansas City Kings football team it is.

Sfeihc · 10-24-2013, 05:15 PM

Kudos to you Bob Dole. The Chop has to go. It's been dumb for 20+ years.

TEX · 10-24-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTG#10

If they didn't want us naming our sports franchises after them the pussies should have fought harder.

This all day long.

10-24-2013, 04:48 PM
Deberg_1990 In Search of a Life Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: San Antonio Tx. Casino cash: $3914454	Should the Chiefs change their name for more Respect? Well....should they? http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/24...-redskins.html Read more Yael T. Abouhalkah But what about the Kansas City Chiefs? Should the team alter its name, too? In a lengthy report released this month, the National Congress of American Indians indicated its displeasure once again with the Redskins name. But it added some pretty tough language about other major league teams in other cities that have long ago adopted Native American names for their squads. The Chiefs, in fact, were among those singled out for shame. As the Congress noted: “Often citing a long-held myth by non-Native people that ‘Indian’ mascots ‘honor Native people,’ American sports businesses such as the NFL’s Washington ‘Redsk*ns’ and Kansas City ‘Chiefs,’ MLB’s Cleveland ‘Indians’ and Atlanta ‘Braves,’ and the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks, continue to profit from harmful stereotypes originated during a time when white superiority and segregation were common place.” “Each of these professional sports businesses attempt to establish a story of honoring Native peoples through the names or mascots; however, each one — be it through logos or traditions (e.g., fight songs, mascots, human impersonators and fan culture) — diminishes the place, status and humanity of contemporary Native citizens. “What is true about many of the brand origin stories is that team owners during the birth of these brands hoped to gain financially from mocking Native identity. As a result, these business perpetuated racial and political inequity. Those who have kept their logos and brands continue to do so.” The report goes on to note that hundreds of universities and high schools have changed their Indian-related names. And the Congress pointed out that — since the Chiefs were born in 1963 — “no professional teams have established new mascots that use racial stereotypes in their names and imagery.” The point: The teams found out long ago this practice was offensive and stopped adding new names with American Indian references. The further point: The professional teams still using the names — such as the Chiefs — are being offensive to Indians as well. What do you think? Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/24...#storylink=cpy
Posts: 66,914

10-24-2013, 04:49 PM	#2
WhitiE so close Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: wichita Casino cash: $3186156	Nope
Posts: 2,263

10-24-2013, 04:50 PM	#3
The Franchise Most Valuable Villain Join Date: Dec 2006 Casino cash: $3155047	What is this "Redsk*ns" bullshit?
Posts: 91,967

10-24-2013, 04:51 PM	#4
MTG#10 Mammoth penis Join Date: May 2006 Location: Springfield Casino cash: $7534386	If they didn't want us naming our sports franchises after them the pussies should have fought harder. Disclaimer: Im 1/4 Blackfoot so I'm allowed to say that. Last edited by MTG#10; 10-24-2013 at 05:13 PM.. Reason: Added Disclaimer
Posts: 11,429

10-24-2013, 04:54 PM	#5
Bugeater The Maintenance Guy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Renovated Bugeater Estate Casino cash: $6252680	What ****ing racial stereotypes are in our name or imagery? Hell I'm offended by the author's last name, he clearly intentionally spelled it that way so no white person could pronounce it.
Posts: 70,443

10-24-2013, 04:57 PM	#6
Easy 6 pie is never free Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: the drivers seat Casino cash: $3777775	The Kansas City Respect
Posts: 91,629

10-24-2013, 05:00 PM	#8
Aries Walker Back again, again. Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: York, PA Casino cash: $9583357	The litmus test is to apply it to a different ethnicity and see how it looks. By that standard, "Redskins" (which is roughly analogous to "Darkies" or "Yellows") is atrocious, as is the Cleveland Indians' unbelievably racist Chief Wahoo character. "Indians" is on the fence - some Native Americans don't like it at all, but some (most notably Russell Means) actually prefer it. "Seminoles" or "Blackhawks" are like "Celtics" or "Spartans" - they should be OK, if treated with cultural sensitivity, and preferably with the backing and support of the tribe for which they are named - as FSU, incidentally, has. "Braves" are a term for a warrior caste within the culture, and is therefore on the same level as "Vikings". And "Chiefs" are no worse than "Kings", "Monarchs", or "Generals". We could probably do without the tomahawk chop and the giant feathered headdresses, but Native Americans are an important part of our cultural history and identity, and we can't just pretend they're not there, or forbid their representation in our national sports.
Posts: 8,179

10-24-2013, 05:13 PM	#11
CrazyPhuD Meow Join Date: Jun 2005 Casino cash: $10005050	WTH is wrong with the KC Chiefs...the team is named after the mayor....there is a WOLF for the mascot and the stadium is named after a bottle of water! __________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end"
Posts: 8,523

10-24-2013, 05:14 PM	#13
JoeyChuckles Bring It Home Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Haverbrook Casino cash: $10007012	Kansas City Kings football team it is.
Posts: 4,322

10-24-2013, 05:15 PM	#14
Sfeihc It's All Good Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Casino cash: $10010133	Kudos to you Bob Dole. The Chop has to go. It's been dumb for 20+ years.
Posts: 3,441