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

[SPATCH]

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.

You're way off.

We adopted the tomahawk chop from FSU and the Atlanta Braves. It's not "ours".

The tomahawk chop is a mockery and indefensible. We should step up and get rid of it.

EDIT: what I am getting at is that the team can afford to get rid of some of the stuff that is clearly offensive. As an organization, we shouldn't play the tomahawk chant over the loud-speaker, anymore. People can still show up dressed as they please. However, I would wager that the television networks will soon stop doing cut-aways to any fans wearing feathers/head-dresses.

What is important is that the team name, logo, and stadium name stay intact. The other stuff isn't important.

[ThatRaceCardGuy]

Originally Posted by Xanathol

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..."

Republicans are just as easily offended...Both sides are too sensitive. Try having a conversation about guns, gays, religion or illegals with your typical fox news republican..

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

You're way off.

We adopted the tomahawk chop from FSU and the Atlanta Braves. It's not "ours".

The tomahawk chop is a mockery and indefensible. We should step up and get rid of it.

Yes, I know where it was taken from. It's not original.

But it's still a part of the "culture" of home games and fandom.

[SPATCH]

Read the edit I just added to my post.

[Otter]

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.

Nonsense! Liberals will tell you EXACTLY what you and your culture should and are offended about.

REP

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

what I am getting at is that the team can afford to get rid of some of the stuff that is clearly offensive. As an organization, we shouldn't play the tomahawk chant over the loud-speaker, anymore. People can still show up dressed as they please. However, I would wager that the television networks will soon stop doing cut-aways to any fans wearing feathers/head-dresses.

What is important is that the team name, logo, and stadium name stay intact. The other stuff isn't important.

There's no logical reason to keep the name, logo or stadium name if everything else "offensive" is taken away.

It's an all-or-nothing change. Trying to handwave it away won't work.

[SPATCH]

I associate Gary Glitter - Rock and Roll (part 2) and Start Me Up more with the game day experience than I do the Tomahawk Chop.

[ThatRaceCardGuy]

If you don't think republicans play the "religion" card too much. Try taking prayer out of schools, passing gay marriage, removing the 10 comandments from court houses or separate church from state...talk about a sensitive bunch.

[SPATCH]

Look. This will have a domino effect. It may not happen for a very long time, but teams with NA inspired mascots are going to have their days numbered.

A team like the Cleveland Indians is definitely going to have to do a complete re-brand. The Blackhawks and Braves probably will to.

But, if we step up and cut out all the little things and start covering our asses right now, ourselves and Golden State Warriors have a good chance to survive with our team names intact for the rest of our lifetimes, at least.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

I associate Gary Glitter - Rock and Roll (part 2) and Start Me Up more with the game day experience than I do the Tomahawk Chop.

F that. I love my tomahawk chop. There's NOTHING like all of Arrowhead standing and doing it in unison. It is our war cry. It's 80,000 people saying "dammit this team sucks but I'm still here doing this shit."

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

You're way off.

We adopted the tomahawk chop from FSU and the Atlanta Braves. It's not "ours".

The tomahawk chop is a mockery and indefensible. We should step up and get rid of it.

EDIT: what I am getting at is that the team can afford to get rid of some of the stuff that is clearly offensive. As an organization, we shouldn't play the tomahawk chant over the loud-speaker, anymore. People can still show up dressed as they please. However, I would wager that the television networks will soon stop doing cut-aways to any fans wearing feathers/head-dresses.

What is important is that the team name, logo, and stadium name stay intact. The other stuff isn't important.

LOL where/how the hell is that clearly offensive ? it isn't doing anything to anyone. I'm sorry but that is a silly remark/viewpoint that is meaningless and proves nothing

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

I associate Gary Glitter - Rock and Roll (part 2) and Start Me Up more with the game day experience than I do the Tomahawk Chop.

so you are saying you support pedophiles ?

[SPATCH]

We got rid of War Horse as our mascot in the past. No one seems to care too much about that now. People won't care about the Tomahawk Chop in the future. Even if headdresses are outlawed in the stadium, people will get over that, as well.

[Sorce]

As far as I know there is no law saying a business must not offend people. Just like there is no law preventing the offended from boycotting that business. Think about the deal with Chic-Fil-A and gay marriage, they weren't forced to change their stance because it offended people, just had to deal with the consequences from potential customers. The problem the Redskins have is with their copyright being deemed offensive and thus revoked. This hurts them monetarily. There is nothing offensive about the Chiefs name or logo or even Arrowhead Stadium. Maybe people are offended by some of the traditions but that isn't legally challengeable. Any changes would simply be by the Chiefs to try to appease the PC crowd, who weren't paying to come to games anyway.

[ModSocks]

Originally Posted by SPATCH

We got rid of War Horse as our mascot in the past. No one seems to care too much about that now. People won't care about the Tomahawk Chop in the future. Even if headdresses are outlawed in the stadium, people will get over that, as well.

true