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

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen

No, the 1863 piece marks the change in primary usage from self-identification to racism. By the time the 1900's roll around, you have books like Redskin Rimes and cartoons and westerns using the word (usually) in a derogatory way.

From what I've read, however, I do think it's unlikely the team owner (a notorious racist himself) meant the team name to be racist. I think he saw it as just a word that was used -- and I think I can buy the idea that the team name was meant to honor a Revolutionary War figure named Tammany.

But the word is considered racist. No way around it. It's like how sometimes people would refer to the runaway slave in Huckleberry Finn as "N-word Jim." It was just a word that was used at the time, but we can now acknowledge that it's usage is derogatory and we don't use it.

The Chiefs name is safe. It's not a slur. It's has no history of being a slur. I found it telling that this woman suggested that if the Chiefs changed their name as an act of good faith, then maybe it would force the Redskins to change their name. Chiefs is safe.

LOL no , ****er is not the same as redskin in any,way, shape or form

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Really I would like to see that confirmed.
.

Common ****ing sense confirms it.

[Crying Ramtard]

http://www.moneynews.com/NealAsbury/.../26/id/579472/

An Attack on Intellectual Property Is an Attack on US Business

This is all about ideology, and not about the legality of a trademark. Does this mean that as a business owner I have to look over my shoulder for fear that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can void my intellectual property at any moment? Can the government now decide on a whim what trademarks are offensive?

What powerful force caused the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to revoke the trademark of the Washington Redskins? A lawsuit brought by five American Indians who contend the name disparages them.

Currently, there are 600 trademarks that carry an American Indian image. These are held by 450 companies. Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office going after all of these? Are these five American Indians going to be spending the rest of their lives in court?

This case could start an avalanche of attacks on intellectual property. I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers representing the Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's brands are huddling late in the night in the event some black Americans decide to bring suit over their brand's depiction of black Americans.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Nothing like a premature celebration blowing up in your face huh?

Dr Van Halen just destroyed your entire line of argument.

[seamonster]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

George Preston Marshall, owner and founder of the franchise, sought to rename the Boston Braves after leaving the stadium they shared with the baseball team of the same name. The name was changed to ‘Redskins’ to honor then-coach Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux.



It doesn't matter the good intentions, typical liberal PC bullshit

I'll never understand why people are loosing their shit about changing the redskins name. I couldn't start a black skin team with a black-face brother on the helmet. And the slippery slope PITA thing is funny. For whatever reason uneducated midwestern people ****ing love themselves some strawman and slippery slope arguments. Never fails.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by KC native

Nothing like a premature celebration blowing up in your face huh?

Dr Van Halen just destroyed your entire line of argument.

Note to self, buy KCN a dictionary.

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Really I would like to see that confirmed.
Because when Columbus came over there were no Chiefs on his boat. Before we came to America there was not a Chief of anything that I am aware of.

[PHOG]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

Really I would like to see that confirmed.
Because when Columbus came over there were no Chiefs on his boat. Before we came to America there was not a Chief of anything that I am aware of.

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by seamonster

I'll never understand why people are loosing their shit about changing the redskins name. I couldn't start a black skin team with a black-face brother on the helmet. And the slippery slope PITA thing is funny. For whatever reason uneducated midwestern people ****ing love themselves some strawman and slippery slope arguments. Never fails.

you aren't too specific, what do you mean ?

[LoneWolf]

Originally Posted by seamonster

I'll never understand why people are loosing their shit about changing the redskins name. I couldn't start a black skin team with a black-face brother on the helmet. And the slippery slope PITA thing is funny. For whatever reason uneducated midwestern people ****ing love themselves some strawman and slippery slope arguments. Never fails.

[Crying Ramtard]

http://fansided.com/2014/05/22/nfl-r...s-name/#!5AIpQ

[MAYHEM]

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

LOL no , ****er is not the same as redskin in any,way, shape or form

I think they are pretty similar. Both are slurs based on skin color. (negro is the spanish word for the color black)

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by MAYHEM

I think they are pretty similar. Both are slurs based on skin color. (negro is the spanish word for the color black)

thinking it does, doesn't make it a problem. And what does defining negroe have to do with it ? the Black people kept moving the goal posts too for 30 years. First Negroe was ok, then it wasn't then black was ok then you had to say African American even if they never came from Africa. Liberals and dumb people are just ...dumb on many levels.

[Crying Ramtard]

http://www.cullmantimes.com/localspo...-name-prideful

SPARTA, Ky. — Count former Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs among those who has no problem with the team's name.

The NFL team that Gibbs led to three Super Bowl titles in the first of two stints as coach has been heavily criticized for its nickname that's viewed as derogatory toward Native Americans. A group of U.S. senators and President Barack Obama have suggested it should be changed, which team owner Daniel Snyder vehemently refuses.

Asked about the controversy before the NASCAR race Saturday at Kentucky Speedway, the Hall of Fame coach and racing team owner defended the Redskins name.

"Never once did I hear anybody ever say anything negative about the name Redskins," Gibbs said about his time with the team. "It was always prideful, it was courage involved. We have a song, 'Hail to the Redskins," and so everything, everything, about that name has been positive for me and my past."

Growing up in North Carolina, Gibbs said the Redskins were the only NFL team on TV and that he "pulled for them my whole life" and said he never dreamed of coaching them from 1981-92 and again from 2004-07.

Washington won Super Bowls in the 1982, 1987 and 1991 seasons. Gibbs also became a NASCAR team owner during that period and has gone on to win three Sprint Cup titles as well as the 1993 Daytona 500.

[Crying Ramtard]

Originally Posted by MAYHEM

I think they are pretty similar. Both are slurs based on skin color. (negro is the spanish word for the color black)

again, Redskin has no where on any majority level been established as a slur except by a minority of obsessive complainers