Chiefs Woman behind the Redskins name change says the Chiefs should be on guard - Page 52

**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

Sweet Daddy Hate · 10-13-2014, 07:05 AM

"The tribe of Snyder offers many beads in exchange"

Pasta Little Brioni · 10-13-2014, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Was a cool picture

Someone shop Danny smoking a big ole peace pipe Cheech and Chong style

displacedinMN · 10-22-2014, 03:06 PM

The City of Minneapolis lacks the legal standing to keep Washington’s NFL team from using its nickname when it plays the Vikings here next month, the city’s attorney said Wednesday.
City Council members had expressed interested in taking action against the team, which has been criticized by Native American groups and other organizations for its use of the Redskins nickname. The game will take place at the University of Minnesota, which has publicized its own objection to the use of the word.
City Attorney Susan Segal said that while her she and some members of her office “would like nothing better” than to take legal action to help force the team to change its name, the city has limited options. She told a council committee that a ban on the name could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, and noted that the city’s civil rights ordinance does not apply to the University of Minnesota.
Segal said it’s possible someone could launch a lawsuit on the basis that the use of the name violated rules about public accommodations, but that would have to be done by an individual who could claim that the use of the word created a hostile environment.
“Unfortunately,” she said, “I think we’ve come to the conclusion that the city itself does not have a cause of action against the team that is likely to be successful. In some ways, we are about the worst plaintiff you can try to (use) for an expansion of law in this ar

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Zarth

God dammit I'm voting for the Republicans in the next election.

Wholly shit... there is hope for the count yet!

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You don't get to decide what's offensive to the ~~people of rougeish complexion~~ native Americans find offensive. That's for them to decide. They find it offensive. The name "Chiefs" must go.

Are you serious? There are a group of people that think Harry Potter is a form of witchcraft and therefore offensive. This group is probably larger than the group of people offended by Indian names for sports teams.

Should Harry Potter be pulled from the shelves?

Nevermind... I see now that this was said in sarcasm.

Just Passin' By · 10-22-2014, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temper11

Are you serious? There are a group of people that think Harry Potter is a form of witchcraft and therefore offensive. This group is probably larger than the group of people offended by Indian names for sports teams.

Should Harry Potter be pulled from the shelves?

You really should read the whole thread.

However, along a tangent, but with regards to the esteemed Mr. Potter....

Quote:

The superintendent made the decision for three primary reasons, Hansen said. First, Halloween parties and parades waste valuable classroom time. Second, some families can't afford costumes and the celebrations thus can create embarrassment for children.

Both of those reasons seemed sensible to the parents who spoke to ABC News affiliate KOMO-TV in Seattle. But the district's third reason left some Puyallup parents shaking their heads.

The district said Halloween celebrations and children dressed in Halloween costumes might be offensive to real witches.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=184701

Today, everyone can be a victim, and the idea of not being offended is becoming a stealth 'right' at the expense of the actual First Amendment.

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hometeam

Except.. there is no malicious intent behind it. All these teams are honoring the traditions and people behind the imagery they use.

Not to mention, racism, pseudo racism, implied racism is not illegal.

They can bitch all they want. The problem occurs when the government gets involved.

This whole movement is similar to the sharia law movement in the Europe. Next thing you know muslims will start suing newspapers for printing images of mohammed. Where does it end?

This. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. You are welcome to picket all you want. If you get enough people to stop going to the games and supporting the Redskins because they are offended with you - then the team will change it's name, because not doing so would be bad for business. You win.

If you make government get involved and force the team to change it's name, then America, and the freedom loving people in it, loses.

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 05:17 PM

If they are forced to change the name, and another little piece of freedom is ripped from the heart of America, they should just rename it the

(C h e f s). Keep everything else exactly the same.

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You really should read the whole thread.

However, along a tangent, but with regards to the esteemed Mr. Potter....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=184701

Today, everyone can be a victim, and the idea of not being offended is becoming a stealth 'right' at the expense of the actual First Amendment.

OH... MY... GOD.

temper11 · 10-22-2014, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

Native does have a point.

Any time these types of threads come around we see just how "diverse" CP actually is. Apparently, about 85% of you are 1/4 Blackfoot. It's just so comical when you guys step in here with your tirade "I'm 1/16th Cherokee and I'm not offended so why could anyone else possibly be!?!"

You're not Native American, bitch, you're ****ing white as shit. Sit your ass down somewhere.

Again... the point isn't whether or not native americans are offended. Some are, some aren't. The point is whether or not the government should have the authority to make a private company change their name because people are offended.

If someone started a team called the white, middle aged bald dudes, I shouldn't be able to throw a little bitch fit and make big daddy Obama step in and fix it for me. If you make being offensive against the law, then we will all be thrown in jail.

**BigRedChief** · 10-22-2014, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by temper11

Again... the point isn't whether or not native americans are offended. Some are, some aren't. The point is whether or not the government should have the authority to make a private company change their name because people are offended.

If someone started a team called the white, middle aged bald dudes, I shouldn't be able to throw a little bitch fit and make big daddy Obama step in and fix it for me. If you make being offensive against the law, then we will all be thrown in jail.

Leave the partisan politics out of this discussion please.

I don't know of any plans/discussion by Obama or the government to make the Redskins change their name. Why bring that into the discussion?

People don't like something, they have a right to protest whatever the **** they don't like. Doesn't mean that they get their way, just the right to voice their opinion.

stevieray · 10-22-2014, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Leave the partisan politics out of this discussion please.

....kind of ironic, considering this is based on political correctness.

Titans
Giants
Bears
Lions
Redskins

oh the horror of associating Indians with badassness.

the funniest thing is..black people arent black, white people arent white, asians arent yellow, and indians aren't red.

Just Passin' By · 10-22-2014, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Leave the partisan politics out of this discussion please.

I don't know of any plans/discussion by Obama or the government to make the Redskins change their name. Why bring that into the discussion?

People don't like something, they have a right to protest whatever the **** they don't like. Doesn't mean that they get their way, just the right to voice their opinion.

The trademark office ruled the word to be offensive, removing valuable protections. That's happened before, and it was overruled, but we're back to that point again.

Additionally, the FCC is now possibly getting into the act, considering a ruling that would "ban TV stations from saying the name of Washington's football team".

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/...-name-20140930

Direckshun · 10-22-2014, 10:44 PM

I don't really care.

I'd hope the Chiefs could keep the logo somehow, but losing the name the Chiefs and the name Arrowhead Stadium would only be symbolic losses that I'm sure I'd get over in a month or so.

Anybody shitting their pants that the Chiefs, a billion dollar corporation, has to change mascots, needs to relax and realize it's a first world problem.

temper11 · 10-23-2014, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Leave the partisan politics out of this discussion please.

I don't know of any plans/discussion by Obama or the government to make the Redskins change their name. Why bring that into the discussion?

People don't like something, they have a right to protest whatever the **** they don't like. Doesn't mean that they get their way, just the right to voice their opinion.

I said Obama because he is the current president. And the government that he leads is beginning to take a more active role in this debate. It is the government's job to protect our rights. Not being offended is not a right.

06-25-2014, 11:01 PM
BigRedChief Has a particular set of skills Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the water Casino cash: $2999627 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: 79,137

10-13-2014, 07:05 AM	#766
Sweet Daddy Hate Unsparing Join Date: Aug 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	"The tribe of Snyder offers many beads in exchange" __________________ 1. Merciless, severe. 2. Given freely and generously. 100% refusal to overrate 20 year Head Coaches with ZERO **ing rings as a Head Coach. CP's Official Professor of 'Dem Blues for 2019/2020!**
Posts: 77,135

10-22-2014, 03:06 PM	#768
displacedinMN It was not a fair catch Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Correcting papers Casino cash: $2802630	The City of Minneapolis lacks the legal standing to keep Washington’s NFL team from using its nickname when it plays the Vikings here next month, the city’s attorney said Wednesday. City Council members had expressed interested in taking action against the team, which has been criticized by Native American groups and other organizations for its use of the Redskins nickname. The game will take place at the University of Minnesota, which has publicized its own objection to the use of the word. City Attorney Susan Segal said that while her she and some members of her office “would like nothing better” than to take legal action to help force the team to change its name, the city has limited options. She told a council committee that a ban on the name could be seen as a violation of the First Amendment, and noted that the city’s civil rights ordinance does not apply to the University of Minnesota. Segal said it’s possible someone could launch a lawsuit on the basis that the use of the name violated rules about public accommodations, but that would have to be done by an individual who could claim that the use of the word created a hostile environment. “Unfortunately,” she said, “I think we’ve come to the conclusion that the city itself does not have a cause of action against the team that is likely to be successful. In some ways, we are about the worst plaintiff you can try to (use) for an expansion of law in this ar __________________ #investigatecarlcheffers
Posts: 36,399

10-22-2014, 05:17 PM	#773
temper11 Veteran Join Date: Nov 2013 Casino cash: $10014156	If they are forced to change the name, and another little piece of freedom is ripped from the heart of America, they should just rename it the (C h e f s). Keep everything else exactly the same. __________________ **disclaimer. Nothing in this post was meant to offend, or in any way slander the good people of Kansas City or the obviously passionate fans of the KC Chiefs.
Posts: 2,763

10-22-2014, 10:44 PM	#779
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $4263447	I don't really care. I'd hope the Chiefs could keep the logo somehow, but losing the name the Chiefs and the name Arrowhead Stadium would only be symbolic losses that I'm sure I'd get over in a month or so. Anybody shitting their pants that the Chiefs, a billion dollar corporation, has to change mascots, needs to relax and realize it's a first world problem.
Posts: 59,299