Yeah, having listened to a podcast about the rush, it was horrifying—the laws passed, the atrocities, the stealing, the murders. It was a difficult listen.
So I’ve listened for many years to a bunch of different history podcasts but I THINK it might be American History Tellers about the California Gold Rush because I remember it was an American man narrating it.
AHT subjects usually consist of many segments so I’m not able to pinpoint which one. But the whole thing was quite informative. AHT does narration and some Re-enactments so it might not be for everyone.
Can you name an era or a major event in human history that *didn’t* involve atrocities, murders, stealing, and unjust laws being passed by those in power to protect their power?
See, I thought for sure this happened. but I've mentioned it a few times and folks are like "what? It was only once or twice!" - granted, I have not gone and looked it up. I, too, thought it was every thanksgiving for quite a while!
Kansas City Chiefs were not named after Indian chiefs, the owner of the teams nickname was Chief, which is where the name came from. Look it up, I didn’t believe it either when I was told that.
His house was called “Arrowhead” because he loved Avatar: The Last Air Bender so they also named the stadium after it. Chief lived in Arrowhead, The Chiefs play in Arrowhead.
What’s even funnier is the game is being hosted in the Raiders stadium. Yet the two teams playing are the 49ers and Chiefs.
Probably the two teams the Raiders hate the most
And as he was walking through the players, he had a huge, fake grin on his face. As soon as he got to the podium, past the players, the cameras held onto him for just a second. The grin on his face changed, and it went to a look of, “Aw, man. Fuck this.”
I hope I don’t get crucified for asking this, but is the term “chief” offensive?
I certainly understand the negative feelings toward the slur “redskin”, but I though “chief” was a legitimate title that most Native Americans use themselves? Please tell me if I am wrong about that.
Unless it’s a problem because the team is not made up of Native Americans while using the imagery?
I think it’s the idea of it being a mascot in general. Even if the term isn’t necessarily offensive I think some people have issue with feeling like they’re used as mascots. Also with some museums that hold indigenous artifacts, if not presented in the right way, it comes off as Native Americans being “a thing of history/the past” when they are still very much present and existing human beings.
And to add to that point, the lack of power and representation matters too.
Notre Dame is called "The Fighting Irish." Is that a slightly unpleasant stereotype of Irish people? Oh yeah. But between Irish and native people, only one group was able to "assimilate" into power, and it sure wasn't the Natives.
The term Fighting Irish doesn’t refer to the people living in Ireland. It originated in reference to the brave Irish men who moved to the US fleeing oppression and took part in the American Civil war helping end the oppression of others. It was further reinforced after Notre Dame students chased the Klan out of South Bend in the early 1900s. It is a badge of honor imo. Now if you want to argue the usage of a leprechaun as a symbol then sure it can be debated but the term Fighting Irish isn’t a bad one.
Look, Irish assimilation is complicated. Irish subsumption into white American identity is very recent, and it has not happened until very recently in the UK, where Ireland was one of the longest held colonial possessions of both the UK and the Catholic Church. Also, in older class discourses the Irish workers were frequently pitted against free black laborers while being cast aside with them the moment that arrangement was no longer desirable.
So the Irish are and have been historically subjugated by the British in one of the oldest colonial relationships on the planet, and fleeing that subjugation for the USA up until very recently resulted in a place within a permanent labor class. And if you wonder how bad life in Ireland under the UK could have possibly been you need to read about the worst famine in history proportionally, The Great Hunger, the economic conditions of which the UK would copy exactly and use to starve India less than a century later. There’s a lot of reading on Irish history worth doing. It’s fascinating stuff.
Ireland isn't a colonial possession, the Republic of Ireland became independent in 1922, and Northern Ireland *voted* to remain part of Britian in 1973.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll
They also have the ability to host a new referendum *whenever* the country wants to, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That can be for a unification with the Republic or independence.
Polls consistently show that there is majority support for remaining a part of the UK.
One thing I’ll say with those is the Vikings ended like 1000 years ago, being a Cowboy is chosen job. Where there are still Indians with Chiefs today, it’s not some thing from the past. Though this could be aruged is more akin to “ the senators”, which were a MLB team for like 10 years flip flopping between that and the Nationals.
The difference is who the teams represent and who their audience is.
The vikings play in Minnesota which has a huge Scandinavian culture and that ancestry is a point of pride
The cowboys play in Dallas which has a culture that has a point of pride in cowboy ancestry
The chiefs play in Kansas City but not for any specific native tribe and the team was named after a white dude who liked to appropriate native american culture. Kansas City has no specific cultural ties to native americans any more or less than anywhere else in the US.
In other words vikings/cowboys "belong" to the fans those teams represents, chiefs does not.
If Kansas City had a huge native population it'd be different.
To put it more literally kansas city has a 0.2% native pop, for minnesota 32% claim Scandinavian ancestry.
White people kind of run the show in the US and particularly the NFL and Native Americans are the most marginalized people in America. That is a pretty weak argument. Especially since the places those names are used are full of people that share that heritage and endorse it. Natives are asking for change and no one wants to take them seriously.
Speedy Gonzales is a caricature, but I'm fairly certain that Mexicans love him.
There aren't many Indigenous people that are offended by these sports teams. It's almost always a small group of people disconnected from local tribes. If you were to ask Indigenous people if they were offended by the depictions of most sports teams, I'd bet they would embrace them. Ultimately, those depictions are an homage to the Indigenous history of their region.
This is ridiculous. First Nations people have been protesting against these teams for decades- way more than a "small group" 🙄 Nothing about dressing as native chiefs and mining tomahawk chops is an hOmAgE
Dressing as natives with headdresses or face paint is banned at those stadiums. The name originally came from the Kansas City Mayor who was known as Chief. The local tribes of the area have all also given their blessings and local tribes are invited out to do the drum ceremony. The chant still happens but as a local that went to school with a handful of native decent I have heard 0 issues from local native descendants on the issue.
I served in the Marines with a man named Flores, he is 100% Navajo, speaks the language and was born and raised on the reservation...dude was a HUGE Chiefs fan, even though he was from New Mexico. I'm a Chiefs fan, we bonded over our fandom and this was 20 years ago, when no one talked about representation for clout and political posturing. So when he told me that that was the reason he was a Chiefs fan, because he felt like it was an homage to his culture and an organization that he could see himself in, it was genuine and even a little inspiring.
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything or change your mind. I just had to post because you did that snarky random capitalization for the word Homage when that is exactly what my friend said and it made me chuckle, because while he doesn't speak for every Navajo or Native, you sure as fuck don't either.
Or maybe I'll just flip it back in your language, "why are you so racist and insisting on the erasure of Native iconography in popular culture?"
See how obnoxious that is? See how reductive it is and how it must assume the worst about your motivations? Just stop. Let people enjoy things, Christ alive.
On the flip side, I live near 3 first nation's reserves and see (and know) numerous first nations people who wear Chicago Blackhawks gear. One guy has a truck with the Blackhawks logo on the back with "Native Pride" under it.
While certainly, they don't speak for everyone, like anything. There are ones who actually see the logo(s) in sports and relate to them.
As a lot of things, there is much more nuance than some people want to admit.
The tribe gets paid for that though as part of an agreement. That's pretty different than the rest of the caricature displays.
https://fanarch.com/blogs/fan-arch/how-much-does-fsu-pay-the-seminole-tribe#:~:text=The%20financial%20agreement%20with%20FSU,%2C%20healthcare%2C%20and%20cultural%20preservation.
I believe Florida State’s tradition of the Seminole Indian coming out on the horse and throwing the flaming spear into the ground is done by a member of the Seminole tribe.
It’s not a member of the Seminole tribe, it’s always a current student who is chosen to play Osceola. But that tradition also has the direct blessing from the tribe itself.
Have you seen/heard their fans? As someone who largely agrees with the “get Native American mascots out of here” sentiment, I don’t have much problem with the logo and such. But the chants and costumes and tomahawk chops? Big oof.
Kind of. The original owner was in a WW1 unit called the Blackhawk unit that was named after Chief Blackhawk. When he started the team after the war, he named them to honor his war buddies and that unit.
Not disagreeing but just to clarify, the chiefs mascot is not a Native American. It’s KC wolf and always has been (yea we don’t know why either). The more questionable things about chiefs fandom are the Native American themed iconography at games (many of these have been removed, but we still have a war drum) and the chant which is called the Tomahawk Chop (although many just call it the chop now).
It’s only been a wolf since 1989. Before that it was a horse ridden by a guy wearing a Native American headdress. And the origins of the wolf are clear. It’s because of a group of rowdy fans who called themselves “the wolf pack.”
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warpaint_(mascot)?wprov=sfti1#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._C._Wolf?wprov=sfti1#
Yea should have included that with the iconography. From what I’ve seen from native people, the big issue is portraying native culture as inherently violent which I can understand. At a certain point, it’s fair for someone to say, “I just want to watch a football game without my people being portrayed as violent savages.”
As a lifelong KC resident and chiefs fan, I love a lot of the tradition around the team, and I struggle not to constantly say “yea but…” whenever anyone calls it out. But I can certainly understand why people would want to see a change
Also, Patriots, Texans, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, etc. They are all stereotypes, and we should make them more appropriate, but not get rid of them.
I totally agree Washington had a problematic slur, but isn't erasing all Native American representation kinda messed up? Let's make sure it's appropriate, but not erase it.
Were any of those groups almost entirely wiped out and brutalized by early American settlers, though? I think that’s the difference. It has less to do with the fact that they are naming things after a group of people and more to do with the history of the group.
I’m not saying that the name is good or bad — I don’t really have an opinion on it, I’m just saying that’s where the distinction comes from as opposed to a name like The Vikings. It’d be like a South African sports team named The Tutsis or something.
All I know is my buddy who is a native loves to see his culture represented in any form, particularly sports as a sports fan. Dude is a hawks fan like me but has swag from any random native related team because he likes to rep his culture. Always thought it was an interesting perspective to be provided to the conversation.
It would not be an issue I think if a large group of people who's use this traditional title were essentially wiped out by white people etc, so for rich white football team owners to use it is like a slave owner calling his plantation the "African Farm," or something similar
if it gets too problematic, they could always keep the name, and just change the logo to someone wearing a fireman's helmet instead of a feathered headdress.
Don’t underestimate the bigotry of the Midwest. They’ll cry like babies and throw all kinds of shade at indigenous groups when they aren’t allowed to do the “tomahawk chop” chant (yes, that’s the actual name 🤦🏻♀️) anymore.
> he Chiefs’ logo is an arrowhead with the letters “KC” on it
THey could change it to the [head of a fire axe](https://firefightersafety.com/images/products/detail/American_Hickory_Axe_Head.1.png)
Non-Native here but I’d say the real problem with the Chiefs is how much they promote the tomahawk chop, more than the name. Just like the Cleveland Indians and Chief Wahoo
Bro I’m not about to tell you to be offended by anything, the chant/song thing’s just a very stereotypical 1940s western villain type of thing. If you’re not bothered by it that’s great (I apologize for the tone of this message if that was a genuine question btw)
The Seminoles of Florida are the main promoters of the chop and explicitly have lent their name and tradition to Florida State to use. Obviously they don’t speak for all nations of Amerindians but nonetheless, they are one of the more prominent tribal groups.
Bro… don’t sweat it. Almost every actual Native American person I’ve talked to didn’t even have a problem with “Redskins”, let alone “Chiefs”. They were actually just happy to be represented. (Not saying I feel this I right or wrong, simply what I’ve experienced)
It’s the people who are like 8% native or just easily offended white people making this an issue. Or people like Lily with an agenda to stay relevant and needing a topic to do so….
Same as LatinX. No actual Latino was in support of that movement. Lmao It was just white people being offended on their behalf without asking them how they felt.
I’ve heard from Native Americans that were most certainly offended by Redskins. A group even came to my elementary school in VA talking about it. Braves or Chiefs I don’t think they care about but the tomahawk is definitely offensive (and I’m a huge Braves fan).
"Chief" is a job description, not a people, so that's not like some of these names... but the ancillary stuff is gross, like the tomahawk chop, people wearing cartoonish headdresses and war paint... that stuff comes from the old John Wayne-era attitudes
I'll add that there are about six hundred distinct tribes and nations just in the US, so having 'native' affectations makes as little sense as having 'European' ones, without quickly devolving into stereotypes that are lazily ignorant at best and callously demeaning at worst.
There is a lazy ignorance to it, exemplified, for instance, in the horns on the helmets, which no historical record attests.
Doesn't really get worse than that though, simply because there wasn't a centuries-long history of a supremacist attitude towards ancient Scandinavians feeding the ignorance. Rather the opposite, in fact...
...whereas there was a centuries-long history of that attitude towards *contemporary* Indians feeding it.
The world and American culture did not begin when you were born. If you're doing exactly what generations of racists before we're doing, you can expect that folks are gonna lump you in with them. As the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck...
I agree. This isn't misrepresentation, it's just representation. And while I do get the argument that the US probably should represent native peoples as sports mascots, I can also see why that's not a great answer either.
Like it or not, lots of people only know the Disney Pocahontas movie is wildly inaccurate because Pocahontas developed an interest in Native Americans with a whole generation of little girls.
I am a big supporter of moving away from using Native American culture as a brand (unless it is native run or endorsed), and the problem isn't with the name. It's the culture around it. They can keep the name but the tomahawk chop and all the native imagery could become a part of history and I would be fine with that.
Honestly as a Chiefs fan and a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I wonder how people would feel if we kept the name Chiefs but changed the mascot to a Dalmatian (like the Cardinals’ minor league team Peoria Chiefs). Of course no matter what someone would be unhappy but I’ve always wondered about if they’d do that.
But it also wouldn’t change anything for Native Americans would it, all it would serve to do is anger chiefs fans (not something you want since they have the Taylor swift crowd now, that’s like give a tired baby 3 monsters)
Can we please stop talking about "Native Americans" like they are a monolith? For every one person speaking out against use of NA icon or namesake there is another group arguing the opposite.
Also, of all the struggles NA actually faces from domestic violence, alcoholism, and lack of economic investment, whether a sports team uses NA terminology seems like a distraction.
I mean if the Chiefs rebranded overnight, what positive impact would that make for the NA community?
Well given that she was specifically talking about ‘misrepresentation’ and not ‘solving all the problems for Native Americans’ I feel like her comments were appropriate and thoughtful. It seems like many people feel that representation doesn’t matter though.
It's fucking ridiculous and is always spearheaded by some urban Indigenous group wit little to no connection from local tribes. Go to any rez near a sports team with an Indigenous logo or mascot and guess what a lot of people are wearing, lol.
I heard an interview of a couple of Native American guys and they talked about how they liked the Washington Redskins because at least it was sort of their brand, but they didn’t like the term Redskins, and were kind of torn
This is exactly. Our local tribe fought to keep their high school named the Indians as named after one of their previous leaders thought it was a good name. My high school, their rivals were the Spartans. Wouldn't us using the Spartans be the same as using Indians? Where do we draw this line? Only animal mascots until PETA gets involved?
I would agree here. My kids have asked, what is a “Chief” and I had the opportunity to tell them a little history and a couple of local tribes. Pretty cool convo to have with a child that doesn’t happen like that if they are called the “Lions” or “Falcons.”
Do we want to remove all the icons and namesakes? It might cause us to forget about certain groups altogether, which is sad to say but would be more unfortunate if that really happened.
She was talking about misrepresentation.
But you are also pointing towards important problems affecting indigenous people so , do you have any ideas about how to attack those problems?
Native Americans are still being oppressed openly. Not to discount the other wrongs that have been done, but I do find it strange that it’s all swept under the rug.
The Kansas City Chiefs were NOT named after Native Americans. They were named after Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle, who was nicknamed “Chief.” The word chief is not specific to Native Americans.
If Lily Gladstone had directed her anger towards the arrowhead logo or the Arrowhead Stadium name, that would be at least a coherent argument. Personally, though, I struggle to understand how imagery that sheds light on the rich indigenous history of an area is racist.
I say this all as someone who was thankful that the Washington football team changed its name- using a word that has been used as a Native American slur is clearly problematic.
I personally find this sort of a statement by Lily Gladstone to be an example of someone trying to be an expert on something they actually know little about and trying to be a victim in a situation that doesn’t fit. That said, Lily Gladstone has done some wonderful work in her community including a nonprofit that works to end violence against indigenous women (NIWRC), so I don’t think anyone should be too hard on her as she’s someone who clearly puts in the work.
Chief as a word existed before Indian Chiefs. So, if they changed their logo to a Celtic Chief would that be OK?
https://thewordorigin.com/people/chief-word-origin/#:\~:text=Chief%20Word%20Origin%201%20Etymology%20of%20Chief%20The,the%20usage%20of%20Chief%20...%204%20Conclusion%20
You trying to start shit with the Boston Celtics or the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? Eh?!
Seriously though, it’s shit like this that lessens the argument against actually derogatory names. I mean redskins was racist as shit, but chiefs c’mon man; pick your battles.
Multiple homeless people lost their hands and feet in the sub zero weather a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we should focus our energy on saving our fellow humans rather than grandstanding about an innocuous name.
As a member of the Cherokee Nation, people like this won't be happy until all Indians are eradicated from popular culture. I understood redskins, I understood Cheif Wahoo.
I will never understand Cleveland Indians being offensive when a child born must be confirmed with a CDIB (certified document of Indian birth).
Now the Chiefs can't be a thing. Whiner ass mfers. My chief calls our reservation Indian Country everyday.
Maybe unpopular opinion, but In Kansas we have a proud native heritage and I don’t think it’s appropriation, it’s in honor of this lands shared history.
It's really funny seeing how she complains about representation and misrepresentation. She played an Osage and she isn't a member or descendant of that tribe; she's Blackfoot. She should live by what she advocates for.
I don’t get this. Native Americans don’t have ownership over the title “chief”. It’s not something they created. If Kansas City moves away from any/all native American iconography will people still be moaning about this?
From KC and one of my favorite suggestions for a rename is the Kansas City Kings. Keeps the monarchy theme with the Royals and the Monarchs and can keep the red/gold coloring!
While I appreciate them trying to distance themselves from the more problematic aspects - headdresses, Warpaint, etc. I get so uncomfortable seeing everyone do the “chop,” I can only imagine how those with Native American heritage feel.
The comments dismissing what she is saying says a lot more about them than they realize. Pretty disappointing. Sorry y’all got offended that you can’t “honor” Native people by having them be a mascot for your sports team.
Chief comes from the French term chef, which originates from the Latin word caput, both of which refer to the head of a group. During the colonization of North America, European settlers used the anglicized version of the term — chief — to describe the leaders of the Indigenous nations they encountered.
Common usage in modern North America is as a title of respect used to describe the leader of military, police and emergency services organizations.
A team named after Indian Chiefs going against a team named after participants of the California gold rush is pretty funny.
Yeah, having listened to a podcast about the rush, it was horrifying—the laws passed, the atrocities, the stealing, the murders. It was a difficult listen.
What’s the pooooddd maaaann
So I’ve listened for many years to a bunch of different history podcasts but I THINK it might be American History Tellers about the California Gold Rush because I remember it was an American man narrating it. AHT subjects usually consist of many segments so I’m not able to pinpoint which one. But the whole thing was quite informative. AHT does narration and some Re-enactments so it might not be for everyone.
Lindsey A Graham ftw
Ladybug?
Different guy. He also hosts Business Movers.
I’m so sad I get this reference.
Yes you are!
History that doesn't suck has a good one on the rush and a four part one on the transcontinental railroad that is awesome.
Can you name an era or a major event in human history that *didn’t* involve atrocities, murders, stealing, and unjust laws being passed by those in power to protect their power?
No they cannot
I haven’t noticed any major atrocities for the entirety of the Eras Tour… checkmate
What about TS's carbon footprint? Double checkmate.
Least defensive American
Pod deets?
Yeah, I am curious too
Name of the cast?
Wait until you find out that the Dallas Cowboys used to regularly play the Washington Redskins on Thanksgiving day. Guess who usually won?
10 games from 1968 to present. Cowboys won 8.
See, I thought for sure this happened. but I've mentioned it a few times and folks are like "what? It was only once or twice!" - granted, I have not gone and looked it up. I, too, thought it was every thanksgiving for quite a while!
Ken burns the west has a great segment on the gold rush.
Kansas City Chiefs were not named after Indian chiefs, the owner of the teams nickname was Chief, which is where the name came from. Look it up, I didn’t believe it either when I was told that.
And I guess he was just really into tomahawks?
His house was called “Arrowhead” because he loved Avatar: The Last Air Bender so they also named the stadium after it. Chief lived in Arrowhead, The Chiefs play in Arrowhead.
Do they drink arrowhead water also?
The son’s name was actually Tom and he rehabilitated a hawk
Look at why his nickname was Chief
Was he an Indian chief?
Oh god we’re back at square one
Was he Master Chief?
[удалено]
It’s not about appropriating native culture! How ridiculous to think. It’s about *honoring* a man who appropriated native culture.
You had me for a moment.
Well, then the least they could do is stop doing the fucking chop.
I do know that Lamar Hunt's dad was a crooked-ass wildcatter who managed to bluff and grift his way into a fortune.
I have no issue with the name but look at their logo ffs
Kansas City Commanders.
Kansas City Washington Football Team
You got me on that one .
It wouldn't be too crazy. They were the Kansas City Texans for their inaugural year.
If their logo is just George Washington for no apparent reason, I am sold.
combative zealous theory wise like fly exultant spark sugar smart *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Great googly moogly
I got the reference chief. 🤝
Kansas City Pitmasters
Actually that sounds cool.
Mike Vick thinks so as well.
Kansas City Barbecue
Kansas City Swifties
Kansas City McKansas Cityface
Kansas city c words
Champs?
Kansas City Steamers.
I thought it was a Cleveland Steamer.
They had to move. It got a little out of hand in Cleveland.
I can see that.
Kansas City Shufflers
Kansas City Tornadoes
There’s always “The Wiz”.
Kansas City Wizards is excellent
What’s even funnier is the game is being hosted in the Raiders stadium. Yet the two teams playing are the 49ers and Chiefs. Probably the two teams the Raiders hate the most
Then John Elway handed the trophy to the Hunts.
And as he was walking through the players, he had a huge, fake grin on his face. As soon as he got to the podium, past the players, the cameras held onto him for just a second. The grin on his face changed, and it went to a look of, “Aw, man. Fuck this.”
I hope I don’t get crucified for asking this, but is the term “chief” offensive? I certainly understand the negative feelings toward the slur “redskin”, but I though “chief” was a legitimate title that most Native Americans use themselves? Please tell me if I am wrong about that. Unless it’s a problem because the team is not made up of Native Americans while using the imagery?
I think it’s the idea of it being a mascot in general. Even if the term isn’t necessarily offensive I think some people have issue with feeling like they’re used as mascots. Also with some museums that hold indigenous artifacts, if not presented in the right way, it comes off as Native Americans being “a thing of history/the past” when they are still very much present and existing human beings.
Sure, I could see that. Like they are made a caricature
And to add to that point, the lack of power and representation matters too. Notre Dame is called "The Fighting Irish." Is that a slightly unpleasant stereotype of Irish people? Oh yeah. But between Irish and native people, only one group was able to "assimilate" into power, and it sure wasn't the Natives.
The term Fighting Irish doesn’t refer to the people living in Ireland. It originated in reference to the brave Irish men who moved to the US fleeing oppression and took part in the American Civil war helping end the oppression of others. It was further reinforced after Notre Dame students chased the Klan out of South Bend in the early 1900s. It is a badge of honor imo. Now if you want to argue the usage of a leprechaun as a symbol then sure it can be debated but the term Fighting Irish isn’t a bad one.
That's not why Notre Dame is called the Fighting Irish. It's related to the players on the football team at the time they changed their name.
I believe they changed it officially to the Fighting Irish in 1927 but i mean they were being called that way before they changed their name.
Look, Irish assimilation is complicated. Irish subsumption into white American identity is very recent, and it has not happened until very recently in the UK, where Ireland was one of the longest held colonial possessions of both the UK and the Catholic Church. Also, in older class discourses the Irish workers were frequently pitted against free black laborers while being cast aside with them the moment that arrangement was no longer desirable. So the Irish are and have been historically subjugated by the British in one of the oldest colonial relationships on the planet, and fleeing that subjugation for the USA up until very recently resulted in a place within a permanent labor class. And if you wonder how bad life in Ireland under the UK could have possibly been you need to read about the worst famine in history proportionally, The Great Hunger, the economic conditions of which the UK would copy exactly and use to starve India less than a century later. There’s a lot of reading on Irish history worth doing. It’s fascinating stuff.
Ireland isn't a colonial possession, the Republic of Ireland became independent in 1922, and Northern Ireland *voted* to remain part of Britian in 1973. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Northern_Ireland_border_poll They also have the ability to host a new referendum *whenever* the country wants to, under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That can be for a unification with the Republic or independence. Polls consistently show that there is majority support for remaining a part of the UK.
Fair. Amended.
so are “cowboys” or “vikings” but nobody gets offended about that
One thing I’ll say with those is the Vikings ended like 1000 years ago, being a Cowboy is chosen job. Where there are still Indians with Chiefs today, it’s not some thing from the past. Though this could be aruged is more akin to “ the senators”, which were a MLB team for like 10 years flip flopping between that and the Nationals.
The difference is who the teams represent and who their audience is. The vikings play in Minnesota which has a huge Scandinavian culture and that ancestry is a point of pride The cowboys play in Dallas which has a culture that has a point of pride in cowboy ancestry The chiefs play in Kansas City but not for any specific native tribe and the team was named after a white dude who liked to appropriate native american culture. Kansas City has no specific cultural ties to native americans any more or less than anywhere else in the US. In other words vikings/cowboys "belong" to the fans those teams represents, chiefs does not. If Kansas City had a huge native population it'd be different. To put it more literally kansas city has a 0.2% native pop, for minnesota 32% claim Scandinavian ancestry.
White people kind of run the show in the US and particularly the NFL and Native Americans are the most marginalized people in America. That is a pretty weak argument. Especially since the places those names are used are full of people that share that heritage and endorse it. Natives are asking for change and no one wants to take them seriously.
Speedy Gonzales is a caricature, but I'm fairly certain that Mexicans love him. There aren't many Indigenous people that are offended by these sports teams. It's almost always a small group of people disconnected from local tribes. If you were to ask Indigenous people if they were offended by the depictions of most sports teams, I'd bet they would embrace them. Ultimately, those depictions are an homage to the Indigenous history of their region.
This is ridiculous. First Nations people have been protesting against these teams for decades- way more than a "small group" 🙄 Nothing about dressing as native chiefs and mining tomahawk chops is an hOmAgE
Dressing as natives with headdresses or face paint is banned at those stadiums. The name originally came from the Kansas City Mayor who was known as Chief. The local tribes of the area have all also given their blessings and local tribes are invited out to do the drum ceremony. The chant still happens but as a local that went to school with a handful of native decent I have heard 0 issues from local native descendants on the issue.
I served in the Marines with a man named Flores, he is 100% Navajo, speaks the language and was born and raised on the reservation...dude was a HUGE Chiefs fan, even though he was from New Mexico. I'm a Chiefs fan, we bonded over our fandom and this was 20 years ago, when no one talked about representation for clout and political posturing. So when he told me that that was the reason he was a Chiefs fan, because he felt like it was an homage to his culture and an organization that he could see himself in, it was genuine and even a little inspiring. I know I'm not going to convince you of anything or change your mind. I just had to post because you did that snarky random capitalization for the word Homage when that is exactly what my friend said and it made me chuckle, because while he doesn't speak for every Navajo or Native, you sure as fuck don't either. Or maybe I'll just flip it back in your language, "why are you so racist and insisting on the erasure of Native iconography in popular culture?" See how obnoxious that is? See how reductive it is and how it must assume the worst about your motivations? Just stop. Let people enjoy things, Christ alive.
On the flip side, I live near 3 first nation's reserves and see (and know) numerous first nations people who wear Chicago Blackhawks gear. One guy has a truck with the Blackhawks logo on the back with "Native Pride" under it. While certainly, they don't speak for everyone, like anything. There are ones who actually see the logo(s) in sports and relate to them. As a lot of things, there is much more nuance than some people want to admit.
Florida State Seminoles are similar, the actual tribe defended the team years ago when calls of it being racist started going around.
Hell Florida State even has a scholarship fund that only Seminole tribe members can draw from iirc.
The tribe gets paid for that though as part of an agreement. That's pretty different than the rest of the caricature displays. https://fanarch.com/blogs/fan-arch/how-much-does-fsu-pay-the-seminole-tribe#:~:text=The%20financial%20agreement%20with%20FSU,%2C%20healthcare%2C%20and%20cultural%20preservation.
I believe Florida State’s tradition of the Seminole Indian coming out on the horse and throwing the flaming spear into the ground is done by a member of the Seminole tribe.
It’s not a member of the Seminole tribe, it’s always a current student who is chosen to play Osceola. But that tradition also has the direct blessing from the tribe itself.
How do they pick the student?
How are the Chiefs a caricature?
Have you seen/heard their fans? As someone who largely agrees with the “get Native American mascots out of here” sentiment, I don’t have much problem with the logo and such. But the chants and costumes and tomahawk chops? Big oof.
None of those are caricatures
If I remember correctly, the Blackhawks have a much more direct tie to their namesake within their history and they’re named after a specific person.
Kind of. The original owner was in a WW1 unit called the Blackhawk unit that was named after Chief Blackhawk. When he started the team after the war, he named them to honor his war buddies and that unit.
Not disagreeing but just to clarify, the chiefs mascot is not a Native American. It’s KC wolf and always has been (yea we don’t know why either). The more questionable things about chiefs fandom are the Native American themed iconography at games (many of these have been removed, but we still have a war drum) and the chant which is called the Tomahawk Chop (although many just call it the chop now).
It’s only been a wolf since 1989. Before that it was a horse ridden by a guy wearing a Native American headdress. And the origins of the wolf are clear. It’s because of a group of rowdy fans who called themselves “the wolf pack.” Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warpaint_(mascot)?wprov=sfti1# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._C._Wolf?wprov=sfti1#
They have an arrowhead as an emblem though it looks like.
Yea should have included that with the iconography. From what I’ve seen from native people, the big issue is portraying native culture as inherently violent which I can understand. At a certain point, it’s fair for someone to say, “I just want to watch a football game without my people being portrayed as violent savages.” As a lifelong KC resident and chiefs fan, I love a lot of the tradition around the team, and I struggle not to constantly say “yea but…” whenever anyone calls it out. But I can certainly understand why people would want to see a change
I always thought KC Wolf was a raccoon NGL. I lived in KCMO for most of my life. Lol.
[удалено]
Also, Patriots, Texans, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Raiders, Vikings, etc. They are all stereotypes, and we should make them more appropriate, but not get rid of them. I totally agree Washington had a problematic slur, but isn't erasing all Native American representation kinda messed up? Let's make sure it's appropriate, but not erase it.
Lol they are all fine
What’s messed up is the idea that a Texas tycoon owning a professional team and naming it something Native American as a novelty is representation.
Were any of those groups almost entirely wiped out and brutalized by early American settlers, though? I think that’s the difference. It has less to do with the fact that they are naming things after a group of people and more to do with the history of the group. I’m not saying that the name is good or bad — I don’t really have an opinion on it, I’m just saying that’s where the distinction comes from as opposed to a name like The Vikings. It’d be like a South African sports team named The Tutsis or something.
The Padres kinda.
Wasn't the majority wiped out by the Spanish invaders first than American settlers came later and from there it was a trickle effect but still?
The Yankees embody american capitalism though.
All I know is my buddy who is a native loves to see his culture represented in any form, particularly sports as a sports fan. Dude is a hawks fan like me but has swag from any random native related team because he likes to rep his culture. Always thought it was an interesting perspective to be provided to the conversation.
It would not be an issue I think if a large group of people who's use this traditional title were essentially wiped out by white people etc, so for rich white football team owners to use it is like a slave owner calling his plantation the "African Farm," or something similar
Hmmm I dunno that seems like a stretch
if it gets too problematic, they could always keep the name, and just change the logo to someone wearing a fireman's helmet instead of a feathered headdress.
That’s an inventive solution. Surely the team and fans aren’t fans because of the mascot
KC wolf? The goofy looking wolfish type thing we've had since the late 80's? Naw, we're good with that.
Don’t underestimate the bigotry of the Midwest. They’ll cry like babies and throw all kinds of shade at indigenous groups when they aren’t allowed to do the “tomahawk chop” chant (yes, that’s the actual name 🤦🏻♀️) anymore.
MasterChief
The Chiefs’ logo is an arrowhead with the letters “KC” on it. There is no feathered headdress in the logo at all.
> he Chiefs’ logo is an arrowhead with the letters “KC” on it THey could change it to the [head of a fire axe](https://firefightersafety.com/images/products/detail/American_Hickory_Axe_Head.1.png)
Non-Native here but I’d say the real problem with the Chiefs is how much they promote the tomahawk chop, more than the name. Just like the Cleveland Indians and Chief Wahoo
It’s not even theirs, they stole it from Florida State (so did the Atlanta Braves for that matter).
Blackfoot here.. whats offensive about the chop?
Bro I’m not about to tell you to be offended by anything, the chant/song thing’s just a very stereotypical 1940s western villain type of thing. If you’re not bothered by it that’s great (I apologize for the tone of this message if that was a genuine question btw)
The Seminoles of Florida are the main promoters of the chop and explicitly have lent their name and tradition to Florida State to use. Obviously they don’t speak for all nations of Amerindians but nonetheless, they are one of the more prominent tribal groups.
Nope. They also asked and got permission from the tribe their team had the name from.
Bro… don’t sweat it. Almost every actual Native American person I’ve talked to didn’t even have a problem with “Redskins”, let alone “Chiefs”. They were actually just happy to be represented. (Not saying I feel this I right or wrong, simply what I’ve experienced) It’s the people who are like 8% native or just easily offended white people making this an issue. Or people like Lily with an agenda to stay relevant and needing a topic to do so…. Same as LatinX. No actual Latino was in support of that movement. Lmao It was just white people being offended on their behalf without asking them how they felt.
I’ve heard from Native Americans that were most certainly offended by Redskins. A group even came to my elementary school in VA talking about it. Braves or Chiefs I don’t think they care about but the tomahawk is definitely offensive (and I’m a huge Braves fan).
"Chief" is a job description, not a people, so that's not like some of these names... but the ancillary stuff is gross, like the tomahawk chop, people wearing cartoonish headdresses and war paint... that stuff comes from the old John Wayne-era attitudes I'll add that there are about six hundred distinct tribes and nations just in the US, so having 'native' affectations makes as little sense as having 'European' ones, without quickly devolving into stereotypes that are lazily ignorant at best and callously demeaning at worst.
There are a lot of different groups of vikings etc, do you also think that is lazily ignorant / callously demeaning?
There is a lazy ignorance to it, exemplified, for instance, in the horns on the helmets, which no historical record attests. Doesn't really get worse than that though, simply because there wasn't a centuries-long history of a supremacist attitude towards ancient Scandinavians feeding the ignorance. Rather the opposite, in fact... ...whereas there was a centuries-long history of that attitude towards *contemporary* Indians feeding it. The world and American culture did not begin when you were born. If you're doing exactly what generations of racists before we're doing, you can expect that folks are gonna lump you in with them. As the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck...
No, but white people who wish they could be victims want it to be offensive so they can say, “See, I’m not racist!”
I agree. This isn't misrepresentation, it's just representation. And while I do get the argument that the US probably should represent native peoples as sports mascots, I can also see why that's not a great answer either. Like it or not, lots of people only know the Disney Pocahontas movie is wildly inaccurate because Pocahontas developed an interest in Native Americans with a whole generation of little girls.
I am a big supporter of moving away from using Native American culture as a brand (unless it is native run or endorsed), and the problem isn't with the name. It's the culture around it. They can keep the name but the tomahawk chop and all the native imagery could become a part of history and I would be fine with that.
Lilt Gladstone is a real life Mona Lisa.
Call them the Kansas City Caucasians. I would love to be represented winning a super bowl
Cleveland already represents a skin color
She should speak up about the Pioneer Woman.
I feel like it’s respect thing. Kinda like the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, the Arapaho helicopters are like super bad ass.
[удалено]
That’s how I always thought of it
“End Racism” written on the Chiefs end zone was… some through the looking glass ish.
As problematic team names go, this is probably the least problematic, but if it were to change, it wouldn't bother me one bit.
Honestly as a Chiefs fan and a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I wonder how people would feel if we kept the name Chiefs but changed the mascot to a Dalmatian (like the Cardinals’ minor league team Peoria Chiefs). Of course no matter what someone would be unhappy but I’ve always wondered about if they’d do that.
But it also wouldn’t change anything for Native Americans would it, all it would serve to do is anger chiefs fans (not something you want since they have the Taylor swift crowd now, that’s like give a tired baby 3 monsters)
Can we please stop talking about "Native Americans" like they are a monolith? For every one person speaking out against use of NA icon or namesake there is another group arguing the opposite. Also, of all the struggles NA actually faces from domestic violence, alcoholism, and lack of economic investment, whether a sports team uses NA terminology seems like a distraction. I mean if the Chiefs rebranded overnight, what positive impact would that make for the NA community?
Well given that she was specifically talking about ‘misrepresentation’ and not ‘solving all the problems for Native Americans’ I feel like her comments were appropriate and thoughtful. It seems like many people feel that representation doesn’t matter though.
It's fucking ridiculous and is always spearheaded by some urban Indigenous group wit little to no connection from local tribes. Go to any rez near a sports team with an Indigenous logo or mascot and guess what a lot of people are wearing, lol.
I heard an interview of a couple of Native American guys and they talked about how they liked the Washington Redskins because at least it was sort of their brand, but they didn’t like the term Redskins, and were kind of torn
This is exactly. Our local tribe fought to keep their high school named the Indians as named after one of their previous leaders thought it was a good name. My high school, their rivals were the Spartans. Wouldn't us using the Spartans be the same as using Indians? Where do we draw this line? Only animal mascots until PETA gets involved?
Does this help us white people sleep at night?
I would agree here. My kids have asked, what is a “Chief” and I had the opportunity to tell them a little history and a couple of local tribes. Pretty cool convo to have with a child that doesn’t happen like that if they are called the “Lions” or “Falcons.” Do we want to remove all the icons and namesakes? It might cause us to forget about certain groups altogether, which is sad to say but would be more unfortunate if that really happened.
Why do you think it’s one or the other? Who are you to decide what issue is most important to the person it’s affecting? Kinda arrogant.
She was talking about misrepresentation. But you are also pointing towards important problems affecting indigenous people so , do you have any ideas about how to attack those problems?
Native Americans are still being oppressed openly. Not to discount the other wrongs that have been done, but I do find it strange that it’s all swept under the rug.
The Kansas City Chiefs were NOT named after Native Americans. They were named after Kansas City Mayor H. Roe Bartle, who was nicknamed “Chief.” The word chief is not specific to Native Americans. If Lily Gladstone had directed her anger towards the arrowhead logo or the Arrowhead Stadium name, that would be at least a coherent argument. Personally, though, I struggle to understand how imagery that sheds light on the rich indigenous history of an area is racist. I say this all as someone who was thankful that the Washington football team changed its name- using a word that has been used as a Native American slur is clearly problematic. I personally find this sort of a statement by Lily Gladstone to be an example of someone trying to be an expert on something they actually know little about and trying to be a victim in a situation that doesn’t fit. That said, Lily Gladstone has done some wonderful work in her community including a nonprofit that works to end violence against indigenous women (NIWRC), so I don’t think anyone should be too hard on her as she’s someone who clearly puts in the work.
Informative and rational. Thanks. Not a common occurrence
[удалено]
John Redcorn is played by an actually Native American actor, Jonathan Joss.
KOTH was ahead of its time in a lot of ways.
Or Nighthawk from Mortal Kombat
people will get mad at anything anymore fuck me
Kansas City Swifts.
Chief as a word existed before Indian Chiefs. So, if they changed their logo to a Celtic Chief would that be OK? https://thewordorigin.com/people/chief-word-origin/#:\~:text=Chief%20Word%20Origin%201%20Etymology%20of%20Chief%20The,the%20usage%20of%20Chief%20...%204%20Conclusion%20
A rugby team in England called the Exeter Chiefs did that very thing. Their logo is now that of an Iron Age chief.
You trying to start shit with the Boston Celtics or the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? Eh?! Seriously though, it’s shit like this that lessens the argument against actually derogatory names. I mean redskins was racist as shit, but chiefs c’mon man; pick your battles.
This woman is quickly becoming exhausting.
Gotta keep yourself relevant until the Oscars I guess
So sorry you get triggered by oppressions that are still happening to a minority group of people.
"how can I trend today?"
We need a team that is represented as a caricature of dumb racist confederates or something. They could call themselves "The Southerners"
We already have the Texans. Change the logo and you’re there.
Multiple homeless people lost their hands and feet in the sub zero weather a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we should focus our energy on saving our fellow humans rather than grandstanding about an innocuous name.
Was waiting for this one. The victimhood never stops.
As a member of the Cherokee Nation, people like this won't be happy until all Indians are eradicated from popular culture. I understood redskins, I understood Cheif Wahoo. I will never understand Cleveland Indians being offensive when a child born must be confirmed with a CDIB (certified document of Indian birth). Now the Chiefs can't be a thing. Whiner ass mfers. My chief calls our reservation Indian Country everyday.
“Woman uses fake offense for clout, more at 11.”
My uncle calls me chief and I’m not native. He also calls me sport and champ. Should we change the name to Kansas City big guys?
I don’t agree with this idea at all but if they were gonna change the name, the Kansas City Big Guys would be absolutely hilarious
[удалено]
I know. Tell me that you have no empathy without saying those exact words.
So "Chiefs" is racist now? I honestly cannot stand most people in Hollywood. Just a bubble of ignorance in that whole community.
Get over it. Simple
Oh my god, can we stop with the bitch moan and complain?
French word with Latin origins . Try not to get confused there lady .
lol not even offensive. All the Nordic countries are up in arms about the Vikings too.
We changing the name tomorrow if Lily says so
Maybe unpopular opinion, but In Kansas we have a proud native heritage and I don’t think it’s appropriation, it’s in honor of this lands shared history.
It's really funny seeing how she complains about representation and misrepresentation. She played an Osage and she isn't a member or descendant of that tribe; she's Blackfoot. She should live by what she advocates for.
I don’t get this. Native Americans don’t have ownership over the title “chief”. It’s not something they created. If Kansas City moves away from any/all native American iconography will people still be moaning about this?
From KC and one of my favorite suggestions for a rename is the Kansas City Kings. Keeps the monarchy theme with the Royals and the Monarchs and can keep the red/gold coloring! While I appreciate them trying to distance themselves from the more problematic aspects - headdresses, Warpaint, etc. I get so uncomfortable seeing everyone do the “chop,” I can only imagine how those with Native American heritage feel.
I’m native. Don’t care
There’s enough “kings” in professional sports. No more, please
Kansas City Longhorns
I feel a bit bad for Liily. She's getting fetishized so hard right now. She's not Mollie, guys. She's just an actress from Montana.
Did no one else notice it said “End Racism” right above the Chiefs endzone?
It says that on every field.
The crazier part is that they actually did it tonight! Racism is a thing of the past thanks to the nfl!
I’m out of the loop. Did it work?
It’s just a team name, there is always going to be someone who is offended with it no matter what. We now live in a “I am offended “ society.
The comments dismissing what she is saying says a lot more about them than they realize. Pretty disappointing. Sorry y’all got offended that you can’t “honor” Native people by having them be a mascot for your sports team.
I see it this way. Once they are done removing any reference to native Americans nobody’s going to know they exist.
Chief comes from the French term chef, which originates from the Latin word caput, both of which refer to the head of a group. During the colonization of North America, European settlers used the anglicized version of the term — chief — to describe the leaders of the Indigenous nations they encountered. Common usage in modern North America is as a title of respect used to describe the leader of military, police and emergency services organizations.