Red Mosquito

bodysnatcher wrote:

WAY off topic but love this!

Peeps wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Looks like the headline plaintiff in the trademark case also has her eyes set on the Chiefs:

http://www.kansas.com/2014/06/26/352737 ... gtons.html

That brings up the whole question of whether only certain words and images cross the line, or whether any cultural appropriation does.

i actually seen a link where someone bashed the FLOTUS for using the word gypped. i am so over all this nonsense not just the PC'ness of everything but freakin politics

What if she literally meant swindled by a gypsy?

Green Habit wrote:Looks like the headline plaintiff in the trademark case also has her eyes set on the Chiefs:

http://www.kansas.com/2014/06/26/352737 ... gtons.html

That brings up the whole question of whether only certain words and images cross the line, or whether any cultural appropriation does.

next thing you know, we'll have the Brits and Vikings beating down our doors.

Peeps wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Looks like the headline plaintiff in the trademark case also has her eyes set on the Chiefs:

http://www.kansas.com/2014/06/26/352737 ... gtons.html

That brings up the whole question of whether only certain words and images cross the line, or whether any cultural appropriation does.

i actually seen a link where someone bashed the FLOTUS for using the word gypped. i am so over all this nonsense not just the PC'ness of everything but freakin politics

So you're tired of people jamming their PC-ness down your throat?

philpritchard wrote:

Peeps wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Looks like the headline plaintiff in the trademark case also has her eyes set on the Chiefs:

http://www.kansas.com/2014/06/26/352737 ... gtons.html

That brings up the whole question of whether only certain words and images cross the line, or whether any cultural appropriation does.

i actually seen a link where someone bashed the FLOTUS for using the word gypped. i am so over all this nonsense not just the PC'ness of everything but freakin politics

So you're tired of people jamming their PC-ness down your throat?

thats not a very pc statement, phil

They should also ban..

Bills - bufalo bill shot guns n they're violent

Vikings - ridiculously violent people

Browns - may be thought as inappropriate towards darker skinned people

Patriots - used guns to kill British

Jets - a ny logo, brings back haunting 911 memories

Ravens - poe had violent stories

raiders - dude looks like hed kill you in a second

Packers - offensive to gays

Giants - offensive to midgets

For those in the Change the Name of the Redskins Camp ( ), I have a serious question. I'm too close, too invested to look at it objectively. But are those here in favor of the Redskins change, also in favor of a Chiefs change?

To me, Redskins is actually offensive, whereas Chiefs is not. But I'm biased. If the Redskins change, do you think the Chiefs should also?

durdencommatyler wrote:For those in the Change the Name of the Redskins Camp ( ), I have a serious question. I'm too close, too invested to look at it objectively. But are those here in favor of the Redskins change, also in favor of a Chiefs change?

To me, Redskins is actually offensive, whereas Chiefs is not. But I'm biased. If the Redskins change, do you think the Chiefs should also?

Well, it goes back to what I mentioned above as to specifically derogatory items versus wholesale cultural appropriation. It's clear that the plaintiff in this case feels that the latter is wrong as well, which could put the Chiefs in trouble.

My gut feeling is that the Chiefs name will be safe, especially since it came from a non-native source to begin with. But I would think that the war chant could be ditched without much fuss, and they could be pressured to put pressure on fans who dress up (though my feeling is that this is a real small number). But if there's a demand to ditch arrowhead references (the stadium and logo), that's where things could get ugly.

Unfortunately, where Joey is too close, I may not be close enough. The obvious offenders to me are the Redskins name and the Chief Wahoo logo... both are negative stereotypes and terms. Terms like Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks are designed to glorify the toughness, resilience, and honor the native american cultures. The biggest problem however is how the teams fan bases then use that as a spring board for racist characterizations- Tomahawk Chop comes to mind- that could ultimately lead to name changes down the line.

I think we should force Boston to pronounce "Celtics" with a hard C.

@SkitchP wrote:Terms like Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks are designed to glorify the toughness, resilience, and honor the native american cultures.

What if the consensus is that they don't see it as an honor to be glorified as tough or resilient? Or, at the very least, they'd like to design their own consensus?

Green Habit wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Terms like Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks are designed to glorify the toughness, resilience, and honor the native american cultures.

What if the consensus is that they don't see it as an honor to be glorified as tough or resilient? Or, at the very least, they'd like to design their own consensus?

$

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:For those in the Change the Name of the Redskins Camp ( ), I have a serious question. I'm too close, too invested to look at it objectively. But are those here in favor of the Redskins change, also in favor of a Chiefs change?

To me, Redskins is actually offensive, whereas Chiefs is not. But I'm biased. If the Redskins change, do you think the Chiefs should also?

Well, it goes back to what I mentioned above as to specifically derogatory items versus wholesale cultural appropriation. It's clear that the plaintiff in this case feels that the latter is wrong as well, which could put the Chiefs in trouble.

My gut feeling is that the Chiefs name will be safe, especially since it came from a non-native source to begin with. But I would think that the war chant could be ditched without much fuss, and they could be pressured to put pressure on fans who dress up (though my feeling is that this is a real small number). But if there's a demand to ditch arrowhead references (the stadium and logo), that's where things could get ugly.

This is actually what worries me the most.

As you say, Chief isn't originally a Native American term to begin with. Technically, neither is an arrowhead specifically. I feel like I could go with losing the name Chiefs before losing Arrowhead Stadium, though. Something so iconic and awesome about Arrowhead.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:For those in the Change the Name of the Redskins Camp ( ), I have a serious question. I'm too close, too invested to look at it objectively. But are those here in favor of the Redskins change, also in favor of a Chiefs change?

To me, Redskins is actually offensive, whereas Chiefs is not. But I'm biased. If the Redskins change, do you think the Chiefs should also?

Well, it goes back to what I mentioned above as to specifically derogatory items versus wholesale cultural appropriation. It's clear that the plaintiff in this case feels that the latter is wrong as well, which could put the Chiefs in trouble.

My gut feeling is that the Chiefs name will be safe, especially since it came from a non-native source to begin with. But I would think that the war chant could be ditched without much fuss, and they could be pressured to put pressure on fans who dress up (though my feeling is that this is a real small number). But if there's a demand to ditch arrowhead references (the stadium and logo), that's where things could get ugly.

This is actually what worries me the most.

As you say, Chief isn't originally a Native American term to begin with. Technically, neither is an arrowhead specifically. I feel like I could go with losing the name Chiefs before losing Arrowhead Stadium, though. Something so iconic and awesome about Arrowhead.

Corporate sponsorship could knock it out, though...or you get something mutated like what happened in Denver, like "Sprint Field at Arrowhead".

@SkitchP wrote:Unfortunately, where Joey is too close, I may not be close enough. The obvious offenders to me are the Redskins name and the Chief Wahoo logo... both are negative stereotypes and terms. Terms like Braves, Chiefs, Blackhawks are designed to glorify the toughness, resilience, and honor the native american cultures. The biggest problem however is how the teams fan bases then use that as a spring board for racist characterizations- Tomahawk Chop comes to mind- that could ultimately lead to name changes down the line.

The Dodger fans during last years playoff games, mocking the chop, is what really pushes this over to the side of just change them all. If the Braves are honoring Native American heritage, well then the Dodger fans were full blown shitting all over it. Yes, Dodger fans were just having fun with Atlanta fans, and mocking the baseball teams chant, BUT, how do you explain that to the 10 year old Native American boy watching at home?

They are a people, not a mascot
The have a culture, a heritage, that they should be proud of, not watched it be characterized to a cartoon

but until the Daniel Snyders and the Johnny Depps of the world stop wanting to play Indians, I think were going to be dealing with this topic. At least its a topic now though. 23 years after their first major organized protest at a Washington football game.

I expect all professional teams to lose their native american knicknames in my lifetime.

With all the world cup and LeBron stuff i thought this went away.

CopperTom wrote:I expect all professional teams to lose their native american knicknames in my lifetime.

"New York Basketball Team" will be even more confusing...

Green Habit wrote:

CopperTom wrote:I expect all professional teams to lose their native american knicknames in my lifetime.

"New York Basketball Team" will be even more confusing...

Alex wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

CopperTom wrote:I expect all professional teams to lose their native american knicknames in my lifetime.

"New York Basketball Team" will be even more confusing...

will the whole season be on hbogo or what?