Absolutely nothing, just like this entire movement.
[Reply]

They were asking fans to emulate the beating of a drum as opposed to a "tomahawk chop".
[Reply]

Really? That's just.... Dumb.
[Reply]

Head dresses and Rock and Roll Part 2 are both gone. No more.
[Reply]

good
[Reply]

yeah no problem with losing either of those 2 things especially the gary glitter song
[Reply]

How anyone could be both brainwashed and stupid enough to be offended by our team's name is beyond my comprehension.

Do these lunatics understand the real problems facing the world these days? I actually somewhat understand the Redskins issue, it was literally a racial slur. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term Chief, and anyone who thinks there is doesn't have an IQ high enough to actively participate in a civilized society.
[Reply]

Personally, I'm not offended by it. I think the organization's move away from culturally appropriated imagery is smart and shows forethought, and and may save the name long-term. Dumping the chop and the war drum would be continued steps along that path.

But if there are Native Americans who say the name is offensive to them, it's also not my place to tell them their opinion is wrong, IMO.
[Reply]

The problem with this kind of thing usually is that it is just a tiny minority of people who are offended and make the biggest stink. I'd be willing to bet that a vast majority of Native Americans are not offended by this and would not be on board with forcing the Chiefs to change their name.
[Reply]

That is the issue, definitely.

I would think if you're trying to make the case that "Chiefs" is an honorific, that serves the dual purpose of honoring the native peoples of the area while also alluding to Bartle for making the team happen, it is helpful to avoid having anything that can be hammered as a cultural appropriation.

So dumping the chop and even the war drum (keep the drum, make it not obviously native people inspired) is a step in that direction, IMO.
[Reply]

Including native people in the drum ceremony seems to be their solution to any cultural appropriation perceptions.
[Reply]

That's the thing, have you heard of any Native American groups speaking out against our name? I sure haven't. I did in the Redskins situation and also regarding the Cleveland Indians and their ridiculous logo, but nothing about the Chiefs, unless I've missed it.

All I've seen is a bunch of virtue signaling white people with too much time on their hands rambling about something nobody else is offended by, trying to ruin something people love to make themselves feel like they're making a difference, when in reality they are doing absolutely nothing good for the world and never will.
[Reply]

It’s insulting to watch the Washington Commies… bring back the Redskins… it was a great name.
[Reply]

Washington Commies, that's perfect lol. It reflects the situation to a T.
[Reply]

The group that was there on Oct 12 included some members of area Native American tribes. That's the only time I recall it recently.

The Chiefs have the benefit of not having a mascot as blatantly racists as Cleveland's Chief Wahoo, or as blatantly appropriating a sacred piece of Native Culture as the University of Illinois' Chief Illiniwek (which featured a headress modeled after the ones worn by Sioux chieftains).

I think they can continue to head off calls for a name change by being careful and thoughtful about traditions.

I get that some people love the chop. They're likely the same people that love doing the wave. I find both silly and played out and refuse to participate in either one, though. So it's hard for me to look at that the same way.
[Reply]