I think the odds are low of a name change, but given the current state of affairs it's a non-zero possibility. And if we don't have input, the name will end up being some trite adjective in front of the word Hawks, which has happened with pretty much every other sports name change in America. Green Hawks, Fighting Hawks, Screeching Hawks, whatever. We don't want that.
I suspect that some members of Chiefs management read this site occasionally to get our takes on who should be starting at left guard or how they should handle a particular contract, so this is our chance to have input into the process. (Oh, and hi, Clark. Nice work last year, my friend. PM me about getting together for dinner next time you're in Denver.)
So we'll have a renaming tournament. In this thread, you may propose up to three names, and I'll structure everyone's suggestions into heats. Using the Chiefsplanet brain trust, we'll give Clark and his team valuable input into what the Chiefs should become if we eventually delete our homage to indigenous plains cultures. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
That's not happening. The Chiefs run this town.
Yea...the Chiefs however don't run the NFL or the country as a whole. As soon as sponsors don't want to be associated with you though you're fucked. So let's hope that doesn't happen because at that point there is no going back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kevrunner:
Here is a pretty good argument for those that want the Chiefs name changed. This is from a website supporting that:
[I][Chief - This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which incorrectly labels Native American men. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. American Indian leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Native leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect. Trust us when we tell you, being called 'chief' carries with it the same insulting, belittling sting for a Native man as being called 'boy' does for African American men/I]
Wait, what? This is an argument for changing the name? By this logic the name should stay. It plainly states that "American Indian leaders were "never 'Chiefs'" so the term should be free to use.
I know some want it changed but come on. I make jokes about people being offended by everything but damn. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HayWire:
Wait, what? This is an argument for changing the name? By this logic the name should stay. It plainly states that "American Indian leaders were "never 'Chiefs'" so the term should be free to use.
I know some want it changed but come on. I make jokes about people being offended by everything but damn.
Of course their argument is how it's a derogatory American term for Indian leaders...it's a funny word to use in every day conversation, if you call anyone Chief they get super annoyed though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Yea...the Chiefs however don't run the NFL or the country as a whole. As soon as sponsors don't want to be associated with you though you're fucked. So let's hope that doesn't happen because at that point there is no going back.
Sponsors won't care. Chiefs run this town.
Why do you cave to everything the left wants? Are you that weak, that spineless? I assure you the Hunts aren't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Sponsors won't care. Chiefs run this town.
Why do you cave to everything the left wants? Are you that weak, that spineless? I assure you the Hunts aren't.
I'm telling you reality, the Redskins have resisted this and now they're screwed, the minute 1 team changes its name you should probably get ready for pressure for all of them to change. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
If the Chiefs were prone to caving to public pressure on bullshit, Tyreek wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be Super Bowl Champs.
You know that's not true. They didn't cave because they had the tape of that crazy bitch confessing it was BS the whole time. They knew he wasn't guilty. They had the tape. They wernt brave. They had the undeniable facts. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
Of course their argument is how it's a derogatory American term for Indian leaders...it's a funny word to use in every day conversation, if you call anyone Chief they get super annoyed though.
I was just pointing out a major flaw in the argument that was posted. It make no sense. Based upon that the name should stay the same since it has nothing do with indians.
Mecca, I think it's obvious I don't post much and you're actually one of my favorite posters.
This shouldn't be a political term, a derogatory term, or any other ill conceived statement.
I'm home today if you're up to a good discussion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HayWire:
I was just pointing out a major flaw in the argument that was posted. It make no sense. Based upon that the name should stay the same since it has nothing do with indians.
Mecca, I think it's obvious I don't post much and you're actually one of my favorite posters.
This shouldn't be a political term, a derogatory term, or any other ill conceived statement.
I'm home today if you're up to a good discussion.
I personally don't think changing the name does anything, I don't find it derogatory but I'm not Indian either. The issue we have here is it bothers some Natives and others it doesn't..yet all it takes is for 1 person to be mad and here we are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kevrunner:
Here is a pretty good argument for those that want the Chiefs name changed. This is from a website supporting that:
[I][Chief - This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which incorrectly labels Native American men. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. American Indian leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Native leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect. Trust us when we tell you, being called 'chief' carries with it the same insulting, belittling sting for a Native man as being called 'boy' does for African American men/I]
I don’t know where you got that, but it’s nonsense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kevrunner:
Here is a pretty good argument for those that want the Chiefs name changed. This is from a website supporting that:
[I][Chief - This is a word that is commonly given as a nickname which incorrectly labels Native American men. The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. American Indian leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen, or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'. Native leaders were highly disrespected by the USA. So calling someone 'Chief', is just a way to continue that disrespect. Trust us when we tell you, being called 'chief' carries with it the same insulting, belittling sting for a Native man as being called 'boy' does for African American men/I]
Thanks for posting that. There is no good argument for keeping the name. Over the years the organization has associated it with imagery that locks native people in time as brutal savages, an image they have long struggled to overcome. That's not honorific. For some reason we've always thought it ok to caricature native people.
It's not political correctness to want to see the name changed. It's a matter of treating fellow citizens with respect. In this case, citizens who were pushed off their land and subjected to genocide. I hope the team changes the name and goes one step further by donating to organizations that work on behalf of native people. [Reply]