Reasons to hate the Chiefs...here is one

[upstater1]

Trying to learn and understand from someone isn't treating them like a token at all. IMO, it's a lot more respectful than ignoring or repressing something. That said, if he or she is uncomfortable about discussing the topic, avoidance is the respectful avenue. Obviously friendship has a lot more aspects than talking about one subject, but that doesn't mean that a subject should only be approached by one side.

One of my best friends is a successful black author. Although our friendship isn't dominated by our conversations about white/black relations and culture, it's certainly a major component. Sure, we've had our disagreements, but we've learned a lot from each other, and our mutual respect is ever growing. Neither one of us has ever felt like a "token" anything.

You're not getting me. This isn't a question of uncomfortability at all. I'm not uncomfortable. He's not uncomfortable. We're not ignoring anything. Not repressing anything. We have better things to talk (and argue) about. He has enough from other people asking what his opinion about something that's going on on some reservation in Montana etc. etc. It's not a matter of comfort. It's a matter of giving the guy a break.

 

[upstater1]

I'm actually curious what you think the difference is.

Well, one is a depiction of people were practically exterminated, people who still feel oppressed. And that depiction is done by the culture that did it. The other aspect is that white people are portrayed in a variety of ways, we're not only gun-toting yahoos, but many other things. In the 1960s, though, the Chiefs logo was pretty much the general stereotypical depiction of Indians. I see them as different for those 2 reasons. The first is history. The second is a stereotype.

 

[Galeb]

You're not getting me. This isn't a question of uncomfortability at all. I'm not uncomfortable. He's not uncomfortable. We're not ignoring anything. Not repressing anything. We have better things to talk (and argue) about. He has enough from other people asking what his opinion about something that's going on on some reservation in Montana etc. etc. It's not a matter of comfort. It's a matter of giving the guy a break.

I get what you're saying. I just think you're assuming way too much about a topic you actively avoid. If we are to assume that an individual or group is offended by something without either side even discussing the topic, then we have gone too far.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, one is a depiction of people were practically exterminated, people who still feel oppressed. And that depiction is done by the culture that did it. The other aspect is that white people are portrayed in a variety of ways, we're not only gun-toting yahoos, but many other things. In the 1960s, though, the Chiefs logo was pretty much the general stereotypical depiction of Indians. I see them as different for those 2 reasons. The first is history. The second is a stereotype.

I think the politically correct stuff is way, way overdone and have no interest in a discussion about it, but I find it very odd that a group of people can be a mascot for another group of people.

What if an African soccer team called itself the WASPs and their logo showed a rich person counting his money. I don't think its so much insensitive as just stupid.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

"I didn't want to buy this African slave, these evil natives forced me to give them my money for him and then ship him over the Atlantic as part of a one of the most logistical intensive international enterprises in early modern history just to live a life of sheer merciless chattel bondage! Honest! I'm the victim here!"

"Also my Irish great great grandparents not being permitted to apply for a job is exactly as evil as 200 years of brutal chattel style slavery where families were split apart, sold at auction, and then used as self sustaining products as the women were raped to provide new generations of slaves while the men were worked to death."

I won't deny for a second that Irish and other immigrants faced institutional discrimination on the level of Jim Crow for a good while. But they got to skip the 200+ years of enslavement and murder. Kind of a big difference.

On topic I don't have any real problems with the Chiefs. Their name isn't a racial slur (like the Redskins) nor is their logo a racist caricature (like the Indians).

No question about it, old timey slavery sure was a b*tch. Thankfully, the Federal Reserve and the IRS came along and made slavery much more equal, fair, and humane.

On topic- Bernard Pollard.

 

[Froob]

If anyone should be complaining it should be about the Indians (hell it is geographically incorrect, should rename themselves the tribe) logo and name not the Chiefs. None of those are bad.

 

[borg]

Well, one is a depiction of people were practically exterminated, people who still feel oppressed. And that depiction is done by the culture that did it. The other aspect is that white people are portrayed in a variety of ways, we're not only gun-toting yahoos, but many other things. In the 1960s, though, the Chiefs logo was pretty much the general stereotypical depiction of Indians. I see them as different for those 2 reasons. The first is history. The second is a stereotype.

Got ya....no pictures of Indians ever

I think the politically correct stuff is way, way overdone and have no interest in a discussion about it, but I find it very odd that a group of people can be a mascot for another group of people.

What if an African soccer team called itself the WASPs and their logo showed a rich person counting his money. I don't think its so much insensitive as just stupid.

We gotta shut down the Celtics before bartenders, cops, potato peelers, and crooked politicians demand reparations as well.
Oh boy....I'm going to PC hell for sure

 

[Tunescribe]

If anyone should be complaining it should be about the Indians (hell it is geographically incorrect, should rename themselves the tribe) logo and name not the Chiefs. None of those are bad.

The Tribesmen would be a cool name. But then some feminist would label it sexist and exclusionary.

 

[Froob]

The Tribesmen would be a cool name. But then some feminist would label it sexist and exclusionary.

Navy and Marines are talking about making their titles gender neutral. I hope air force doesn't. Air person just sounds silly lol.

 

[upstater1]

I get what you're saying. I just think you're assuming way too much about a topic you actively avoid. If we are to assume that an individual or group is offended by something without either side even discussing the topic, then we have gone too far.

Sigh. It would be totally tedious to discuss everything under the sun that offends with friends. You know general things about friends and the people you love without even have to discuss them. It's just the nature of friendship and common bonds. Conversations would be endless and tedious if we had to discuss everything.

 

[upstater1]

Got ya....no pictures of Indians ever

Yah, never said that. Fer instance:

 

[JJDChE]

Well, one is a depiction of people were practically exterminated, people who still feel oppressed. And that depiction is done by the culture that did it. The other aspect is that white people are portrayed in a variety of ways, we're not only gun-toting yahoos, but many other things. In the 1960s, though, the Chiefs logo was pretty much the general stereotypical depiction of Indians. I see them as different for those 2 reasons. The first is history. The second is a stereotype.

I had a long post written out, but I've decided to just say I more or less agree.

I think it's pretty lame that these Native American themed sports teams haven't changed their names/logos.

 

[Galeb]

Sigh. It would be totally tedious to discuss everything under the sun that offends with friends. You know general things about friends and the people you love without even have to discuss them. It's just the nature of friendship and common bonds. Conversations would be endless and tedious if we had to discuss everything.

I totally agree with you that you certainly can't discuss every topic under the sun. If your friend truly feels the level of repression that you expressed, it is bizarre that it was never once the topic of a long conversation. Yes, friends serve a lot of roles for each other, but, IMO, understanding and supporting each others' biggest problems/fears etc is fundamental for true friendship. Such things are not required for fair weather friends or acquaintances.

 

[JJDChE]

Got ya....no pictures of Indians ever

Just gotta be respectful about it. Is that really difficult?

We gotta shut down the Celtics before bartenders, cops, potato peelers, and crooked politicians demand reparations as well.
Oh boy....I'm going to PC hell for sure

You forgot leprechauns.

 

[patriot1136]

The Tribesmen would be a cool name. But then some feminist would label it sexist and exclusionary.

"Tribespeople" then? Or just the "Tribe"? You have the Miami Heat, for instance, you can have the Washington Tribe.

 

[Snake Eyes]

I think the politically correct stuff is way, way overdone and have no interest in a discussion about it, but I find it very odd that a group of people can be a mascot for another group of people.

What if an African soccer team called itself the WASPs and their logo showed a rich person counting his money. I don't think its so much insensitive as just stupid.

I rather doubt American WASPs would care at all what an African soccer team did.

While we're on the subject, doesn't our team have a bunch of WASPs as our mascot?

 

[borg]

Just curious....what's up for the afternoon? Heading out to Worcester to protest the Holy Cross Crusaders? Down to Foxborough to seize some muskets? Out to Nashville to picket the Predators?
It's Christmas every day for the PC crowd. Oops....not allowed to say "Christmas"......might offend ISIS

 

[upstater1]

I totally agree with you that you certainly can't discuss every topic under the sun. If your friend truly feels the level of repression that you expressed, it is bizarre that it was never once the topic of a long conversation. Yes, friends serve a lot of roles for each other, but, IMO, understanding and supporting each others' biggest problems/fears etc is fundamental for true friendship. Such things are not required for fair weather friends or acquaintances.

It is perhaps fair to say that this fellow has a lot going on with Indian affairs, and that the logo issue--while it get clicks nationally--is well beneath the radar of the stuff that is foremost in his concerns.

 

[IllegalContact]

this is stupid.......the only reason to hate them is because they are the pats opponents

I don't care if it is a team of Dalai Llama's......if they're playing the Pats, this is what i want for them

 

[borg]

Isn't ironic that the OP's reaction to "hateful" cartoons is to "hate" the Chiefs?