Reasons to hate the Chiefs...here is one

[Galeb]

???

He hated Bush and the picture of him made him sick. His Indian friend had a more intense reaction to the president responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Do you recall the "Trail of Tears" from your US history class?

 

[upstater1]

He hated Bush and the picture of him made him sick. His Indian friend had a more intense reaction to the president responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Do you recall the "Trail of Tears" from your US history class?

Exactly. It's a vivid reminder that white men have resentment and gripes and we ***** and moan, but for the most part, we don't have the same levels as others. And I speak as someone whose parents had their immediate family torn apart in Europe during WW2 and an ensuing Civil War.

I knew the thread was a joke, but those images should really be a reminder of how crazy things used to be. Those are mocking caricatures of Indians. A people that experienced genocide in the US of A. It's just how things are.

 

[Tunescribe]

He hated Bush and the picture of him made him sick. His Indian friend had a more intense reaction to the president responsible for the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Do you recall the "Trail of Tears" from your US history class?

No, I didn't. Thanks for the information.

 

[borg]

How does the PC crowd manage to even walk down the street without safe spaces every two steps to protect them from the big bad world?

 

[Galeb]

Exactly. It's a vivid reminder that white men have resentment and gripes and we ***** and moan, but for the most part, we don't have the same levels as others. And I speak as someone whose parents had their immediate family torn apart in Europe during WW2 and an ensuing Civil War.

I knew the thread was a joke, but those images should really be a reminder of how crazy things used to be. Those are mocking caricatures of Indians. A people that experienced genocide in the US of A. It's just how things are.

Are a significant number of Indian's offended by the Chiefs and their marketing logos? If so, I've never heard about it. Unless people are actually offended by it, I don't see a problem. IMO, that's very different than the "Red Skins" which is clearly offensive to a significant number of people and was used as a racist term for many years.

If we take this stuff to far, it would be impossible for any non-Indian to honor or celebrate Indian culture through art of any kind. IMO, most people in modern American culture respect and admire many aspects of the Native American Indian culture, even though they may not understand or acknowledge the genocide that took place. Look at the difference in how Indians are portrayed in movies these days compared to the days of the Lone Ranger.

 

[Tunescribe]

I have a few reasons.......
Chiefs Let's talk about the ****ing Patriots - ChiefsPlanet

Wow, their fan base -- at least on that board -- seems as immature and crass as Jets fans. Chiefs defense will "anal rape" Brady, etc. Sheesh.

 

[JJDChE]

You want another reason to hate them?

Alex Smith's tiny hands! They creep me out!

 

[upstater1]

Are a significant number of Indian's offended by the Chiefs and their marketing logos? If so, I've never heard about it. Unless people are actually offended by it, I don't see a problem. IMO, that's very different than the "Red Skins" which is clearly offensive to a significant number of people and was used as a racist term for many years.

If we take this stuff to far, it would be impossible for any non-Indian to honor or celebrate Indian culture through art of any kind. IMO, most people in modern American culture respect and admire many aspects of the Native American Indian culture, even though they may not understand or acknowledge the genocide that took place. Look at the difference in how Indians are portrayed in movies these days compared to the days of the Lone Ranger.

I haven't talked to my friends about it. Up here in New York state, Native American culture is so ingrained that children have modules on the Iroquois 7 Nations in school. From experience, there is little my friends hate more than being asked to talk about these things ("What do you think of the Chiefs logo?") just because of who they are, as if, "Let's ask the token Indian what he thinks." So I don't ask. I let them tell me. But we've never talked about football logos. But what they do tell me is that there are huge simmering resentments and anger about how they've been treated, are treated. Things are not copacetic. Bygones are not bygones. Even saying the term Indian is fine with them, but they'd much prefer something else. Just like they don't like Iroquois and would prefer their actual name, but there is no big stink over it.

So, given what I know without having any actual knowledge of how they feel, I would say most certainly they are offended by these logos. But I don't know for sure. If I asked, they'd probably just shrug it off and say, "Well, sure." Or, "of course." But they don't dwell on it (or do they?) As for the logos somehow being related to respect for the culture, I think the depiction is always of a fearsome savage warrior, most often caricatured (see old Chiefs logos, or Cleveland Indians). So it's stereotypical. No attempt to portray anything else but how they might use a tomahawk to chop off a white person's head.

You remember the littering ads from the 1970s? The crying Indian on the bluff overlooking a dirty highway? I think that was maybe the first time I ever saw an Indian portrayed as anything other than warlike and savage.

 

[upstater1]

Chiefs defense will "anal rape" Brady.

As opposed to?

 

[Kontradiction]

The COC (Constantly Offended Crowd) is in full force in this thread. Tell me, what's it like to be literally offended by everything? What a miserable existence that must be.

 

[upstater1]

How does the PC crowd manage to even walk down the street without safe spaces every two steps to protect them from the big bad world?

The PC thing has a problem with knee-jerk reactions, but you're denying reality if you don't see the sea change in attitudes of young people. As an educator, it is pretty telling for me to see and hear the types of things that are expressed by students over time (i.e. over 20 years in a classroom). There's a world of difference PC-wise over what people say now and what the types of things they used to say. And it's not because they're muzzled.

 

[Galeb]

I haven't talked to my friends about it. Up here in New York state, Native American culture is so ingrained that children have modules on the Iroquois 7 Nations in school. From experience, there is little my friends hate more than being asked to talk about these things ("What do you think of the Chiefs logo?") just because of who they are, as if, "Let's ask the token Indian what he thinks." So I don't ask. I let them tell me. But we've never talked about football logos. But what they do tell me is that there are huge simmering resentments and anger about how they've been treated, are treated. Things are not copacetic. Bygones are not bygones. Even saying the term Indian is fine with them, but they'd much prefer something else. Just like they don't like Iroquois and would prefer their actual name, but there is no big stink over it.

So, given what I know without having any actual knowledge of how they feel, I would say most certainly they are offended by these logos. But I don't know for sure. If I asked, they'd probably just shrug it off and say, "Well, sure." Or, "of course." But they don't dwell on it (or do they?) As for the logos somehow being related to respect for the culture, I think the depiction is always of a fearsome savage warrior, most often caricatured (see old Chiefs logos, or Cleveland Indians). So it's stereotypical. No attempt to portray anything else but how they might use a tomahawk to chop off a white person's head.

You remember the littering ads from the 1970s? The crying Indian on the bluff overlooking a dirty highway? I think that was maybe the first time I ever saw an Indian portrayed as anything other than warlike and savage.

I understand how Indians used to almost exclusively be portrayed. The logos he showed were from 50ish years ago. As long as no one is getting offended, and I won't simply assume they are, I don't consider representations of Indian Warriors much differently than the Representation of "Minute Men". In Fox woods, there are numerous depictions of Indian Warriors. These days, I notice about as many depictions of wise old Indian Chiefs and the like as warriors, but that may be related to the particular sources I'm into. That said, if there truly is a significant portion of American Indians that find it offensive, then I would certainly defer to them.

Here is an example from 1992. I can't find the clip that started here and went to the end of the movie. It is truly epic and shows a tremendous reverence for American Indian culture.



I find it sad that you feel uncomfortable approaching your Indian friends about this topic. I think that genuine, honest discourse is a much better means to understand and overcome such problems than repression and avoidance.

 

[Tony2046]

"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).

I like the direction of your post but the Irish/English did not "skip" 200 years of slavery. The first slaves in the US were white. (see Virginia Tobacco Company) There were more white slaves in the US during the mid 1600's than black slaves. (See White Cargo) They, the white slaves, were cheaper and were often treated treated worse than the black slave during that same period.

Approximately 1 or 2 % were slave owners. A few slave owners were African Americans but that mostly entailed "owning" family members which of course is much different.

There is a greater chance of a white guy with English/Irish heritage being a descendant of a slave.

Those statements do not and should not subtract from what African Americans have and continue to endure.

The Washington Redskins or Chiefs were not named to belittle the American Indian. Why would a team do that? A team name had to represent, at a minimum, strength. Are the names racially sensitive? I don't know but I'm sure that people didn't use it to purposely disparage Native Americans or at least I've never heard anyone do so.

I think it's a shame that so many automatically jump to the race card and slam someone as being "racists" when the rules of what a racist is keep changing.

 

[Kontradiction]

I understand how Indians used to almost exclusively be portrayed. The logos he should were from 50ish years ago. As long as no one is getting offended, and I won't simply assume they are, I don't consider representations of Indian Warriors much differently than the Representation of "Minute Men". In Fox woods, there are numerous depictions of Indian Warriors. These days, I notice about as many depictions of wise old Indian Chiefs and the like as warriors, but that may be related to the particular sources I'm into. That said, if there truly is a significant portion of American Indians that find it offensive, then I would certainly defer to them.

Here is an example from 1992. I can't find the clip that started here and went to the end of the movie. It is truly epic and shows a tremendous reverence for American Indian culture.



I find it sad that you feel uncomfortable approaching your Indian friends about this topic. I think that genuine, honest discourse is a much better means to understand and overcome such problems than repression and avoidance.

What a great scene from a great movie.

 

[upstater1]

I find it sad that you feel uncomfortable approaching your Indian friends about this topic. I think that genuine, honest discourse is a much better means to understand and overcome such problems than repression and avoidance.

It's not sad at all. It's just a show of respect that I don't treat him as a token. He is tired of that. They are tired of it. Exhausted by having to constantly represent. Friends are there for other reasons. If this were an issue of real consequence, we'd definitely talk about it. And maybe argue. Or disagree. For instance, I'm against the building of an Indian Casino downtown. My friend is all for it. I tell him about the families it will destroy down there. He rolls his eyes.

 

[Ring 6]

I saw an African American comedian recently who told a joke explain that he went to Africa and saw how impoverished most of the continent is. How poor the people are and how they seem to have no hope of overcoming it. Then he said "Thank God for the slave traders! I ended up in America".

The politically correct police (including non-African americans) will want to tell you how insensitive that was and how he had no right to say it. Even when it was a joke.

 

[borg]

Just curious if the PC crowd is equally offended by Kansas City's logo from '60-'62 when the franchise was an AFL team...the Dallas Texans?
...................................verses.....................................

I'm not feeling a similar outrage.....are you? Identical themed logos.
Might have more to do with the PC crowd's ability to dial in "selective outrage"......aka....opportunists.
Give me a jingle next time Jesse Jackson marches when a black cop kills any color victim?

 

[upstater1]

Just curious if the PC crowd is equally offended by Kansas City's logo from '60-'62 when the franchise was an AFL team...the Dallas Texans?
...................................verses.....................................

I'm not feeling a similar outrage.....are you? Identical themed logos.
Might have more to do with the PC crowd's ability to dial in "selective outrage"......aka....opportunists.
Give me a jingle next time Jesse Jackson marches when a black cop kills any color victim?

You really can't see the difference?

 

[JJDChE]

You really can't see the difference?

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

 

[Galeb]

It's not sad at all. It's just a show of respect that I don't treat him as a token. He is tired of that. They are tired of it. Exhausted by having to constantly represent. Friends are there for other reasons. If this were an issue of real consequence, we'd definitely talk about it. And maybe argue. Or disagree. For instance, I'm against the building of an Indian Casino downtown. My friend is all for it. I tell him about the families it will destroy down there. He rolls his eyes.

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.