GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't get enough of sports even on a development board? Get your fix here. Expect heavy moderation on smack talk.
shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6623
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by shinatoo »

They will change names for the same reason DC and Cleavland did. When the marketing and finace departments come to them and tell them that they are losing money or trending toward losing money. Which will track along with public sentiment.

I say do it now, and grab the Monarchs name before some minor leage indoor soccer team does. Also like Kings. Love "Wolf Pack" but could suffer the same problems as Chiefs.

Only chance Chiefs keep their name is if they 100% move away from any type of NA iconography. And then it will still be shaky.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

alejandro46
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:24 pm
Location: King in the North(Land)

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by alejandro46 »

I'm not sure if the Chiefs will go for a complete name change. They only use the arrowhead logo now and have banned headdresses and Native American face paint.

As a just an average sports fan, it's not my job to be the arbitrator of being offended, of that the Chiefs name is offensive. I would say objectively it seems that the Atlanta Braves (who have a tomahawk logo), FL State Seminoles and Blackhawks who have continued to use more prominent Native American imagery as logos.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8923
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by flyingember »

alejandro46 wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:17 pm
I'm not sure if the Chiefs will go for a complete name change. They only use the arrowhead logo now and have banned headdresses and Native American face paint.

As a just an average sports fan, it's not my job to be the arbitrator of being offended, of that the Chiefs name is offensive. I would say objectively it seems that the Atlanta Braves (who have a tomahawk logo), FL State Seminoles and Blackhawks who have continued to use more prominent Native American imagery as logos.
It would be possible to rebrand the chiefs and keep the name since it was directly named for a former mayor, not a native tribe

So I could see rebranding with a big boss theme under the same name
we have police chiefs and fire chiefs, commander in chief and chief executive officers.

Maybe instead of a single logo, the brand can allude to first responders or big bosses or some combination of both

team names already cover careers. The (meat) Packers, the Oilers (oil workers), the Cowboys, The Steelers (steel workers)

WoodDraw
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by WoodDraw »

The same fan base that booed the players the first time they were allowed in.

Not sure that toxic masculinity will allow anything without throwing a fit

The chiefs strategy is to wait until their sponsors tell them otherwise.

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6623
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by shinatoo »

I guess a whole fireman rebrand arond the Chiefs name would work. Kansas City does have a strong history with fire department innovation. Somebody will correct me but I think the fire pole, water tower and pumper truck were all invented here. Might be kind of lame but you wouldn't have to change the colors or the name. Just the logo and the stadium name.

Was thinking a firemans helmet as the logo, but I think a fire ax head might be better.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6427
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by earthling »

^Pretty good idea actually. A force fit but works.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by phuqueue »

Anthony_Hugo98 wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:27 am
phuqueue wrote:
Mon Dec 14, 2020 1:11 pm
I assume the rumors must have already been bouncing around the social media cesspools, but yeah when that post came up a few days ago I was looking around at the usual major outlets and nobody had anything until today.

Anyway, it's obviously long overdue, and time as well for other organizations, including the Chiefs, to do the right thing too.
Why should the chiefs change names? I’m genuinely curious
White billionaires trafficking in caricatures of the victims of a genocide we perpetrated to profit off of their entertainment value isn't super great.
flyingember wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:04 pm
alejandro46 wrote:
Fri Dec 18, 2020 2:17 pm
I'm not sure if the Chiefs will go for a complete name change. They only use the arrowhead logo now and have banned headdresses and Native American face paint.

As a just an average sports fan, it's not my job to be the arbitrator of being offended, of that the Chiefs name is offensive. I would say objectively it seems that the Atlanta Braves (who have a tomahawk logo), FL State Seminoles and Blackhawks who have continued to use more prominent Native American imagery as logos.
It would be possible to rebrand the chiefs and keep the name since it was directly named for a former mayor, not a native tribe
I mean, yes, they were technically named after Bartle, but I'm pretty sure the origin of his nickname was his own weird fascination with Native Americans (see also the hilariously problematic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say), so it's still not exactly untainted.

As for the argument in the other post that other teams are worse, I don't know if that's "objectively" true, but I'm not sure why it matters either way. Like, yeah, of course Atlanta and Chicago and countless universities and high schools need to change their names too, but "arguably not quite as racist as those guys" isn't really where we should want to be. There's no reason the Chiefs should wait for all of these other names to change before looking at their own. They can't control what other teams are named, but they can control what they call themselves.

User avatar
chaglang
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3852
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:44 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by chaglang »

If they were really named after Bartle, then the Kansas City Barltes is the easy choice.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8923
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by flyingember »

phuqueue wrote:
Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:07 pm
I mean, yes, they were technically named after Bartle, but I'm pretty sure the origin of his nickname was his own weird fascination with Native Americans (see also the hilariously problematic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say), so it's still not exactly untainted.
He lived in Wyoming and worked with the tribes there because of a local tribal leader who was interested in Scouting. Though there's nothing to prove it, the story is he was more or less inducted into the tribe and given the name because of their mutual efforts. The major problem is the story can't be proven out but there's enough extremely specific details in the story that could be proven false after 100 years if it was. There's a lot of tribal members unhappy with the program and they haven't been able to prove Bartle's story false.

https://www.hoac-bsa.org/mic-o-say-history

Don't assume everything from the 1920s is appropriation.


The name isn't the problem in both cases, it's a lot of the imagery used with the name that is.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by phuqueue »

It's not necessary to get into the veracity of the story itself (but seriously, come on, "a lot of tribal members unhappy with the program" should be where the discussion ends) when a rich white guy running around calling himself "the Chief" is iffy regardless, and in any case, whatever nuance might have existed in his personal relationships doesn't really carry over to a professional football team using the name a hundred years later.

It's true that the Chiefs have gotten rid of the horrendous logo from the 12-year-old post that was quoted on the previous page; they got rid of (but then brought back!) "Warpaint" (but the second iteration is mostly just a horse); and as has been pointed out on this very page, they've banned headdresses (which Warpaint's own rider used to wear back in the day) and face paint. But at some point in the midst of getting rid of everything that people associate with your name, you just have to admit that the name itself is the problem, that it can't be divorced from the problematic imagery (not all of which is gone anyway -- they drew some unwelcome national attention in the run up to the Super Bowl over the tomahawk chop, for example, and obviously their logo remains an arrowhead, which is also the name of their stadium). It's clear enough to everybody what the name is meant to evoke whether it comes accompanied by illustrations or not.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5148
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by beautyfromashes »

Royals thread!

dukuboy1
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:02 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by dukuboy1 »

Just to give 2 cents on the Chiefs name quick. I think the name pays homage, like the name "warrior or brave". It's when you try to associate it with Native American culture is where people get upset. I understand their side, just don't fully share the opinion. I don't see anything wrong with it, beyond it can lead to insensitive fans at times perhaps disrespecting the culture & heritage. However if the "mascot" was based on Celtic Chiefs or other pre- modern warriors, especially those of European descent would their be an uproar? My guess is no, as we have the Vikings and not issues right? It's kind of a weird double standard in the case of the Chiefs. I would say they should scale back the direct references to Native American culture and lore. Drop the chop, drop the music and chats that inspire the chop. Drop the banging of the "war drum", drop any usage of the horse "war paint". In essence remove the references that point to Native Americans. It will be sad, but for the best, if anything to make it a non-issue. You can still use the arrowhead logo, and name. Arrowheads are not exclusive to Native Americans. The image used depicts a rock or flint style, more akin to pre-Columbian people. As Native Americans developed the use of iron arrowheads over time. But you can even use the arrowhead but again change it to a metal style, more widely used by European warrior tribes. There is a fix and I think a shift over time will allow for it to happen better. Teams re-do logos and mascots all the time. We can be smart about it.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by phuqueue »

"Vikings" were white Europeans (which does matter and is not a "double standard") and also no longer exist, and the team with that name represents a city/state with a large population of Scandinavian descent. If the NFL wants to award Navajo Nation their own NFL franchise, and if they want to call their team "the Chiefs" or "the Braves" or "the Indians" or "the [racial slur]s" or whatever else, that would be a different story, but I have my doubts that they would choose any of those names, and in any case, it is very clear to all of us that Navajo Nation is not going to receive an NFL franchise for some pretty obvious reasons. The actual Chiefs, like DC, like Cleveland, like Atlanta, are owned by white billionaires who are simply exploiting racist tropes.

This just like, really isn't that complicated. If the people that you think you are "paying homage" to don't like it, then why are you doing it? There is no "homage" here, there is just a racist brand with a weak after-the-fact justification. Here is what the people you are "paying homage" to actually think about it:
“These mascots reinforce a stereotype and incorrect symbolism that Indians are uncivilized and uneducated,” Kevin Allis, the chief executive of the National Congress of American Indians and a member of the Forest County (Wis.) Potawatomi community, said in a phone interview.

“And you know why that’s painful for us? Because we’re far from that. We’re 574 federally recognized tribes that have very sophisticated governments and communities and are organized and have smart and talented folks. The belief that we were uncivilized and uneducated, based on a warrior-savage myth and things that aren’t really true, has caused this federal government, this country, at least two times in American history to either try to assimilate or terminate the American Indian from society.”

dukuboy1
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 220
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 12:02 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by dukuboy1 »

Interesting thoughts for sure. especially the thoughts of if the team was owned by a billionaire Native American or a Native American tribe they would have more "carte blanche" to name the team whatever they want. It appears the issue is since a white person/white people own it their intentions are nefarious and only using the name as a racist power tool of exploitation.

The team name "redskin" is clearly racist and had those types of overtones throughout US history. It would be a akin to name a team in San Antonio the "wet backs". So I agree there is a hard line that needs to be drawn. With Indians it is #2 in my opinion as it would be odd for a team to be named after an entire ethnicity. Would we be ok with the Cleveland Caucasians, or Cleveland Pacific Islanders, etc. I don't think so

With the others that line becomes a bit more blurry, and open to a more an educated dialogue. There will be those camps on either end of the spectrum that will always be "fuck you it's racist!" and those who are "fuck you it's not". Hopefully those in the middle can agree on a middle ground. The words "braves", "chiefs" in them of themselves are just words that have many connotations and definitions depending on how you use them. The issue seems to be the actual imagery used and that associating those words with native American culture & imagery is not right, especially if they are mascots for a team. Also if you happen to generate income off them it is more offensive given the history.

There are no easy answers for those 2 in particular, in my view. Again people will disagree on either end of the spectrum. I'm for keeping the name "Chiefs" but removing the Native American imagery & symbolism. Re-brand in some way, but I don't think you need to rename

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2466
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: GO ROYALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by phuqueue »

Just because you can picture a "spectrum" doesn't mean that the correct answer is somewhere in the middle of it. That is a bit of faulty logic called appealing to moderation. And splitting hairs around what other "connotations and definitions" the word can have seems to miss the point on both sides of the argument. The fact is, the history/tradition/whatever around "the Chiefs" is rooted in the totality of the brand, not just the word itself as a collection of letters or a sound you can make with your mouth. If we've come far enough to acknowledge that branding your team explicitly around people of another ethnicity is racist, then what is the remaining attachment to the word itself when you jettison all of the meaning it used to carry? This is just a guess, but I suspect that for most fans, there actually is very little attachment left there. You say there are no easy answers, but changing the team name clearly is actually the easiest answer. It's certainly easier than trying to find the perfect middle ground in which you can keep the name without being racist about it, especially given that this middle ground may not exist in the first place and is unlikely to satisfy the fans who are really attached to the name.

It's also worth pointing out that "Brave" as a countable noun ("the Braves") really doesn't have any other connotations or definitions (as opposed to the collective "the brave," people who are brave, but the team is notably not called "the Atlanta Brave," which in any case sounds more like a MLS name anyway). "Chief" can have other meanings (fire chief, police chief, chief of staff, commander-in-chief, etc), but branding your team around "fire chiefs" is probably just going to raise the question, why aren't you calling your team the Firefighters instead? Like, do enough people love their bosses enough that you want to build your brand around that? Or do you want to do "Chiefs" with a presidents theme? We can replace the arrowhead logo with Lincoln's hat? Our mascot can be a goofy caricature of George Washington? The stadium PA can blast Hail to the Chief as they take the field? Everybody can wonder, "why is a team a thousand miles away from DC going hard with this presidents theme?" I kinda imagine that nobody is going to be happy with this rebrand.

Post Reply