Redskins Trademark cancelled

^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now. :eek:

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Im also not sure why you are trying to convince me of this. Im not the one lobbying Congress and had successfully lobbied the NCAA in the past about it. If Indians arent against these names, then why did the NCAA ban the use if Indian mascots at their request? Why is Stanford no longer called the Indians but are now called the Cardinals? Why did Florida State be required to get the consent of a Seminole Indian tribe and then have to go through a hearing with the NCAA to keep the name?

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

Stanford is not the Cardinals (as in the bird). They are the Cardinal for the color of red they use.

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Yeah. I've heard some Chief fans say that their name doesn't have to refer to Native Americans, but when you have a tomahawk symbol on your helmet and a stadium called "Arrowhead", that usually points to Native American imagery.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

LOL! Absolutely not! Several Native Americans have went on record saying that calling them "chief" is a sure fire way of starting a fight.


The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

I still believe it all comes down to money. Offer a piece of the pie to the Native Americans who are coming out against these names and imagery, and you'll probably have a much different story. Just like the guy who's suing the Cleveland Indians for $2 billion. He's not asking for the betterment of "racial equality"...he's asking to become an instant multi-billinonare.

Stanford is not the Cardinals (as in the bird). They are the Cardinal for the color of red they use.

I dont really care what its named after, its no longer Indians, which was my point. Although I do believe Stanford made that decision prior to the NCAA demanding it, but the name change was still done at the request of Indians.

LOL! Absolutely not! Several Native Americans have went on record saying that calling them "chief" is a sure fire way of starting a fight.

I think you misread what I typed. I did not say to call any Indian a Chief. I said to call an Indian Chief a Chief. An Indian that is already recognized as a Chief and has earned the position of a Chief.

^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now. :eek:


I called CNN but they sent me to FOX .:laughing-

^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now. :eek:


I called CNN but they sent me to FOX .:laughing-

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Im also not sure why you are trying to convince me of this. Im not the one lobbying Congress and had successfully lobbied the NCAA in the past about it. If Indians arent against these names, then why did the NCAA ban the use if Indian mascots at their request? Why is Stanford no longer called the Indians but are now called the Cardinals? Why did Florida State be required to get the consent of a Seminole Indian tribe and then have to go through a hearing with the NCAA to keep the name?

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.


Exactly. The Chiefs could do away with the arrow on the helmet, let someone sponsor the stadium and insist the name no longer has anything to do with Native Americans. Redskins could do the same. Logos don't need to match the name.

I dont really care what its named after, its no longer Indians, which was my point. Although I do believe Stanford made that decision prior to the NCAA demanding it, but the name change was still done at the request of Indians.



I think you misread what I typed. I did not say to call any Indian a Chief. I said to call an Indian Chief a Chief. An Indian that is already recognized as a Chief and has earned the position of a Chief.

Cardinals is a common mistake that is made when talking about the Stanford nickname.

The indian was removed as the Stanford nickname in the 1970s when some Native American Stanford students raised the issue.

Stanford Native American Cultural Center (http://nacc.stanford.edu/mascot.html)

Exactly. The Chiefs could do away with the arrow on the helmet, let someone sponsor the stadium and insist the name no longer has anything to do with Native Americans. Redskins could do the same. Logos don't need to match the name.And I'm sure the Chiefs fans would immediately stop going to games like this:
http://sportsunbiased.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kansas-city-chiefs-fans.jpg
http://lubbockonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11555762.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgZNUDYm74AiDFpK_xwRhgVmjM0aj9N WWfSiQ4qLQHrHLWGWAF

And I'm sure the Chiefs fans would immediately stop going to games like this:
http://sportsunbiased.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kansas-city-chiefs-fans.jpg
http://lubbockonline.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/superphoto/11555762.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgZNUDYm74AiDFpK_xwRhgVmjM0aj9N WWfSiQ4qLQHrHLWGWAF

They should. They look like idiots. Or the team could choose not to allow fans that dress like that enter the stadium. There are probably less than 100 that go to each game anyway. Far less at Skins games.