[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

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.