Discussion in 'Atlanta Silverbacks FC' started by The Earl of Lemongrab, Sep 11, 2012.
State your case!
Chiefs all the way, baby!!!
Beat Man City twice.
Won the first NASL championship.
Name is synonymous with top level ATL pro soccer.
Cool, tattoo worthy crest/logo.
It's time to grow up and retire the Silly Gorilla...
I'm not an Atlanta fan, but I wouldn't mind seeing the return of the Chiefs... if only because it's a cooler name/logo IMO.
I will say though, with the Native American Mascot controversy that seems to be continuously happening everywhere, I'm surprised the idea is being entertained.... obviously Chiefs isn't on the same level of Redskins or Indians when it comes to the controversy, but it is in the same realm.
"Chief" means leader. Can be interpreted in a wider context. As in Chief Executive Officer. If it becomes an issue, they could create a new crest (based on the Atlanta city seal or something) and keep the legendary name Chiefs.
(Forgot on my original list - inspired name of Kaiser Chiefs, South Africa's best known club.)
I'm surprised Mr. Warmth hasn't made an appearance yet.
That being said, Atlanta doesn't strike me as a town that will care about a racial controversy regarding a Native American brand theme.
I usually wait for people to conjure me, like you did.
Well of course it won't, what with Andrew Jackson ethnically cleansing Georgia of Indians in the 1830's (Hint to all, we don't call ourselves "Native American", nor did we ask to be called that, so it makes you look stupid when you call us that.)
Hey, why don't you guys try and honor all the black people who were brought over here in deluxe sea cruise accommodations and helped build the South and stuff.
That all being said, the NCAA/NAIA has pretty much cleansed it's member schools of racially themed monikers, mascots, etc from schools that aren't able to come to some sort of understanding with the group they are supposedly honoring, (Arkansas State, North Dakota, Illinois) mostly because the local said honored population was either removed or functionally extinct thanks to the "Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian / Kill the Indian to Save the Child" policy of the US towards Indians Circa 1790-1970.
Makes you wonder why absolutely zero expansion professional sports teams in the US since the Atlanta Chiefs have opted for an Indian themed brand, and those that have it have been slowly eroding the use of such brands from their blatantly racist beginnings. Might have something to do with absolute shitstorm that it would start up over such a brand. Perhaps not locally, but nationally, yes. Do you really want Russell Means and the remnants of AIM showing up at your kick off events to protest for months even before a ball is kicked?
There are Indians in South Africa? Who knew? Hell, just this morning, I was told I was a member of the lost tribe of Israel by someone that believes the earth is only 6,000 years old and that "negros" have the taint of the devil on them. Thank God I'm one of the Chosen People, or they'd probably think I'm too dark to meet Jesus
Here's my vote.
I agree with Mr. Warmth. Why do they think the Chiefs is going to get by the PC police? Why not fix the real problem. THE TEAM CAN"T WIN. I'm going to keep saying it until they listen and fix it.
So mr warmth, are you telling me that pre european people called each other Indians?
Most likely, they referred to each other by what they called themselves, or for many groups, they typically had a word that roughly translated to friend or enemy, depending on past dealings.
Are you really this dense? We call ourselves (collectively) "Indians" and/or refer to each other by our tribal citizenship, or you know, by our given names and shit. I'm sorry of this offends academia and the PC sensitive, but neither group of do-gooders have ever really been any more of a help to us than the bigots who think we should just get over the whole "Assimilation" period where families were forcibly broken up and children sent to "Assimilation Schools" to learn to be "Not Indians". You know, where a kid would be forced to dress of the current clothes of the period, forced to cut their hair and/or otherwise change their appearance to be "White" aside from the color of their skin, punished or otherwise beaten for speaking your native tongue and having a choice of Methodist, Presbyterian or Catholic as your new religion, because you damned sure weren't going to be allow to believe/practice what your parents did, especially none of those silly dances.
Well it looks like it worked with you; your ancestor’s spirits must be disappointed.
Since we had this argument before and since you do not speak for all Amerindians, I will leave it at that.
I do not, but I can tell you what the general feeling in NDN Country is
I think they want the controversy cuz it would get people to actually notice the team.
No, but there are chiefs.
No doubt the voting thing is a marketing campaign. They're collecting sales lead info from everyone who votes.
Then make the logo look like Shaka Zulu and see how the locals like it.
How'd that work for Houston 1836...
Offended a different demographic. ATL's target market is not Cherokee. It makes all the difference.
You sit in between two major Cherokee populations with significant political and monetary influence
Yes, but it's not about what I think. We can be 100% sure the front office has already had this discussion internally. The fact that they went ahead with it means they see your view as either irrelevant or desirable for PR purposes. The Braves are still there and turning out fans. That fact alone means the Chiefs can too, regardless of what you or I think. You attack an ATL team named Chiefs you're attacking the Braves by extension. The locals will just roll their eyes. I'll bet the club has already ordered the new gear from the manufacturer. This thing will happen. It's the South.
One of them makes this fine vehicle I assume.
Comparing the Atlanta Chiefs logo with the "Chief Wahoo" emblem of the Cleveland Indians is absurd. The Chiefs' logo is in no way disparaging, does not depict Indians in any disrespectful way. The Chiefs were so named because they were owned by the Braves, as were many of the first NASL teams (thus, Braves/Chiefs, Astros/Stars, Tigers/Cougars, etc.). For many, the Chiefs bring back warm, fond memories, even if both versions eventually folded (or in the case of the first version, the franchise was returned to the league, the league sold it to somebody else, and they were re-branded, and then folded). The Silverbacks (or Ruckus/Silverbacks), on the other hand, while they have gone to the championship game twice (and lost both times to the Seattle Sounders), have had a storied past, where most news reports about them have begun with "the financially struggling Atlanta Ruckus/Silverbacks," and have left a less than savory taste in the mouths of many fans. It's great that they have seemed to have turned the corner, at least as long as Traffic is fronting the $$$. We saw the effect when Miami FC were rebranded Ft. Lauderdale Strikers, and the same could happen with Atlanta. I just hope they incorporate the red, white, and blue (probably navy) color scheme of the '67-'72 Chiefs (as well as the same logo (even though the one they had on their throwback night ads was good too), and stop looking like UGA's men's team (if they had one).
Separate names with a comma.