• AssaultRifle15 [he/him]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Blackface and redface at the same time- that's some very efficient racism.

    • Adkml [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually reddit has informed me painting half your face red when dressing as a native American makes it not racist.

      Also worth noting that black is not one of the teams colors.

      • axont [she/her, comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ok, the child is wearing a caricature of an indigenous American because the team's mascot is a racist caricature, because American culture is so vile that white people like to do victory dances on top of mass graves. This country is so evil we instill racism into children by way of silly games and costumes of genocide victims. This child is a victim of racist indoctrination. A sensible society would sit down with this kid and explain racism to them, then hopefully we'd give every child an education on liberation, decolonization, and Marxism. Instead of the constant racist noise that passes for culture in this country.

        Death to America.

        Is that better?

        • PKMKII [none/use name]
          ·
          1 year ago

          See, that’s the rub, the Chiefs’ mascot is a wolf. The whole “dress up as caricatures of Natives at games” thing is a homebrewed fan thing.

          • Adkml [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also this was an away game because at home games you're not allowed to wear that shit because everybody realizes how fucking racist it is.

            They don't extend that train of thought and change the team name but that's another discussion.

            • PKMKII [none/use name]
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve noticed that the Chiefs get nowhere near the flak that the teams formerly known as the removed and Indians got, less than the Braves as well. Something about the “title not ethnicity” name and the anthropomorphic mascot keeps them out of the line of fire.

              • Adkml [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not having a literal slur for a name or a racist charactiture for a mascot seems like a low bar but other teams managed to trip dick first over it.

                • BioWarfarePosadist [she/her, they/them]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I mean it's all marketing and the owner probably thinks it'll be more expensive to change it completely than just minimize any racist connections. Though honestly changing names and logos sounds like an awesome way to bleed more money out of fans as they are encouraged to buy another jersey, hat, etc.

              • Tiocfaidhcaisarla [he/him, comrade/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                They also have a very racist arm chop and chant thing they do to "evoke" native-ness that gets very little scrutiny despite being so obviously offensive

                • PKMKII [none/use name]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That was originally a thing with Braves fans, Chiefs fans copied it. So it’s the Braves fans that get criticized for it.

          • combat_brandonism [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            the Chiefs’

            dog their mascot might be a wolf but with the name and logo idk that you can call putting a fake headress and black/redface just a 'homebrewed fan' thing

            • PKMKII [none/use name]
              ·
              1 year ago

              My point was that the comment made it sound like a Native American caricature was their mascot and I was correcting that. Obviously there’s still problematic things with the Chiefs marketing. Metaphorically, it’s like the Klan hosting a meeting on a dude’s lawn because he has one of those racist lawn jockeys on it.

      • BRINGit34@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        waaahhhhh. sniffles. That's what you sound like. A good majority of American sports teams facilitate racist carictatures of minorities. Namely Native Americans. The fact that the "removed" were a team for so long pretty much proves the average amerikkkan does not give a shit if their team is the most racist shit ever. And now I'm sure this kid has been told since birth that it's fine what he is doing but it's not. I honestly feel bad for this kid more than anything. It's not his fault he was born into a group of people that are fine with perpetuating racism. Maybe he will grow out of it and realize how bad this is

      • CyborgMarx [any, any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The child isn't the one intentionally facilitating racist ideals, his parents who dressed him up or allowed him to dress up in that racist get-up are

        Imagine being so brain-broken that you think it's appropriate to dress a child as a racist caricature

        Fuck outta here with that bullshit racist apologia

      • CTHlurker [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wearing the colours of the team as face paint is fine, if it is not combined with the fucking feathered headdress that is sold in every fucking costume store in every western country. It's very clearly meant to evoke the look of a native american, even a non-american can see that. And nobody here is suggesting that the kid face any kind of consequence, we just think that it's emblamatic of a shitty society that litteral children are dressed like that.

        • Adkml [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also the chiefs colors are red and yellow so the black face is absolutely not part of the team's colors.

  • CyborgMarx [any, any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    "We're not being racist against black people, we're being racist against Native Americans"

    • Adkml [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      This was literally the argument

      "All you snowflakes said he was racist but actually he painted half his face red when dressing up as a native american. Bet you feel silly."

  • megaman@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Were we supposed to look at the first and think "blackface!? That's bad!" But when we look at the second we say "oh, it isnt blackface at all, this is a not-racist and not-fucked thing"?

    • StellarTabi [none/use name]
      ·
      1 year ago

      I couldn't figure out what EndlessWoke was trying to suggest was the difference between the pictures, I'm still not sure the answer is "blackface" lol.

      • Ideology [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it's Musk who's suggesting that blackface is the difference.

    • GarfieldYaoi [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's not "media" if it favors the right: the default state of correctness.

  • CrimsonSage [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, blackface didn't even cross my mind. I genuinely didn't know what they were mad about.

  • GarfieldYaoi [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    frothingfash: "W4TCH M0AR FOX! YEW SHULD KNOW DAT RACISM AINT REEL AND DAT ITZ ACTULEE GUD! DANG CAW-MIE!"

    Billions must shut the fuck up.

  • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Racist? He's clearly honoring the anarcho-communist indigenous resistance fighters from the KC (Kill Capitalism) nation.

    rosa-salute

  • Frogmanfromlake [none/use name]
    ·
    1 year ago

    The thing about headdresses is that each feather is like a medal of honor. You have to earn them and having a full one like that takes years that very few people ever reach. You could say that people wearing those factory produced abominations are practicing stolen valor.