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