Posted on 02/03/2020 9:56:27 AM PST by Red Badger
If so-called "cultural appropriation" is racism, then we're all racist.
Racism is real. It exists in the actions of many and the hearts of many more. It exists in some Kansas City Chiefs fans. It also exists in some San Francisco 49ers fans. In fact, it exists in some fans of ever major sports team in the world. The problem is, mainstream media types like NBC and social justice warriors across the land have their selective outrage misplaced if they believe Chiefs’ fans are any more likely to be racist than any other fans.
An article that preceded last night’s Super Bowl made several absurd assertions about Chiefs fans, particularly the common use of “war paint,” the infamous Tomahawk Chop, and the beating of faux-Native American drums. They went so far as to call the practices of Chiefs fans “the last form of traditional American racism that people of every color and creed will rush to support and defend.”
This is a side-effect of the Cultural Marxism rising in America that vilifies anyone, particularly Caucasians, who engages in activities that are deemed to be inappropriate examples of cultural appropriation. It’s why any practice that does not keep people, particularly Caucasians, within their acceptable cultural lanes is to be considered racist and beyond the pale.
Here’s the problem that has been present since the beginning of this selective-outrage debacle that has engulfed our society in recent years. There’s a huge difference between actions meant to mock or intimidate and actions with no ill-intent. Chiefs fans aren’t donning Native American headdresses to mock Native Americans. It’s more akin to cosplay that allows people to express pride in an entertaining way. It’s supportive of the Chiefs as a team, not mocking or intimidating Native Americans.
This is not like Justin Trudeau or Ralph Northam donning blackface because the intent is completely different. The radical progressive politicians were mocking Black people. Chiefs fans are embracing a fictionalized (yes, mascots are a variation of fiction) adaptation of a culture they chose to embrace as part of the region’s heritage and history. By no means am I suggesting the Chiefs are honoring Native Americans, but they’re definitely not disparaging them, either. The Tomahawk Chop and other various activities engaged in by Chiefs fans are not representative of the culture they’re depicting. It’s part of the nature of fandom in general. It is not an expression of “traditional American racism.”
It’s a fool’s errand to try to convince progressives that Chiefs fans are not inherently racist because of their team’s mascot. They will be offended by whatever is deemed offensive by their Cultural Marxist ringleaders. Nevertheless, we’ll keep pointing out the truth.
All fans of the Original Six know of that game and the iconic foto for the ages that came at its end.
A stuffed furry costumed guy (with a pillow stuffed rotund belly) who drives onto the field, usually tackling the mascot of the opposing team.
True enough our stadium is called Arrowhead, we were “informed” it was “insensitive” to do the tomahawk chop, so I quit in disgust and haven’t returned, once we were “given permission” but more “racism” was drawn to the fact that after every score, another mascot, Warpaint, a horse was ridden throughout the length of the field, bareback rider wearing only a Native American inspired loin cloth by horse owner, Bob Johnson, who proudly did have Native American ancestry!
I heard the Tomahawk chop sounds last night but the TV coverage didn’t show it...............
Duck NBC!
As a Niner fan I say that you are a piss-poor excuse
for an NFL fan if you are a racist. Seems to me that
you can’t be both.
On a separate note Rush has just announced he has been
diagnosed with advanced lung cancer.
Before 1848, California was owned by Mexico and, along with Spaniards and Native tribes, was populated by a great many peaceful Mexican families including my direct ancestors. Do not let the relatively recent crop of illegal invaders negatively color your perception of history.
The Left sees nothing but ‘race’ and how to exploit it................
I’m sure lots of people came from Mexico to California, but most of them came from a place called New Spain and referred to themselves as Spanish rather than Mexican. That’s all I meant. For most of the time Mexico owned California (1821-1848) the nation was pretty much occupied with establishing a stable government.
California was hard to reach from Mexico by either land or sea. It’s one reason why the people who lived there (Californios?) were pretty much left alone.
I meant no disparagement of the Spanish speaking people who were there when the 49ers arrived.
Agree. So over all the fake complaints. Some people have an absurd amount of free time on their hands.
If you want an entertaining picture of life in California before the gold rush, I highly recommend Richard Dana’s “Two Years Before the Mast”. Dana Point, CA is named after him. He sailed to California in the 1830s on a trading vessel.
Everyone is jubilant, happy and smiling!
Your ancestors were some of the very few non natives in California back then. There were only about 2,000 here in 1848. In fact it’s a dirty little secret that the Southwest was VERY sparsely populated in those times.
Seriously?
IMPEACH the Chiefs!!!
Read it many years ago and enjoyed it, though it contains a bit of inaccuracies and contemporary cultural biases. In my youth, I read California history extensively. As a CA native on a few levels (my maternal great-grandmother was a California Native American), it has been a special passion of mine.
Heard them do the Indian chant at times and joked to my wife about them now being racists...low and behold.
Well, maybe not a “dirty” little secret but, yes, not very well known. The Spaniards and the Californios after them were not great developers like the English settlers on the other coast. Even the larger ranchos were more big hobby farms than plantations. My paternal grandmother’s family had a largish rancho near the Los Angeles area that they hardly developed at all. The area still bears their name.
Well, maybe not a “dirty” little secret but, yes, not very well known. The Spaniards and the Californios after them were not great developers like the English settlers on the other coast. Even the larger ranchos were more big hobby farms than plantations. My paternal grandmother’s family had a largish rancho near the Los Angeles area that they hardly developed at all. The area still bears their name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.