Kansas City Chiefs Mascot Controversy

Native Americans have been mistreated for hundreds of years. Mainstream American culture has distorted the Native American culture through using Native American imagery in trademark names and mascots of sports teams. One team that has harming the image of Native Americans is the Kansas City Chiefs. The Kansas City Chiefs and their imagery don't take into account the psychological damage that can happen due to these mascots. The team also doesn't educate their players or their fans about Native American culture, and cites monetary reasons as to why it will not change it's trademark.

One of the most damaging aspects of having a Native American as a mascot is the psychological effects that it can have on a Native American person. Studies have been done where Native American teenagers will be shown pictures of these mascots and are surveyed after they see the images. The surveys revealed a pattern that the Native American teenagers scored low on the self esteem questionnaire and felt low overall towards their worth in the community (Sommers, para. 8). Surprisingly, these studies also showed that those exposed to mascots were significantly less likely to feel positive about their futures. Even if they were shown images of more positive mascots, they still feel pessimistic about their futures (Sommers, para. 10). These mascots repeatedly remind Native Americans of how limited they are viewed in American society.

Americans often view Native Americans as mascots. The images constantly seen through sports teams and their mascots become the basis for what people think about Native Americans. These mascots represent Native Americans as warriors who are savage and barbaric. This leads to non Native Americans shaping their ideas of what it means to be a Native American based off of these mascots (Black, pg. 610). The idea of violence plays into the Kansas City Chiefs because using arrowheads on their jerseys and helmets and even having a stadium called Arrowhead Stadium, suggests violence. This ties into that idea that other mascots have that show that Native Americans are violent. Besides the mascots perpetuating ideas about Native Americans, the fans and team themselves also complicate the ideas of what it means to be a Native American.

Recently, Kansas City Chiefs fans have come under some controversy due to fans wearing feathered headdresses to Kansas City's Arrowhead Stadium. Team members commented that they didn't pay attention to the fans wearing the headdresses and that they are solely focused on the game (Covitz, para. 5). Other members of the Chiefs have stated that Native American fans that they have encountered love it and feel like they are being represented (Covitz, para. 10). Through these statements, it becomes obvious that the problems of Native Americans and their misrepresentation through mascots and the media are not the concern of the Kansas City Chiefs and their fans. Wearing feathered headdresses is usually reserved for Native Americans that are older in age and who have earned them through battle because each feather represents a brave deed that this person had accomplished. Fans wearing these headdresses are disrespecting Native American culture and the idea that these headdresses are inherently sacred because they are celebrating your individual accomplishments. These headdresses become commoditized and seen as something generic. The Kansas City Chiefs could solve this problem thorough collaborating with local tribes. 

Other football teams have obtained explicit permission from a Native American tribe whose name and image they are using. The tribes who do this see it as an opportunity to share Native American culture (Lukas, para. 9). An example of this is the Saginaw Chippewa tribe who have partnered with a local high school in their area whose mascot is the Warriors (Lukas, para. 3). The chief of the tribe will go talk to the team and teach them about Chippewa culture and what it means to be a Chippewa (Lukas, para. 15). If the Chiefs collaborated with local Native American groups, they would become more aware of problems facing Native Americans and how they are unintentionally adding to their burden by perpetuating a stereotype. Becoming a more social conscious team may lead to fans not wearing war bonnets to the stadium, or to the creation of a policy at the stadium saying that fans can not wear war bonnets to the stadium followed by a brief explanation of why it is disrespectful to Native American groups. Another reason that fans and teams cite for not changing the trademark name and mascot is money.

An argument against changing a team trademark name and mascot is the cost of money that it would for them to change. Some say that changing a trademark name and mascot would be unpopular and cost tens of millions of dollars (Cacciola, para. 22). It would cost the teams money to change, but not so much that the team would become financially unstable or on the verge of bankruptcy. To change a trademarked team name would cost somewhere between $10 million and $20 million (Cacciola, para. 14). This sounds costly, but NFL teams earns an average of $300 million and $400 million in revenue. The Kansas City Chiefs are also a part of the NFL which grossed $9 billion in 2012, which was split evenly among the teams (Cacciola, para. 13). A trademark change would take time also because the merchandise for the next year would have to change as well. Even if it is a painstaking process that takes time and money, it would only cause the team to have a year or two of marginal financial losses before the team would financially recover, and this change could also lead to positive returns in the future (Cacciola, para. 18). If fans are fond of growing up and feeling connected to a franchise, the mascot should have nothing to do with their feelings for the game and they should be able to go out and buy a new jersey to further support their changed franchise.

Native Americans have been misrepresented for years, but that doesn't mean it has continue in the future. Outside groups besides Native Americans have starting being more outspoken about why these mascots are a problem. Psychologists have researched and found out that continued use of mascots will further a feeling of hopelessness and negativity in their lives. Sports fans in the future might be more educated about what aspects of Native American culture are being appropriated and why that hurts the community. After more teams change their names others might follow suit, regardless of the monetary cost. There may be a future where there will no longer be a Kansas City Chiefs team, but people will still gather together to watch a game of football and feel connected to a teams fanbase.

Works Cited

Black, J. E. (2002). The "Mascotting" Of Native America: Construction, Commodity, And Assimilation. The American Indian Quarterly , 26(4), 605-622. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from the JSTOR database.

Cacciola, S. (2013, June 29). Risk for Redskins in Makeover of Team Mascot. The New York Times. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/sports/football/risk-for-redskins-in-makeover-of-team-mascot.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Covitz, R. (2014, August 4). Kansas City Chiefs steer clear of controversy over headdresses. kansascity. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://www.kansascity.com/living/star-magazine/article999164.html

Lukas, P. (2013, February 20). Tribe Supports Native American Mascots. ESPN. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/18484/tribe-supports-native-american-mascots

Sommers, S. (2012, May 28). The Native American Mascot: Tribute or Stereotype?. The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sommers/native-american-mascots_b_1546639.html