Why Haven’t the Kansas City Chiefs Changed Their Name?

glamour.com:

—a question that has long dogged the Chiefs feels more relevant now than ever: Why are they still called that?Many feel the team’s name—a reference to Indigenous chiefs, people with powerful leadership roles within their communities and nations—is appropriative, and its associated imagery (the arrowhead logo, the “” war chants popular among fans) is racist, rendering Native Americans as stereotypical caricatures.

So, given other sports teams like the (now the Washington Commanders) and the (now the Cleveland Guardians) have responded to public pressures and changed their names, why haven’t the Chiefs?It’s a complex issue, but before diving into it, one must first understand the Chiefs’ history.

The team was named after Harold Roe Bartle, the mayor of Kansas City from 1955–1963, who was known among locals as “Chief.” Though he was not Indigenous himself, Bartle had taken an interest in the Native community, establishing boys and girls scouting program on the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, and even that he was inducted into the Arapaho tribe while in the state.After Bartle’s in attracting the Dallas Texans, a team first established in 1960, to Kansas City in 1963, the team was rebranded the Chiefs in the mayor’s honor.

From then on, despite its name bearing no real connection to the Native American community, the team embraced allusions to Indigenous culture in its merch, mascots, and cheers. (The Chiefs’ earliest logos, from the 1960s, were the worst offenders, depicting with red skin and a feathered headdress.)Tight end Travis Kelce with other members of the Kansas City Chiefs.As they’ve faced mounting scrutiny, the Chiefs have made an effort to evolve such practices in recent years. “Over the course of the club’s.