Interesting that the Silverbacks have played more season than the Chiefs ever have though..... I don't live in the area, but I bet you could maybe make a case to say the Silverbacks are more relevant/established in today's market than Chiefs are. The difference between the Chiefs and teams like the Rowdies, Strikers, Timbers, Sounders, and Whitecaps, is that today's NASL branded teams had longer incarnations and pretty solid establishment in those markets relatively recently..... Even the Earthquakes were around in some form until 1988..... The Cosmos recognition is on a level all it's own and is an exception to the rule. the Chiefs are simply a step down when it comes to relevance and old NASL brands IMHO.... anyone thinking this would be a huge boost and a quick fix to any problems they may have is being naive..... if there is improvement it would be due to an improved marketing effort.
Given the ignorance of corporate America on Indian issues, I doubt that they have discussed it. The good folks at Urban Outfitters didn't expect the blowback they got over their appropriation of "Navajo" culture in one of there clothing lines, as did Paul Frank with his Dream Catchin' party for fashion week. OutKast didn't repeat their performance of Hey Ya in NDN regalia either. Yeah, I bet there is a real nostalgia for the Atlanta Chiefs logo among Braves fans. Where's the world's largest rolleyes when I need it. It may happen, and it may not Challenge Accepted. The difference being the vehicle isn't referred to as having any innate "Indian qualities", you know like being fierce and terrifying in battle, that people like to equate their sports teams to. As logos/emblems go, it's pretty benign, however, why is it that ethnic majority sports fans get to determine what is and isn't offensive to Indians? Why are there no sports teams named to evoke the American ethnic stereotypes of Asians, Africans, Jews, Hispanics? That doesn't make it any less dehumanizing. Again, there are a lot of black people in Atlanta, why not do a Zulu warrior head dress to honor them?
Thanks for regurgitating the Atlanta Chiefs Wiki entry for us, so we don't have to read it for ourselves. I can only assume that the Manchester City reference is some sort of idiotic and grandiose idea that by converting to the Chiefs that somehow the worst team in the North American second division has one over on the Premier League champions. Catch of big whiff of something we like to call reality. Name is synonymous with top level soccer in Atlanta? First, there never has been a name synonoymous to quality soccer in Atlanta. Sorry, teams in Atlanta have always blown on the field for the most part and none have been even moderate successes off the field. In fact, the most successful club in Atlanta history and I agree with Kenn's evaluation of success is the Silverbacks. Because they have existed for a dozen years something that no other Atlanta team can claim. Just surviving that long makes them a success. And you guys want to throw that all away in a ridiculous attempt to leap onto the nostalgia bandwagon.
Long time season ticket holder here and I'm also the proud son of a native american mother. This makes me sick for so many reasons that I won't even go into. I guess it's probably hard for most of you to understand, but for me it's very personal and I don't like it one bit!!!
There are Indians in South Africa & have been for over a century. Where do you think Gandhi first came into prominence?
I know that many fans remember the Chiefs name fondly, but please, please, please, Atlanta fans--STAGE A WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN! I've posted on this before, so I'll just link to the post in which I feel I best expressed my opinion: "In the case of all but one team (The Florida State Seminoles), teams named after American Indians (Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Redskins, etc) actually do them a great disservice by fetishizing their culture and way of life.These teams were not named because their owners believed the people who self identify as American Indians should be honored; they were named because of the misguided belief that fighting, killing, and warring is what American Indians do.This is a perfect example of what is called positive stereotyping. A stereotype can have positive connotations (e.g. Irish people are hard-working, Mexicans are strong, Blacks are fast runners) but they necessarily reduce the whole of a people into a single aspect of their collective character, and they are almost always based on the misguided observations of persons outside the group. So while a stereotype can be "positive" it is still a bad thing.Such names do not honor American Indians for a number of reasons, not least of which being that they assume a single racial identity (which American Indians, as different groups of people, each with their own unique histories and cultures, do not necessarily share). Instead, they turn real people who are still alive and striving to reclaim their own cultural identities into mascots. Atlanta may have a history with the name "Chiefs," but the people of that city should reject any picture of a future with it. They can honor the history of their team without repeating the mistakes of past generations."(Original Post)EDIT: I should also say that I am open to debate as to whether the Florida State Seminoles actually honor the Seminole tribe at all. In fact, the Georgia Seminole tribe have long stated that they oppose the mascot. Traditionally, the Florida Seminole tribes have supported the name.
Did you really just suggest that because a Major League Baseball team with a hundred or so years of history and almost 50 in its given market can draw, that Atlanta's NASL team can draw, regardless of its name, despite all the evidence to the contrary?
So a Silverback reference of a gorilla in a highly dominated african-american populace in Atlanta is ok?
I don't usually see gorillas used in the racist context. The terms "chimp" or "monkey" are far more common.
I meant that since the Braves have been a steady draw for years without much nickname controversy then a soccer team in ATL won't have nickname contoversy either. Attendance is a different thread. Didn't mean to imply anything about that side of things.
I think the name the team contest is a bit odd. I would like to know how many people actually vote or care about the team name outside of a few (thousand?) fans in and around Atlanta. Maybe we could start a write in campaign for a name to replace both the Silverbacks and the Chiefs? How about borrowing the name from that intramural team at the University of Northern Colorado - the Fighting Whites?
Hey Cocksucker! That's no longer their logo. I wonder why? Maybe because it looked stupid for bird to be wearing a headband with feathers
The one you quoted was an anthropomorphized bird with hollywood NDN imagery. But that's not what the 32 Atlanta fans want to bring back.
Personally, I'd love to see the team renamed to "atl (soccer club)" (pronounced "ay tee el" officially). I mean, they've already got that dynamite logo going for them, and the branding they've done with it so far has been great.