To no surprise, we also encountered fake headdresses, war paint, and the tomahawk chop. People would walk by without saying anything but look our way and do the extending arm thing (Tomahawk chop). They walked by with smirks on their face and saying, “Go Chiefs!” “Go r*dsk*ns!”

Many people who walked by yelled, “Chief isn’t racist. Chief isn’t racist like r*dsk*n!” Or they mocked: “What about chief executive officer? What about chief of police? What about chief of staff?” The fact that these questions are being asked shows me the context of the word chief is not understood, or is it being ignored?

I am not offended by Chief Executive Officer, Chief of Staff, or Chief of Police, so long as those positions do not require a headdress or war paint by non-Native people who have no right to wear this. The idea of being a chief was actually created by the non-Natives. It is a Western concept. Most Native communities were and are matriarchal societies. Colonial settlers were not used to this concept and wanted to do “business” with men so they created the idea of Indian chiefs. This is not to say that men weren’t great leaders but we did not call our leaders, chiefs. Yes, we have many very powerful chiefs in our history. There is of course the great Chief Manuelito the Diné revere or others like Chief Joseph, Red Cloud, Cochise, etc. Those prominent figures were men and came at a time of revolt and resistance. They were necessary. Do we currently have chiefs in our communities? Yes. There are many tribes who use that title and it is respected when it is used in our communities, by us, and to describe us. The way in which professional sports, Hollywood and the media has created and promoted their idea of a “chief” is a bamboozled version of our freedom fighters. Many of us don’t think about the etymology of the Latin word chief, which means “head of state.”