azwfan wrote:Flash Falcon X wrote:Warriors isn't a slur.
The franchise originated with a Native American theme, but that's long gone now. Kids nowadays didn't even know about the Native American and Philly roots.
The term "Warrior" nowadays refers to playing tough and physical. You see it in articles all the time: Kobe was a warrior. Patrick Beverly is a warrior on the defensive end.
GSW branding now is all about their location, not Native Americans (e.g. bridges on logos, oak trees on Oakland jerseys, silhouette of California to represent the "Golden State," etc.)
Also, plenty of Native Americans don't feel offended by most of these names except for Redskins. Their main point is that they want their people to be remembered, and having a sports team named after them is an honor as long as it's not a slur. Again, "Warrior" is in no way a slur especially since they don't even brand themselves as a Native American themed team in the modern world in the first place.
And please don't use this as an excuse to get a more "intimidating" name. Intimidating names are for little kids. You got teams named after lakes (Lakers,) people who pack cans (Packers,) pants (Knicks,) heels in tar (Tarheels,) colored socks (Red Sox,) and no one feels like they need a name change. Warriors are one of the earliest NBA teams, keep the classic name.
Native here (well half, haha) so I'll take it upon myself to speak for all Natives (until another tells me to stfu).
The Washington football team name is offensive to me.
Indians, Braves, Seminoles, Chiefs, and others aren't as offensive to me, but should be changed.
Once again... Washington Football club - that should've been changed a long time ago. The others should be changed also, but would rather concentrate on the worst offender.
"Warriors" isn't even on my radar as a Native reference.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I checked in with a friend of indigenous background to get his thoughts, and they were pretty close to yours. Not that he speaks for everyone either, but his thoughts were:
- Redskins is right out.
- Blackhawks is kinda weird; they are named after a particular individual. I had foolishly, mistakenly always assumed this was a reference to a tribe, but he taught me it is named after a particular Chief Blackhawk. His conclusion was that the imagery/logo is problematic. In the absence of that the name would be weird, but probably not a huge problem.
- We didn't talk about the Indians. *I* personally think their character is horrific, and forces the issue.
- The Braves could be generic, or even respectful. However, by the time you have fans doing "the chop", wearing Party City headdresses, etc., you clearly are tying it to disrespectful stereotypes, and it becomes a problem.
- We talked about the Chiefs a bit. The bit I got from him was that they are leaning towards the benign side of things. If they were just called the Chiefs with the arrow logo, it might be fine, but as soon as there are fans embracing native american stereotypes, you have a problem.
- Warriors got rid of any sort of problematic imagery long ago. In the absence of that, or fans trying to tie it back to any sort of native american origin (which I've *never* seen), the name is really quite generic and benign.
He said if anything, he took a bit of joy in hearing "the Warriors beat the Cavaliers" heh