Warriors name change

[Coxy]

The San Francisco Basketball Team.

Just in case.

[Thugleavy34]

The team should be named "Chris Porter's Hair"

[NeoWarriors]

My thoughts on it are, if the indigenous people are offended by it then it's offensive. Braves is not benign, a brave is specifically an indigenous warrior. Being brave and being a brave are two different things. So still, if indigenous people are offended by it then it's offensive. Chiefs can be benign in the right context. My father's from Scotland and there are plenty of Chieftains and Chiefs in our clan. The chief is specifically a leader of a group. When somebody says chief executive officer nobody thinks of indigenous people. Kansas City uses it in the context of indigenous people. Even though they changed their mascot from an Indian to a wolf or coyote or whatever that thing is they still use the arrowhead in their branding as well as their stadium is called Arrowhead Stadium. So Kansas City can go by the way of the Warriors and eliminate the indigenous connection to it. Indians? Offensive. The indigenous people have already said so. Redskins? Obviously offensive. My two cents.

Sent from my Golden State Warriors Protoast Elite toaster using RealGM mobile app

[EvanZ]

If Native Americans object to the name, I’d be okay with a change.

All those other teams definitely need to change, especially Snyder’s team.

Last thing you want is to be like Snyder.

This. It's not for me as a white man to say what another ethnicity or gender finds offensive or not. It's not about whether I personally find it offensive. Of course it doesn't offend me personally. But that is not the point. If there is a group out there that has a legitimate beef with the nickname, at the very least, the GS ownership should acknowledge it and meet with the offended and make their own judgement.

I am a lifelong fan of a team, not a nickname.

[Scoots1994]

The team should be named "Chris Porter's Hair"

Chris Gatling's scar

[Scoots1994]

If Native Americans object to the name, I’d be okay with a change.

All those other teams definitely need to change, especially Snyder’s team.

Last thing you want is to be like Snyder.

This. It's not for me as a white man to say what another ethnicity or gender finds offensive or not. It's not about whether I personally find it offensive. Of course it doesn't offend me personally. But that is not the point. If there is a group out there that has a legitimate beef with the nickname, at the very least, the GS ownership should acknowledge it and meet with the offended and make their own judgement.

I am a lifelong fan of a team, not a nickname.

Wen you say "If Native Americans object" ... how many have to object for it to make sense to make a change? Is 1 enough? 100? 10000? 1000000?

Like you, I'm not emotional about the name of the team, but it does seem silly to waste millions of dollars not helping anyone, but pandering to people looking to be offended by something that would not be offensive to anyone rational.

"Warriors" isn't a native american word, it's from french, and the team hasn't used native american imagry in a LONG time so how can it be offensive NOW or in the future? Wouldn't you rather the team just gave $10M to native american foundations? Wouldn't that do a LOT more for them? I know 3 native american people, they said they don't care, it didn't even occur to them until someone "a single non-tribal native american in New York" decided to speak for all of them. According to them they don't like the name "Native American" a lot more than they care about sports team names (other than Redskins). They would rather be called by their tribe name Coushatta, and failing that they were fine with Indians or even American Indians. They don't see the point in "America" since they were Coushatta before Amerigo Vespucci got on a boat why would they prefer being named after him rather than where Columbus thought he was going ... what difference does it make, to them it's just replacing one mistake for another. Also, according to them, most of the noise about "offending" them comes from white people and causes them more problems than helps, and makes their real issues harder to get attention.

[EvanZ]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

[wco81]

I assume there are Native American groups which have been lobbying for changes to the name of the Washington team and other sports team names for years.

So if these groups which have established record of lobbying for name changes also believe GSW should change their name, then that would be a good indicator.

[Scoots1994]

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.

I think the Seminole tribe endorses the use of the name.

I think my main issue with Seminoles is the chop and chanting. Braves do the same. I think the Cheifs do too.

All of them are weird. To have a team mascots named after conquered peoples. I mean it isnt enough to rape, murder, and steal... but then name sports teams after them with these ridiculous logos and make money off of it also.

The Washington team is the only one that actually makes me angry though (but to be truthful only when Im thinking on that topic, I dont get mad when i just see the boxscore). If i was closer to that part of my heritage - (like if I grew up on Oklahoma instead of San Jose) i can see how I’d see some of these differently though - with more or less passion. I mean, on one hand i may be more offended, and on the other - there are more pressing needs in the community.

Actual members of the Seminole tribe have lead the chants. They say it's good for their tribe. It reminds me of the native actor in LA who made a living appearing and teaching about his heritage, but white people took that away from him because they said him doing his own tribe's rituals was cultural appropriation for the white people. He lost his career appropriating his own culture. We can do a LOT better by using the money to educate and help rather than just removing the name and forgetting they exist.

[azwfan]

I think the Seminole tribe endorses the use of the name.

I think my main issue with Seminoles is the chop and chanting. Braves do the same. I think the Cheifs do too.

All of them are weird. To have a team mascots named after conquered peoples. I mean it isnt enough to rape, murder, and steal... but then name sports teams after them with these ridiculous logos and make money off of it also.

The Washington team is the only one that actually makes me angry though (but to be truthful only when Im thinking on that topic, I dont get mad when i just see the boxscore). If i was closer to that part of my heritage - (like if I grew up on Oklahoma instead of San Jose) i can see how I’d see some of these differently though - with more or less passion. I mean, on one hand i may be more offended, and on the other - there are more pressing needs in the community.

Actual members of the Seminole tribe have lead the chants. They say it's good for their tribe. It reminds me of the native actor in LA who made a living appearing and teaching about his heritage, but white people took that away from him because they said him doing his own tribe's rituals was cultural appropriation for the white people. He lost his career appropriating his own culture. We can do a LOT better by using the money to educate and help rather than just removing the name and forgetting they exist.

Is it the majority of the tribe? Cause cherry picking a few members is like attributing the majority of Americans to some of the stupid stuff some Americans, and political leaders at that.

In fact read a little further and you’ll find members, even leaders of the seminole tribe are not on board and are offended by it.

Do you think just cause Trump (or any other president) approved of something, that makes it right? Come on now, change the fn mascot. Its not that difficult, and they’d likely make more money from the change.

[CS707]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

Yes, it's literally not in our power to make a decision on it. It's definitely something we can have an opinion on and that opinion is just as valid as the next person's. The idea that the claimant has sole authority to decide what is and is not offensive and what demands discussion is nonsense.

[Scoots1994]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

So, the Washington team owner decided not to change the name and that's fine with you? That's it? End of story?

[Scoots1994]

I think my main issue with Seminoles is the chop and chanting. Braves do the same. I think the Cheifs do too.

All of them are weird. To have a team mascots named after conquered peoples. I mean it isnt enough to rape, murder, and steal... but then name sports teams after them with these ridiculous logos and make money off of it also.

The Washington team is the only one that actually makes me angry though (but to be truthful only when Im thinking on that topic, I dont get mad when i just see the boxscore). If i was closer to that part of my heritage - (like if I grew up on Oklahoma instead of San Jose) i can see how I’d see some of these differently though - with more or less passion. I mean, on one hand i may be more offended, and on the other - there are more pressing needs in the community.

Actual members of the Seminole tribe have lead the chants. They say it's good for their tribe. It reminds me of the native actor in LA who made a living appearing and teaching about his heritage, but white people took that away from him because they said him doing his own tribe's rituals was cultural appropriation for the white people. He lost his career appropriating his own culture. We can do a LOT better by using the money to educate and help rather than just removing the name and forgetting they exist.

Is it the majority of the tribe? Cause cherry picking a few members is like attributing the majority of Americans to some of the stupid stuff some Americans, and political leaders at that.

In fact read a little further and you’ll find members, even leaders of the seminole tribe are not on board and are offended by it.

Do you think just cause Trump (or any other president) approved of something, that makes it right? Come on now, change the fn mascot. Its not that difficult, and they’d likely make more money from the change.

How many people have to be offended for a change to be made? If there are 10,000 Seminoles and 9000 are for it and 1000 are against it, which group do you listen to?

If the university using the name makes $1M a year for the tribe, isn't that likely better for them than them getting none of that money?

[Scoots1994]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

Yes, it's literally not in our power to make a decision on it. It's definitely something we can have an opinion on and that opinion is just as valid as the next person's. The idea that the claimant has sole authority to decide what is and is not offensive and what demands discussion is nonsense.

It is in our (all of us) power to a major extent. If a team sells no merch they will change the brand.

I disagree that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but I'm not sure that applies here. I think if something is CLEARLY offensive it should be changed. If there is debate then debate it, but I think often we jump to the conclusion without the discussion.

[azwfan]

Actual members of the Seminole tribe have lead the chants. They say it's good for their tribe. It reminds me of the native actor in LA who made a living appearing and teaching about his heritage, but white people took that away from him because they said him doing his own tribe's rituals was cultural appropriation for the white people. He lost his career appropriating his own culture. We can do a LOT better by using the money to educate and help rather than just removing the name and forgetting they exist.

Is it the majority of the tribe? Cause cherry picking a few members is like attributing the majority of Americans to some of the stupid stuff some Americans, and political leaders at that.

In fact read a little further and you’ll find members, even leaders of the seminole tribe are not on board and are offended by it.

Do you think just cause Trump (or any other president) approved of something, that makes it right? Come on now, change the fn mascot. Its not that difficult, and they’d likely make more money from the change.

How many people have to be offended for a change to be made? If there are 10,000 Seminoles and 9000 are for it and 1000 are against it, which group do you listen to?

So 10% of the population is offended and you don't think you should change it? Of course you should. Why would you want to offend 10% of a population? LOL

The tomahawk chop is offensive (and more so just plain idiotic) to more than just Seminoles. If they took the stupid war chant and the chop out, it wouldn't be nearly as offensive - as I think I said originally (?). But just as a whole, naming a team after native tribes is just flat out dumb regardless of how many people are offended. Not sure why this is even a question.

Perhaps if you disagree, you can start a petition for our favorite basketball team to rename to the San Francisco Chinese. Our logo can be a picture of 2 chop sticks holding a dumpling, and when we want to get the crowd going we can have everyone grab their over-sized chop sticks and start signing some nonsensical stereotypical Chinese sounding chant. This is all in honor of the Chinese immigrants though so its all good. Ooooorrr...

We can leave well enough alone and use generic names or animal names that are specific to the area, offend no one and get back to sports. Hmm

[CS707]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

Yes, it's literally not in our power to make a decision on it. It's definitely something we can have an opinion on and that opinion is just as valid as the next person's. The idea that the claimant has sole authority to decide what is and is not offensive and what demands discussion is nonsense.

It is in our (all of us) power to a major extent. If a team sells no merch they will change the brand.

I disagree that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but I'm not sure that applies here. I think if something is CLEARLY offensive it should be changed. If there is debate then debate it, but I think often we jump to the conclusion without the discussion.

Well I think there is also a difference in overtly racist vs. offensive. Simply being offended by something doesn't entitle you to a special audience. Some people are offended by Nike's business practices, others by how a person wears their hair, language, flag burning, etc. We need to find a balance between appropriate consideration/action and frivolous virtue signaling.

[azwfan]

Once again...it is not for you or I to decide. The team owner needs to sit down with the people who feel offended, if any, and make a decision.

That's it. End of story. It's not hard

Yes, it's literally not in our power to make a decision on it. It's definitely something we can have an opinion on and that opinion is just as valid as the next person's. The idea that the claimant has sole authority to decide what is and is not offensive and what demands discussion is nonsense.

It is in our (all of us) power to a major extent. If a team sells no merch they will change the brand.

I disagree that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but I'm not sure that applies here. I think if something is CLEARLY offensive it should be changed. If there is debate then debate it, but I think often we jump to the conclusion without the discussion.

You think this hasn't been discussed before? This has been discussed for years. Native Americans have little to no political voice so props to Carmelo for using his voice to bring awareness. I remember seeing the Braves in the playoffs doing that stupid chant... when was that? Early 90's? I've been aware and irritated since then. Welcome to the party.

[azwfan]

Yes, it's literally not in our power to make a decision on it. It's definitely something we can have an opinion on and that opinion is just as valid as the next person's. The idea that the claimant has sole authority to decide what is and is not offensive and what demands discussion is nonsense.

It is in our (all of us) power to a major extent. If a team sells no merch they will change the brand.

I disagree that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but I'm not sure that applies here. I think if something is CLEARLY offensive it should be changed. If there is debate then debate it, but I think often we jump to the conclusion without the discussion.

Well I think there is also a difference in overtly racist vs. offensive. Simply being offended by something doesn't entitle you to a special audience. Some people are offended by Nike's business practices, others by how a person wears their hair, language, flag burning, etc. We need to find a balance between appropriate consideration/action and frivolous virtue signaling.

I agree with this. So lets talk about some cheerleaders banging on a drum, leading a chant obviously meant to sound native, with a 40,000 people shopping their hands. Seems pretty damn offensive (and racist - demeaning another heritage) to me, but what do I know. But lets not change it cause... you know, its a tradition for a bunch of drunk kids.

[CS707]

It is in our (all of us) power to a major extent. If a team sells no merch they will change the brand.

I disagree that everyone's opinions are of equal value, but I'm not sure that applies here. I think if something is CLEARLY offensive it should be changed. If there is debate then debate it, but I think often we jump to the conclusion without the discussion.

Well I think there is also a difference in overtly racist vs. offensive. Simply being offended by something doesn't entitle you to a special audience. Some people are offended by Nike's business practices, others by how a person wears their hair, language, flag burning, etc. We need to find a balance between appropriate consideration/action and frivolous virtue signaling.

I agree with this. So lets talk about some cheerleaders banging on a drum, leading a chant obviously meant to sound native, with a 40,000 people shopping their hands. Seems pretty damn offensive (and racist - demeaning another heritage) to me, but what do I know. But lets not change it cause... you know, its a tradition for a bunch of drunk kids.

Ok, let's just set the table me clarifying that I agree it's in poor taste.

That said, I'm having trouble connecting it to actually being racist. Does it discriminate or show prejudice or infer that Native Americans are inferior to other races? Maybe an argument could be made for antagonism but even then it's really weak IMO. Cultural appropriation is rampant among all demographics as Jeremy Lin so hilariously pointed out with Kenyan Martin's tattoos. If it's not racist then it really opens the discussion to everyone.

[azwfan]

Well I think there is also a difference in overtly racist vs. offensive. Simply being offended by something doesn't entitle you to a special audience. Some people are offended by Nike's business practices, others by how a person wears their hair, language, flag burning, etc. We need to find a balance between appropriate consideration/action and frivolous virtue signaling.

I agree with this. So lets talk about some cheerleaders banging on a drum, leading a chant obviously meant to sound native, with a 40,000 people shopping their hands. Seems pretty damn offensive (and racist - demeaning another heritage) to me, but what do I know. But lets not change it cause... you know, its a tradition for a bunch of drunk kids.

Ok, let's just set the table me clarifying that I agree it's in poor taste.

That said, I'm having trouble connecting it to actually being racist. Does it discriminate or show prejudice or infer that Native Americans are inferior to other races? Maybe an argument could be made for antagonism but even then it's really weak IMO. Cultural appropriation is rampant among all demographics as Jeremy Lin so hilariously pointed out with Kenyan Martin's tattoos. If it's not racist then it really opens the discussion to everyone.

I don't know where the line is drawn. What I do know is that it is offensive and demeaning and should be changed. And it will be changed eventually - but like any kind of change, will probably take awhile.