Warriors name change

[Scoots1994]

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.

Is anyone here arguing to keep the chop thing going?

[Scoots1994]

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.

It's a caricature or a cultural aspect and that is offensive to many. Don't know that it's specifically racist since most doing would actually believe they are celebrating that culture rather than denigrating it.

[Scoots1994]

Indians suffer from some of the highest rates of poverty, violence and substance abuse in the country. That really concerns me, just as all the other ethnicities that suffer from these social problems concern me. If changing a mascot helps to relieve those pressures than they should be changed. If changing a mascot improves the living conditions of a single person then it should be changed.

If not, then you're wasting my time and the time and attention of every person suffering from social neglect in the country, Indians included. If you can't live in, eat or go to work in changing a mascot then it's a dishonest, fraudulent smokescreen for the actual problems that plague people in this country and around the world.

If you were a tribe leader in, say, Utah and were told you had a choice of getting the local team to change the name or they could give your tribe $1M a year, what would be the choice a good leader would make? Which option would be genuinely better for the plight of their impoverished and addicted people? Change a team name that has little bearing on the health and happiness of your people or feed them and educate them? If that leader made that choice would the populace accept it and support it, or would they demand the team change the name and that the tribe should lose that money even though it's worse for them?

[Scoots1994]

But how is it demeaning? Does it make people lose respect for Native Americans? Does it make them appear inferior?

Not trying to be a d**k at all but I'm just trying to understand where that comes from.

I think it's seen as demeaning in that it's not "real" it's a caricature, and historically the imagery was fairly offensive.

[Scoots1994]

I think what you are saying is that you don't think changing the name makes a tangible difference in the lives of natives. And because of that you don't want to be bothered with it because it distracts you from your work on making tangible changes in the lives of natives - or other neglected peoples. (?) If that is what you are saying, and you are making tangible difference in the lives of natives, i applaud you.

If you are saying its just distracting your concern (and your concern doesn't make a tangible difference in the lives of natives either), then... I'm not sure that means much of anything. ?

Name changing a sports franchise effects you ZERO. And takes ZERO effort from you, but keeping the status quo is offensive to a group of people. Not sure how i see that wasting your time, effort, energy, or anything of yours.

Why not capitalize on the name? Get some money out of the teams in exchange for endorsements?

And changing a franchise's name DOES effect fans. They have merch that no longer matches, in some people's case that is thousands of dollars of investment. It would mean that pictures of your kids at games can't be reproduced with their kids. It's not that it's IMPORTANT, but it's absolutely not nothing. It will cost the teams a LOT of money and the change will likely cost some fans too.

[Scoots1994]

Who cares about the intent. But that is effect of what it is doing. The intent of the fans is to just have fun, obviously. The bottom line is, you either choose to care, or choose to not care and dismiss.

Racism doesn't exist without intent is the point.

[Scoots1994]

No, I think it makes people lose respect for natives.
I am half white (ancestors from multiple european countries) and half native (from multiple tribes but member of Choctaw nation). Culturally, I grew up in east san jose, have an asian immigrant wife, most of my friends are either American Mexican (but also friends in Mexico) or asian (again - those that born and raised in the states, and those that are immigrants, and those that have never been to the states and live overseas). I would say I'm more American / Asian culturally, than anything to do with Native American (although i am making an effort to learn lately). I am probably not a good example of how natives feel about the issue. I do know natives that are much, MUCH, more passionate about it then I am - not that I think they're wrong... just that I'm not as passionate about it then they are. Honestly, though it is amusing to hear someone call my thinking on the issue - sensitive though. Since I'm probably one of the least sensitive people i know in regards to this issue (from those that actually care about it). Although, I admit, once i get going I can start getting more sensitive as I think about it more and start discussing it.

I too grew up in San Jose, Lowell Elementary school and Hoover Middle School. My father is from South America, his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was from Scotland, my mother is from Texas, her grandmother was from Germany. I'm told there is some tribal heritage in me on both sides of my family. I grew up surrounded by poor minorities, then got a shock to the system by being moved to a steel town in PA just after the steel mill closed and was surrounded by poor white people. I found out they are pretty much the same. It's the money more than the culture/heritage/race that defines peoples options.

[CS707]

But how is it demeaning? Does it make people lose respect for Native Americans? Does it make them appear inferior?

Not trying to be a d**k at all but I'm just trying to understand where that comes from.

I think it's seen as demeaning in that it's not "real" it's a caricature, and historically the imagery was fairly offensive.

I’ve more or less said my piece on the general topic but specific to caricature, it was a popular style of art in those times. The Knicks logo, for example, was a caricature of a fat Dutch guy. The art form by nature isn’t flattering but it wasn’t reserved exclusively for depicting minority groups. I think that is important to understand when stating it is historically offensive.

[azwfan]

I think what you are saying is that you don't think changing the name makes a tangible difference in the lives of natives. And because of that you don't want to be bothered with it because it distracts you from your work on making tangible changes in the lives of natives - or other neglected peoples. (?) If that is what you are saying, and you are making tangible difference in the lives of natives, i applaud you.

If you are saying its just distracting your concern (and your concern doesn't make a tangible difference in the lives of natives either), then... I'm not sure that means much of anything. ?

Name changing a sports franchise effects you ZERO. And takes ZERO effort from you, but keeping the status quo is offensive to a group of people. Not sure how i see that wasting your time, effort, energy, or anything of yours.

Why not capitalize on the name? Get some money out of the teams in exchange for endorsements?

And changing a franchise's name DOES effect fans. They have merch that no longer matches, in some people's case that is thousands of dollars of investment. It would mean that pictures of your kids at games can't be reproduced with their kids. It's not that it's IMPORTANT, but it's absolutely not nothing. It will cost the teams a LOT of money and the change will likely cost some fans too.

If your gonna quote my response to someone, quote the post i was responding to. Thinkingwilliams (lol) mentioned that people complaining about this were wasting his time (paraphrasing) If thinkingwilliams has a bunch of Seminole or Chiefs gear then I think he would have said so in response. Instead he mentioned that he does do work pertaining to helping peoples. Solid thumbs up to him.

Why not capitalize? Probably cause its offensive? Maybe?

[azwfan]

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

A much higher % of the population than 10% is offended by the President (no matter who the president is), they should be cancelled?

The tomohawk chop is demeaning, I didn't say anything in support of it.

What if, in a team's history, it was made up of members of the tribe? Is it okay to keep the name then, even if there are no longer any members on the team?

So, what is the number we are allowed to have dislike something and not change it? We have an example that 10% against is enough for you to get rid of anything that offends 10% ... is 5% enough to do it? 1%? 1 person?

The 49ers, Packers, Steelers, Pirates, Buccaneers, Lakers, 76ers, etc are not named after animals and are not "generic" should they therefore be changed?

Redskins should be changed, the demeaning logos and chants should be discontinued, but fundamentally we can't do away with everything that offends anyone.

The speed limit offends me, and based on the speeds I see on the highway and around town it offends a large portion of the population, let's get rid of it!

If you want to have an honest discussion, i'm all for it, but I'm not going to engage with nonsense.
If you are actually offended by the speed limit you can lobby lawmakers. But you and I both know, you aren't offended by it.
If you are offended by the president, you can vote for his opponent in the next election and campaign against him.
If you are offended by a team name, you can let your opinion be known and not buy any merchandise (which is what is going on).
But you know all of this, so you are just cluttering up the conversation with nonsense just to be contrary, and maybe it makes you feel smart - but it sure doesn't make you look it.

[Scoots1994]

But how is it demeaning? Does it make people lose respect for Native Americans? Does it make them appear inferior?

Not trying to be a d**k at all but I'm just trying to understand where that comes from.

I think it's seen as demeaning in that it's not "real" it's a caricature, and historically the imagery was fairly offensive.

I’ve more or less said my piece on the general topic but specific to caricature, it was a popular style of art in those times. The Knicks logo, for example, was a caricature of a fat Dutch guy. The art form by nature isn’t flattering but it wasn’t reserved exclusively for depicting minority groups. I think that is important to understand when stating it is historically offensive.

I aree, and we need to decide if we are going to behave as if history is still alive or if it is truly in the past. Recent trends seem to be that there is no point at which enough time has passed.

[Scoots1994]

If your gonna quote my response to someone, quote the post i was responding to. Thinkingwilliams (lol) mentioned that people complaining about this were wasting his time (paraphrasing) If thinkingwilliams has a bunch of Seminole or Chiefs gear then I think he would have said so in response. Instead he mentioned that he does do work pertaining to helping peoples. Solid thumbs up to him.

Why not capitalize? Probably cause its offensive? Maybe?

If every quote includes the conversation it gets too long.

If a team offered the Choktaw $1M a year to use their name it would be offensive if the tribe accepted?

[Scoots1994]

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

A much higher % of the population than 10% is offended by the President (no matter who the president is), they should be cancelled?

The tomohawk chop is demeaning, I didn't say anything in support of it.

What if, in a team's history, it was made up of members of the tribe? Is it okay to keep the name then, even if there are no longer any members on the team?

So, what is the number we are allowed to have dislike something and not change it? We have an example that 10% against is enough for you to get rid of anything that offends 10% ... is 5% enough to do it? 1%? 1 person?

The 49ers, Packers, Steelers, Pirates, Buccaneers, Lakers, 76ers, etc are not named after animals and are not "generic" should they therefore be changed?

Redskins should be changed, the demeaning logos and chants should be discontinued, but fundamentally we can't do away with everything that offends anyone.

The speed limit offends me, and based on the speeds I see on the highway and around town it offends a large portion of the population, let's get rid of it!

If you want to have an honest discussion, i'm all for it, but I'm not going to engage with nonsense.
If you are actually offended by the speed limit you can lobby lawmakers. But you and I both know, you aren't offended by it.
If you are offended by the president, you can vote for his opponent in the next election and campaign against him.
If you are offended by a team name, you can let your opinion be known and not buy any merchandise (which is what is going on).
But you know all of this, so you are just cluttering up the conversation with nonsense just to be contrary, and maybe it makes you feel smart - but it sure doesn't make you look it.

It's not nonsense. Is there any point at which we can just accept that some people are going to be offended?

I AM offended by the speed limit, we have empirical data that it is a money making scheme and not about safety. The government should be for us not the other way around.

I don't see how talking about the parameters of offense is cluttering it up ... The idea that I was responding to seemed to be that if anyone was offended by a name or a practice then it should be changed and I think that's absurd. There has to be some point at which we get to accept some people being offended.

[azwfan]

A much higher % of the population than 10% is offended by the President (no matter who the president is), they should be cancelled?

The tomohawk chop is demeaning, I didn't say anything in support of it.

What if, in a team's history, it was made up of members of the tribe? Is it okay to keep the name then, even if there are no longer any members on the team?

So, what is the number we are allowed to have dislike something and not change it? We have an example that 10% against is enough for you to get rid of anything that offends 10% ... is 5% enough to do it? 1%? 1 person?

The 49ers, Packers, Steelers, Pirates, Buccaneers, Lakers, 76ers, etc are not named after animals and are not "generic" should they therefore be changed?

Redskins should be changed, the demeaning logos and chants should be discontinued, but fundamentally we can't do away with everything that offends anyone.

The speed limit offends me, and based on the speeds I see on the highway and around town it offends a large portion of the population, let's get rid of it!

If you want to have an honest discussion, i'm all for it, but I'm not going to engage with nonsense.
If you are actually offended by the speed limit you can lobby lawmakers. But you and I both know, you aren't offended by it.
If you are offended by the president, you can vote for his opponent in the next election and campaign against him.
If you are offended by a team name, you can let your opinion be known and not buy any merchandise (which is what is going on).
But you know all of this, so you are just cluttering up the conversation with nonsense just to be contrary, and maybe it makes you feel smart - but it sure doesn't make you look it.

It's not nonsense. Is there any point at which we can just accept that some people are going to be offended?

I AM offended by the speed limit, we have empirical data that it is a money making scheme and not about safety. The government should be for us not the other way around.

I don't see how talking about the parameters of offense is cluttering it up ... The idea that I was responding to seemed to be that if anyone was offended by a name or a practice then it should be changed and I think that's absurd. There has to be some point at which we get to accept some people being offended.

The folks who make the change decide if its enough people who are offended. You can decide for yourself if you think its offensive or if you want to support those who are.
Im done with your nonsense. Good luck with those speed limits.

[azwfan]

If your gonna quote my response to someone, quote the post i was responding to. Thinkingwilliams (lol) mentioned that people complaining about this were wasting his time (paraphrasing) If thinkingwilliams has a bunch of Seminole or Chiefs gear then I think he would have said so in response. Instead he mentioned that he does do work pertaining to helping peoples. Solid thumbs up to him.

Why not capitalize? Probably cause its offensive? Maybe?

If every quote includes the conversation it gets too long.

If a team offered the Choktaw $1M a year to use their name it would be offensive if the tribe accepted?

Then respond accordingly. I just realized you are the same poster with the %’s. LOL, figures. Dueces.

[Scoots1994]

If every quote includes the conversation it gets too long.

If a team offered the Choktaw $1M a year to use their name it would be offensive if the tribe accepted?

Then respond accordingly. I just realized you are the same poster with the %’s. LOL, figures. Dueces.

When did I not respond accordingly?

[Little Digger]

San Francisco Jellyfishes

[Quazza]

The San Fran Crab Chowder's

Pretty sure I put on 5kg eating that while there last year

[EvanZ]

Stanford changed their nickname from Indians to Cardinal in 1981. I think people got over it real quick.

[KevinMcreynolds]

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

Naw

We good