It’s never been PC related, as it pre-dates that by quite a bit. Oklahoma stopped using “Little Red” over 35 years ago. The are plenty of people who are truly offended, and your link is a good example of why.
If you’re referring to the Golden State Warriors, this logo probably shows why they find it offensive, as it’s pretty obvious that that’s an Indian caricature. Any other use of the “Warriors” name should probably be handled on an individual basis, but I would guess that it is most often used to denote an Indian.
The question isn’t whether someone should be insulted, it’s whether the groups in question actually are insulted. A large portion of the Indian population has a problem with this (and no, SI’s survey doesn’t discount that. Read the entire thing), and for most of them, it goes a lot deeper than just the usage of the name.
That logo is a 40 year old Philadelphia Warriors logo These
are the current Golden State logos. I see no Indian caricature there, or even anything necessarily Indian at all.
I really was not referring to Golden State specifically. Just wondering why ‘warrior’ was considered to be offensive to Indians.
I think it means that FSU’s appeal has a leg to stand on now, which is the same stance taken by the chair of the NCAA committee looking into this. If the official stance of all Seminoles is that it’s okay, then the NCAA should find it okay, and probably will.
Had you been speaking of Golden State, the Philly logo would have been relevant. That was the team that is now in Golden State, and that logo makes it pretty obvious that the name is associated with Indians in this instance, whether their current logo reflects that or not. You asked why the use of “Warriors” offended anyone, since it didn’t necessarily have to denote Native Americans. I showed you why in at least one instance. I also said other instances should be taken individually. If a team is named the “Warriors” after WWII combat veterans, has a mascot in military uniform, and a cheer called “Cadence”, then Indians have absolutely no room to complain about that school.
I think I’m on your side here pretty much, but c’mon. A 40 year old logo? From a franchise in a different city? If you are trying to prove guilt by association of a team that has changed it’s logo, (which, I think, is what the NCAA is trying to acomplish,) that’s a might big hill to climb. They changed the logo, for crying out loud, and, given that they play out of the Bay Area, it wouldn’t surprise me if they did it so as not to offend. And at any rate, this statement-
The point you made was that “Warrior” could denote many things, not all of them Indian, which I agree with fully. I pointed out that in Golden State’s case, it denoted an Indian. The fact that the Indian has since been removed from the team’s logo doesn’t mean that the name of the team has changed meaning. Teams move all the time, but that doesn’t erase their history, nor the origin of the team’s name.
What exactly do they have to do? They changed the logo. This is the mascot. Who is asking anyone to erase history? They have removed all possible affiliation with Indians. It used to be Indian related. It isn’t anymore.
I asked why “Warriors” might be offensive. You responded with an example of a team named “Warriors” that had an offensive Indian logo, as if that were evidence that the name is offensive. It’s the logo that is offensive. If there were a team named “Bareback Riders” with an offensive Indian logo, would that make “Bareback Riders” offensive otherwise? Your evidence that a name is offensive because of an offensive logo is insufficient to convince me that the name in and of itself is offensive. The name “Warrior” is only offensive when associated with an offensive image, as would be *any other * name not specifically linked to Indians. “Warrior” is not specifically linked to Indians, only tangentally so. I was refererring to this post when I made the comment about “warrior.” I did not then nor do not now see how the name *in and of itself * is offensive. If it is offensive by association with an offensive image, well then, so would any other word be offensive.
It’s the same team. Did “Jazz” stop referring to a style of music when the team moved to Utah? The name, and its origin, remain the same, no matter where the team locates.
Actually, that’s not true. There are a variety of things that various people find offensive, from fight songs, to logos, to mascots, to simply the name of a team.
Nope, and I was quite clear with that, as noted in point 5 above, but you can feel free to argue with yourself about it, if you’d like.
I stated no such thing. I stated that in Golden State’s case, the name was indeed an Indian reference, whether an Indian is part of their current logo or not.
Correct, and once again, I stated as much.
Correct. In Golden State’s case, it is linked to Indians, but I’ll happily keep conceding that warrior can be used to denote many other things, which I’ve been stating all along. If you just want to practice debating skills, I guess I could take the other side, so let me know.
The name itself isn’t offensive. It can have an offensive provenance, even if it has attempted to disassociate itself from that provenance. One could even argue that the original logo wasn’t offensive, but that doesn’t change the fact that they were named “Warriors” as an Indian reference. I’m sure that a great many people applaud Golden State’s efforts at disassociating themselves from the past, but that doesn’t change the fact that the name is indeed an Indian reference, which is the only damned thing I’ve been saying this entire time.
Let me repeat my stance one more time, just for the sake of clarity.
In the case of Golden State, the name Warriors was in reference to Indians, whether one finds such usage offensive or not, and whether the team has since relocated to one or one hundred cities.
The team in question is not in “Golden State” to be exact. It plays its home games in Oakland, having moved there from San Francisco after first moving from Philadelphia. While California is nicknamed the “Golden State” to my knowledge there is no place formally named “Golden State.” I guess the team was ashamed of the name “Oakland” but not of “Warriors.”
Oakland should be the ones offended by the team name, not the Indians.
(Maybe they can change the name to “The Los Angles Warriors of Oakland.” )
Uh, no. It still means “Jazz.” And “Warrior” still means “Warrior.” It just doesn’t mean “Indian.”
The specific logo. You know, the one you linked to?
I did not say you stated it. I said it was your evidence. When I wondered why the term “Warrior” might be offensive, you provided a logo which you called a “caricature,” and stated that that was why the word was offensive.
Any of this coming back to you?
No, you’ve been saying it was an offensive reference. See above. The question was why is the word* offensive*. Were you answering a different question by mistake?
You can attempt revisionist history all you want, but the question you were responding to was this-
You may claim now that I was only asking why “warrior” was *associated * with Indians, but your own words tell a different tale.
You also wondered if Indians were the only warriors in the world. I stated that they weren’t, but that the Golden State Warriors were indeed referencing Indians.
Actually, I haven’t. I explained why it was probably found offensive, and only in the case of a single team. Feel free to show my where I state otherwise.
When I state that that is the only thing you were asking, then your argument becomes something other than a strawman. It hasn’t happened yet.
I ask why it was offensive, and you respond with a logo and a statement that that was probably why. Were you or were you not answering the question “Why is it offensive?” Does the word “probably” mean you were not answering that question? This is a dodge, and a bit of a bad one at that.
Yeah. Except when you said that the logo was probably why they found it offensive. Which pretty much means it was not the only damned thing you’ve been saying the entire time.
No, you did not claim it. You did, however, answer the question “why is it offensive?” with a statement saying, in so many words, “This is probably why.” There is no dispute that you answered something I asked. If “the only damned thing [you’ve] been saying this entire time” is that the word “Indian” is associated with certain teams, a concept that is implicit in the OP, what question of mine were you answering, exactly?
Yes, it does. If you have evidence that Golden State’s use of the term was not originated as an Indian reference, provide it. I’ve shown the opposite to be true.
Your exact words were “I still don’t get why ‘warriors’ offends anyone. Are native Americans the only warriors in the world?”, and that is exactly what I was responding to. I showed that in one particular case, the use of the term “Warriors” was obviously a reference to Indians, as an Indian was originally a part of their logo.
The word “probably” meant I couldn’t answer the question. I’m not familiar with anyone who is offended with the use of the name “Warriors” for a team. You inferred that there were such people, so I guessed that it was because it was being used as an Indian reference. What I emphatically did not say was that the logo itself was why they found it offensive. The exact words I used were “…this logo probably shows why they find it offensive, as it’s pretty obvious that that’s an Indian caricature.” You’ll note that that sentence does not say that they find the logo offensive. I was using the logo to demonstrate the provenance of Golden State’s usage of the name “Warriors”, which quite visibly proves that it was an Indian reference. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I don’t see any reason to ignore the only evidence I’ve seen so far.
I then went on to say “Any other use of the “Warriors” name should probably be handled on an individual basis, but I would guess that it is most often used to denote an Indian.” which is quite clearly stating that I don’t think a blanket condemnation of the usage of “Warriors” as a team name is called for.
Not even close. I used the term “probably” because I don’t know the exact reason that some people were offended, as I’m not one of them, don’t know any of them, and you provided no cite for your assertation that they were offended by that name. I’m not questioning that some people find the usage of the term Warriors by some teams to be offensive, but I certainly am not going to be their definitive spokesperson unless I happen to know where they all stand. Hence, the use of “probably” was perfectly valid.
I said no such thing. I said the original logo was a caricature of an Indian, thus proving the provenance of the name as Indian in origin.
Well, if I actually had said what you claimed I had, then you’d be correct. I didn’t. You’re not.
You combined a statement with a question. Specifically, and again since you seem to forget it “I still don’t get why ‘warriors’ offends anyone. Are native Americans the only warriors in the world?” I responded to both at once, as I thought it was pretty obvious that you were relating the two. I showed you that in one case the warriors were in reference to Native Americans and I stated that that was “probably” why they were offended. I’ll happily change that to “possibly” or “maybe”, or even “perhaps”, if that floats your boat. What I won’t do is speak for the offended, as I’m not one of them.
The question of why “Warriors” would offend anyone, when Native Americans were not the only warriors in the world. Any questions?
That’s even worse. Most Americans (Native or otherwise) are looking to be offended by anything and everything. Having a German heritage, I am offended by Idaho Vandals. All of the Germanic tribes they could have picked and they chose the one associated with the willful destruction of property.
Do Native Americans have real grievances based on how they have been treated historically? Of course they do. Should there be an uproar over the Washington “Redskins”, Chief Wahoo, and the stupid-ass Tomahawk Chop? God yes. But in the grand scheme of the universe, are sport nicknames (which are meant to be honorifics) worth this much effort?
Oh by the way, I’m also part Cherokee and I am extraordinarily UNoffended by team names (except for Redskins and Vandals).
I have provided you with ample support for the claim that the Warrior is not an Indian. Evidence that the Warrior was an Indian is immaterial. My statement was about what it is, not what it was. Do you understand?
And your exact words were
Probably
From the cite:
*S: (adv) probably, likely, in all likelihood, in all probability, belike (with considerable certainty; without much doubt) “He is probably out of the country”; “in all likelihood we are headed for war”
S: (adv) credibly, believably, plausibly, probably (easy to believe on the basis of available evidence) “he talked plausibly before the committee”; “he will probably win the election” * As
From the cite:
*S: (adv) equally, as, every bit (to the same degree (often followed by `as’)) “they were equally beautiful”; “birds were singing and the child sang as sweetly”; “sang as sweetly as a nightingale”; “he is every bit as mean as she is” *
We see here that "probably means “with considerable certainty.” We also see that “as” suggests an equality. What you have said, then is that with considerable certainty, the Indian caricature is offensive. Which makes this statement
problematic for you. Would you care to retract it?
Yes you did. See above.
Yes it does. See above.
Well, provenance is an odd word to use here, but I think I know what you mean.
prov·e·nance (prŏv’ə-nəns, -näns’)
n.
Place of origin; derivation.
Proof of authenticity or of past ownership. Used of art works and antiques.
[French, from provenant, present participle of provenir, to originate, from Old French, from Latin prōvenīre : prō-, forth; see pro–1 + venīre, to come.]
There is no dispute that the Warrior was originally an Indian, if that is your point here. That was never in dispute.
)