Luckily Adidas, unlike corporations that’d normally seek to profiteer this type of situation, is offering to help in what appears to be a constructive and useful manner.
Oh, they’re still profiteering, they’re just doing it in a smarter way. Doing the right thing is sometimes good advertising. Even if they’re doing it cynically, they should be praised and rewarded. It’s the only way to teach them to be good citizens.
The Golden State Warriors?
Maury Lane, an outside team spokesman for the Redskins, issued a statement criticizing Adidas’ move.
“It seems safe to say that Adidas’ next targets will be the biggest sports teams in the country, which won’t be very popular with their shareholders, team fans, or partner schools and organizations.”
Why are so many tough guys so afraid of slippery slopes?
that’s an… odd argument. How dare you finance name changes for highschool teams, we’re far more offensive than them and you aren’t doing anything about it!
It’s stupid. This is a smart move on Adidas’ part both financially and morally, and I’m glad that they’re doing it. They can profit on this and it can still be a good thing.
edit: just to be clear, the argument you’re referencing is stupid, your post is fine.
Yes, “Blackhawks”, “seminoles”, “braves” and “warriors” are exactly the same as an outdated racial slur.
It’s almost as if he’s a paid shill.
What, the Golden State Warriors are offensive to fans of non-suspension bridges?
Sure, until 1969 the team used a Indian logo of some sort. Maybe we can decide that 46 years is long enough to no longer have an issue with that?
The term “Warrior” is generic and completely valid, and has no business being included in this discussion.
Maybe not, if it’s ever accompanied by imagery and a mascot that are definitely not representative of Native Americans. If it is, as with every team I’ve ever seen that’s called the Warriors, then it does have business being included in the discussion. As a Native American, Simon Moya-Smith, wrote:
The term “Indian” isn’t a racial slur, even though it’s incorrect; and neither are the terms “brave” or “warrior.”
But that’s missing the point.
When the status of a Native American is demoted to that of a caricature, we are objectified and diminished as a people. We become entertainment, not fellow citizens. How are you supposed to take me seriously if all you see is the stereotypical image of the Hollywood or sports mascot Indian?
Sure, my comment isn’t about the disparagement of Native Americans. Just the inclusion of the GSW in the list, just because nearly half a century ago they used a mascot that would today be offensive.
Also:
http://fieldtheory.co.uk/portfolio/london-warriors/
http://tituscup.ca/Teams/Warriors.htm
etc…
I’m voting for “Oakland Cryptids.”
Actually no. As I said, if the depicted warriors are not Native American, the term is not “offensive.” The offense otherwise is racism, which doesn’t exist in your examples.
What are you even arguing about? The GS Warriors do not use any Indian imagery or mascotry and haven’t for 46 years. They don’t even sell throwback jerseys or other merch incorporating it. If they did, they’d belong in the discussion, but they don’t, so they don’t.
(After a little digging, the only current logos I found for Warriors teams that use Indian imagery are a couple of Pop Warner and Little League, plus one Canadian minor league hockey team. I’d think they’d be more sensitive up in Moose Jaw, but IANAC so I dunno.)
I get it now, thanks. Not arguing now.
My high school, “Roosevelt,” had a mascot called “The Roughrider” or we were the “Roosevelt Roughriders” but the image shown was usually Teddy Roosevelt with a big stick.
It probably still survives to this day though I get a giggle over “roughrider” these days.
What might be offensive is the idea that there is something wrong with Oakland, so shameful that the location of the team needs to be obscured by a euphemism …
Is there an Oakland high school with an odd mascot?
@smulder means why aren’t they called the Oakland Warriors. The answer, AFAIK, is that upon moving from San Francisco they had to change the name*, and supposedly picked Golden State to indicate that they represented the whole state, not just the Bay Area coughbullshit. They did play six “home games” in San Diego though. Anyway, I don’t know how bad Oakland was back then — the Raiders and As never had a problem with the association — but basketball wasn’t nearly as popular as it is today, so maybe they really were trying to see what might boost the fanbase.
* This was back before a pro sports franchise could move forty-three fucking miles away and keep the name of its erstwhile hometown.
This is one of those sports things… I live in Oakland but what I know about Raiders fans is to give them a lot of space on game day, especially if they lose (and even if they win!).
