Quote:
Originally Posted by MTK
Some people are taking it way too far. Warriors with the spear logo would be perfectly appropriate and not offensive. Warriors is a very generic term and spears aren't exclusive to Native Americans. Drop the feather off the spear if it helps but I don't think that's necessary.
|
The people taking it too far are the protesters.
The name Redskins is perfectly appropriate and not offensive for the Washington football team.
MTK, I think you're asking the wrong question about the name Warrior. The question isn't is it reasonable. The question is will the people pressuring Nike and FedEX over "Redskin" , protest "Warrior" next?
Making the new Washington Warriors colors basic army camo would save this mess. But then you have leftist protests about "pro-military" "white surpremacy" etc. Are people willing to stand up for that? Or kneel before the protesters like now?
And face it, "warpath" is on the same level as "teepee", "taking scalps", etc. Think the same leftist protesters won't go after those, especially after they get their way on "Redskins"?
And if you're personally OK with ditching "Redskins", why not "Warpath"? Again, I hope you don't. Just stating what's going to happen with current trends.
-------------------------------------
BTW
The dictionary definition changed over time, that's on those people, and people pressuring them.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblo...-so-offensive/
I could have sworn a major change in definitions happened in the late 90s - 2000's, not coincidentally during Redskin protests but I've having about as much luck googling it as I am the names of people killed during recent riots vs say Floyd and Brooks. Go figure.
Cheers!