Scholarship table
https://nypost.com/2021/07/12/washington-football-team-axes-fan-favorite-new-name/So they axe Warriors because it is offensive to certain groups in particular Native Americans, but its OK for Golden State. Go figure.
The Louis County vs NFL case isn’t getting any play nationally, but man is this case getting interesting fast.I don’t know how the NFL can possibly win this case with the evidence that exists. A settlement would be hundreds of millions I would imagine.
Stan Kronke is going to make so much money on the SoFi development and the added value of the Rams that any settlement is going to be chump change in comparison.
TAMUI do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.
This has been explained on this site before, I actually think there were posts directly to you, but in case you missed them and are curious.Having the moniker of "Warrior" isn't inherently racist. It depends on the imagery being used with it. Though a majority of teams named "Warriors" in US history opted to utilize Native American imagery, leading some to permanently associate the two regardless of imagery.The Philadelphia Warriors used a racist caricature as their mascot back in the 40s and 50s. When the team relocated to San Francisco in the 60s, they dropped the caricature and replaced it with an image of headdress. Still native imagery but not quite as offensive. This stayed in place until 1968 when the team decided to drop all native imagery and replace it with an image of the Golden Gate bridge. Since then, there have been no logos that even hint at native imagery in Golden State.The timing is important because Golden State made this change in the 60s, decades before there was any significant public pressure to drop Native American mascots. By the time that pressure arrived in the late 90s and reached a boiling point in the mid 2000s, 30 some years had passed. Fans weren't showing up to Oakland Arena in war paint and headdresses anymore, they had successfully transitioned from native imagery to a neutral imagery. On top of that, as long as the team had been in San Francisco, the imagery used didn't fall into the far end of the racism spectrum (i.e. Redskins, Chief Wahoo, and yes, Willie Wampum).Timing is what makes Warriors a bad PR move for the Washington Football Team. Until last season, they had a racial slur for Native Americans as their moniker. Their fans were famously filled with shirtless White guys showing up with tomahawks, war paint, and other racial stereotypes. To take on a moniker that in this country traditionally has been associated with Native American imagery, would be viewed as a continuation of Redskins just in different clothing. Could it be done in a non-problematic way? Sure. Would that be a good PR move for the team? Don't see any way that it could be.
Really?https://sportsmascots.fandom.com/wiki/Chief_Zee_(Washington_Redskins)
Where did he say they were exclusively white guys?
Yes really.Did I ever say that it was exclusively White? A majority are white.
Then why bring race into it?
1. Because the Washington Football Team brought race into it by using a racial slur as their mascot for decades.
So are we not going to bring up Richard Sherman's antics from last night?
The good news is the NFL has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence...... If there's video...... Or the player isn't a superstar.
Lots of detail on The Sherman Imbrogliohttps://nypost.com/2021/07/14/richard-sherman-threatened-to-kill-himself-wifes-911-call/