Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
How would people feel If they changed their name to the Washington warriors and kept the logo?
Much like the Cleveland Indians (where I think they should keep the name and change the logo) I would be ok with this.
|
Personally, I would have no problem with the Redskins logo if they changed their name to the Warriors. It'd be no different than Moosejaw or the Braves, and the name combined with the Native imagery would be more of a reference to their heritage than the outright racist name. I would put it more inline with names like Knights, or Blue Jackets.
I also personally think that BOTH the Indians' name and logo should be changed. Indian was a name given to them by someone confused about where he was.
But I am not a Native person, so it doesn't really matter. If they are fine with Indians but not Redskins that's up to them. But that image with the hats really hits home how bad the Indians' logo is.
Here is a question though: Let's say the Canucks change their logo to Johnny Canuck or the lumberjack that Luongo hasdon his mask. I can see how some Canadians would find it offensive to be grouped into lumberjacks, although it may seem ridiculous to some. Because I look at the Johnny Canuck logo and the Indians' logo and don't see a lot of difference. A characature that is meant to represent a whole group of diverse people. That doesn't mean I find it offensive, just comparable style and intention. That is to say, I don't know that the Indians' logo is meant to be racist (taht doesn't mean it's not), it's a cartoon drawing of a Native person. If someone was tasked to come up with a cartoonish image of a Native, seems reasonable to come up with something like that (again, that doesn't mean it's not racist), but how else do you do it? It's the name that brings that issue about. If you change the name, the issue is avoided.