What about Warriors?

[Falcon Commander]

I like it.

But, I've never been good with this political correct stuff.

[Germainfitch1]

I dont think the term Warrior is not politically correct. It would be like calling us the BG infantry men. It is not like Redskins or Indians or Fighting Irish or Savages. There is no negative conotation witht he term Warriors.

[Dayons_Den]

I dont think the term Warrior is not politically correct. It would be like calling us the BG infantry men. It is not like Redskins or Indians or Fighting Irish or Savages. There is no negative conotation witht he term Warriors.

I think this discussion has become moot, but there is negative conotation as far as this subject is concerned. Ay Ziggy Zoomba was, reportedly, a translation of a Zulu War Chant implying the Zulus as "warriors" singing the song before battle.

[Germainfitch1]

How is that a negative connotation? Because they went to battle? Zulu warriors. Is it not celebrating their courage and strength. I have been to Zulu areas in South Africa and studied it a bit and from what I have read of their battles they could easily be called warriors. They fought guns with spears in attempts to hold on to their lands. Celebrating a group of people like that is not politcally incorrect.

Would it be negative to call a team the United States Soldiers?

[BGDrew]

Actually, I might be a little offended calling a team the Soldiers (thinks back to the comments Kellen Winslow made about a year and a half ago).

[Flipper]

My initial response was mostly tongue in cheek, but one need only examine the recent history of Marquette University to see how well the "Warrior" nickname plays these days.

[Germainfitch1]

THey had a mascot named Wille Wampum or something like that, and it had native american stereotypes all about it. If we have nothing to do with something like that than how is the term warrior not politically correct.

PS: I have always had a problem with people getting upset when athletes use the term soldiers. In my mind they are celebrating the bravery and courage of the armed services by saying it was a battle out there, we have to be like soldiers. They are searching for the most courageous and brave person they can to compare themselves to. And soldiers are who they picked. I think you would have to be a little slow if you actually thought the athletes thought their battle on the field or court equaled an actual battle. It is a metaphor(or simile?), nothing more.

[factman]

The point is that there is not an athlete in the world that even come close to the bravery, guts, or most other terms you want to use along those lines, that remotely comes close to the bravery, guts etc, that a SOLDIER shows in battle.
Football, basketball, baseball etc are GAMES. Soldiers in WAR are "life and death". It deserves NO comparison.

[Flipper]

Well stated, factman!!!

The point you need to consider, Germaine (sic) is that Marquette didn't stop at eliminating the offensive name of the mascot, the mascot itself or the native american imagery associated with it. The got rid of the name as well.

You could strip away whatever cultural attachments the name has, but ultimately in this day and age on the typical college campus you will just about always run into people who are opposed to names like "Warrior" because they are offended by the implication that native peoples like the Zulus and our own native Americans were just a bunch of bloodthirsty savages.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but that appears to be the reality.

[Germainfitch1]

Reading comprehension needs to be taught on this board.

The athletes know that they are nowhere near the bravery or courage of soldiers in war. But those are the bravest people that they see. How can you not be allowedto make comparisons like that? My love is nothing like a red rose. My heart is not torn apart like a rabit trapped by wolves. It is poetic comparison. They are not saying my job playing basketball is comparable to what soldiers do in war. They are honoring them by saying tonight I will need to be brave, brave like the bravest person in the world. Which is a soldier.

And as far as marquette goes they did not stop at the mascot but the reason Warriors was taken out was because of the mascot. You can't ignore that. Warriors by itself may have stood but the mascot was racially offensive and directly tied to the name Warriors. Warriors by itself is not offensive at all. It is a positive. At marqueete the fans were spitting on the Indian mascot and mocking him doing an Indian whooping call. He obviously objected because that is racist. Celebrating men who tried to defend their homelands using spears against the British and the Boers who were armed with guns is not Politically incorrect.

[Warthog]

I hear what you are saying germaine, but the same holds true for major league baseball's Indians and Braves. While names themselves do not raise a stir per se, it is the connotations and symbols (smiling, red-faced Indian) that are associated with them that people find politically incorrect. FWIW, I am not on of them. Wouldn't you consider it an honor if a team called themselves Brave and referenced you by it? :shrug:

[Dayons_Den]

Wouldn't you consider it an honor if a team called themselves Brave and referenced you by it? :shrug:

I think you would have to be of native american heritage to answer that question.

I have mixed feelings on this issue and have seen native americans embrace the names and wear chief wahoo hats but have also witnessed ridiculous half time dances meant to "honor" braves and such.

Don't know if this is out of left field but you asking natives to be "honored" by nicknames and in turn the negatives (tomahawk chops, big nosed chief wahoo etc.) kind of reminds me of the right winger who said women shouldn't get upset if they are getting raped, they should just lay back and enjoy it. . . (sorry if that is too graphic, but i feel it is somewhat relevant)

[Warthog]

I understand what you are saying DD. And I agree that the Cheif Wahoo, tomahawk chop, etc, have taken away from the "honor" as I put it and made it a politcal issue. I guess I was using tunnell vision to just look at it in simple terms, i.e., being called Brave is a good thing, nothing politcal about it. But as you say, it is impossible to just look at it in those terms.

[Flipper]

No need to get snotty Germain(e)

I don't think athletes should compare themselves to soldiers. Typically athletes DON'T say "I need to be like a soldier" they say "I am a soldier".
There is a distinct difference between the two. One is indeed an attempt (albeit ridiculously hyperbolic) to pay homage, the other is an attempt to equate the trivial act of participating in an athletic contest with putting your life on the line in defense of your country. If people who have actually served in th emilitary want to take umbrage with that attitude, I think they're entitled to do so.

Re the whole "Warrior" dust up. Good luck with that. Trot yourself out there at Anderson Arena in some Zulu-esque garb and see how well you're received. I'm betting you'll get some heat for it.

On a related note, here's an article I ran accross today about a group that's taken a different approach to the issue

http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 40054&rs=2

(you may have to provide some generic info about DOB and gender to access)

[kdog27]

No need to get snotty Germain(e)

I notice that he took out the "e" in his name, but I still like calling him germain(e) too.

Also, Germain(e) did I hear you call out someone's reading comprehension? Something about that does not seem right to me.