“Warriors” Canceled: Understandable or Irrational Decision?

Posted on by

July 23, 2021

by David Earl

Warriors Receive Negative Pushback

In a recent interview, Washington team president Jason Wright expressed how the name “Warriors” was his personal top choice, especially with what the name could signify on and off the field. While details of what the name “Warriors” could have meant for the organization weren’t discussed, Jason explained, “We said, you know, ‘Warriors’ doesn’t work for a variety of reasons. That was a learning journey for me, frankly.” It was in his discussions with those affected the most by the previous Redskins name and logo who expressed the concerns over the Warriors name. Of course, the term Warriors isn’t exclusive to Native Americans but is a common derivative of their ancient culture which represents a vital expression of their spirit. Knowing that, it’s the assumption that “Warriors” is simply a means to honoring and, in some cases, holding onto the Native American representation of the team’s history in their eyes. It’s in this way Jason Wright and the organization have decided to not use Warriors, but was this decision truly warranted? Based on our current poll, many apparently understand this decision:

Approach Too One Dimensional???

While the logic to abandon Warriors is sound in some perspectives because of the relation to the true origins of the word Redskin, it is not synonymous with Native American culture. In fact, the word warrior is also routed from the Middle English word werreour (period 1100-1500) and refers to a soldier or combatant. It’s this angle that can be a focal point when Ron Rivera‘s goal is to honor our military servicemen and women. The United States Army Warrior Ethos alone meshes perfectly with the new culture being set within the team. The idea that this option for a name draws too close of comparison to Native American culture is just lazy; plus, it also misses a golden opportunity to infuse military culture and mentality into an organization that lost its respectability and honor decades ago.

Sure the word can embody the idea of violence and war on the surface. It’s through a military meaning where the group (i.e., a military unit) takes precedence over the individual.  It usually a mentality that is clearly distinct from the rest of the society and is the very culture Ron clearly wants to instill in an organization mired in past controversy.

Yes, the rationale can be understood on why to not use this name, but allowing this idea of close Native American reference solely to eliminate Warriors as an option is also a dangerous direction. Simply look at the other potential options in Redwolves and Wolves – these animals, found throughout North America, carry heavy spiritual meaning among the Native American culture. In their mythology, wolves are medicinally associated with courage, strength, and loyalty while (with some tribes) considered one of six directional guardians.

As you see above, avoiding any Native American imagery being applied to the decision now opens up a larger can of worms too. If people want to avoid such imagery because of the possibility of offending a group (especially in terms of using it as a mascot), that can conceivably be applied to other names. Red Tails, for example, is a name many would find ok, and it garnered support from Lt. Col. Harold Brown (one of America’s first African-American military pilots) as it would honor a legacy.  Brown stated, “I don’t know of a better way to keep that name alive than to put it on a name right behind ‘Washington.’ ” Then there is Lt. Col. George Hardy, who noted that “opposing fans yelling “those damn Red Tails,” isn’t exactly paying homage to the real-life pilots.” This is obviously just one example, but if the idea is that if a nickname doesn’t sit well with everyone, then we must eliminate its potential use as well. The point here is the organization should not be beholden to such an ideology when picking a name because if it’s applied to one then it must be applied to all.

Political Correctness Gone Too Far?

In today’s culture, it’s very clear that it’s all or nothing with zero compromises on sensitive topics. In many situations, the voices being heard aren’t typically from the majority but are simply the loudest. I obviously can’t confirm that is this the case here but, taking history around the name debate into account, it’s reasonable to believe that this is true in this instance. Allowing the Warriors name, as it appears to some, to be taken hostage over the idea that it may invoke Native American imagery gives the perception of catering to today’s “Cancel Culture.” This approach just doesn’t sit well with many, especially when Jason speaks to how they may treat fans entering with old Redskins attire. This was talked about on our recent show “Looks like the Warriors won’t come out and play“, as co-host, Steve Thomas expressed his displeasure in Jason Wright’s approach here when he said, “[t]his is the first thing that Jason Wright has done that I vehemently disagree with,” then later saying, “What bothered me most is the rationale in eliminating the name Warriors.” Steve continues to talk about how tiring this political correctness is in today’s society, which I certainly agree with. I also share the same opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Warriors, as no one has an issue with Golden State Warriors. The idea that after battling over the Redskins name for decades only to name the team “Warriors” is what lends to the belief they are just attempting to maintain Native American imagery is lazy. Warriors could have had limitless marketing and rebranding angles which very easily could have steered clear of any Native American imagery. Now that the organization has set this precedent, names like Redwolves and Wolves could be in serious jeopardy of becoming the new name – which will generate more backlash here.