I disagree with Alex Levine in that the Native American logos and names are for the good and not the bad. If you took any other ethnicity and named a sports team after them, you would have trouble arguing that it is in a positive effort. The fact is, wether these Native American nike names are really right or wrong, people are taking offense to it and that is something that should not have to be delt with from a humanitarian stand point.

In my opinion, using Native American names, traditions, and customs as sports mascots in a mockery is hurtfully racist. You never see mascots of other minority groups because it is wrong and they have enough power in society to do something about it and this may be why there is is not a very high percentage of college or pro athletes who are of Native American ethnicity. Native American people have little or no say in this land that used to be occupied by them. The sports franchises and colleges with Native American nick names should voluntarily change their names out of respect and for the fact that they may be looked at in a bad light. A team name is just a nick name. People are going to cheer and root for a team if they like them, no matter what their team name is. Why would you want a racial slur as your team name any way? The University of Illinois should get traditions of their own instead of stealing those of a defenseless ethnic minority. They are taking a culture which involves a great deal of respect and making fun of it. They act these mockeries out as if the people they are portraying are imaginary and do not exist. They act as if the dances that they imitate carry no meaning at all. There is a reason that you are unable to copy write the word redskins. It should be against the law to use it as a sporting team name for the same reason, because it is offensive and wrong. Other team names are random like the Ravens or the Falcons and some are positive like the Patriots or the Saints, but those of the Native American sort convey more than a hint of imposition. I believe Native Americans will have more power in our society one day and that these overtly racist mascots will be a thing of the past.

The prevalence of Native American and other Radicalized mascots that our sports teams market each year should be removed. For many, talking about removal of Native American mascots is seemingly part of the American push to be overly� politically correct. What I would to know is when did becoming more respectful of other people s position of being dominated in society politically correct, rather than just correct?
I want to tell you something," Mills says. The man leans in. "I'm Native American, and you calling me Chief, it turns my stomach. It'd be very similar to somebody calling you Nigger" (Price 2002). Who is right and who wrong? Whose feelings take precedence? Most important, who gets to decide what we call one another? It's an argument that, because it mixes mere sports with the sensitivities of a people who were nearly exterminated, seems both trivial and profound--and it's further complicated by the fact that for three out of four Native Americans, even a nickname such as Redskins, which many whites consider racist, isn't objectionable (Price 2002).
In the United States there has been a long tradition in our country of white people painting their faces black for something called minstrel shows. Fortunately blackface has been recognized has something that is disrespectful, and not (politically) correct. However, every week at Florida State football games, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and other games involving teams with Native American mascots we have (mostly white) students, faculty, boosters, and fans that go to games performing a minstrelsy of another kind redface.� If we did this for almost any other minority group in the United States there would be a large and united uproar of some sort, unfortunately it does not happen to the same extent for Native Americans.

After watching the videos in class ad reading artices obtaining information about the Native American mascots, I can sit and look at the hard evidence, or fall into the perspective of trying to make everyone happy. There is no way, as I have stated before that you are going to make everyone happy; there is always something or someone that will disagree with a statement, organization and in this case mascots. The number of Native Americans that are not offended by the mascots stands tall and makes a statement to me as I have made my decision on the matter. As Price states in a Sports Illustrated article, Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols�(Price, 2002).
In the case of Cheif Illini, I truly beleve that the people of this school and the actual human mascot saw this character as something great that upheld the spirit of their school. I think that this statement is true not just for the University of Illinios, but for all the mascots that may be seen as disrespectful. Desirable athletic qualities such as having a fighting spirit and being aggressive, brave, stoic, proud, and persevering (King, 2002, p. 392).
To take something like a mascot seriously and as an actual individual or group of people is a bit of a far stretch for me to understand. Does the team name Giants hurt all the feelings of the tall people of the world? What about Andre the Giant, has he sued the NFL for sharing his name? The Dallas Cowboys, does this mascot truly make all the hard-working tough cowboys from the earlier times and their ancestors feel humiliated? I just cannot seem to understand.

Some Native Americans find it discriminatory that many teams have mascots which stereotype their ancestry and customs. When you think about, of all the teams in existence, and in all leagues and sports, Native Americans are the only race that is being used for team names and mascots. Some people may try to elucidate that this is a compliment to their culture but many Native Americans find it insulting to be pigeonholed and used as an icon of something they often times would rather not like to represent. The ability to objectify an entire race of people and to amalgamate them under the singular false image of the dancing, prancing, tomahawk-chopping, savage warrior contains within it the foundation for physically assaulting the individuals to whom one ascribes these characteristics. When a people are only stereotypes they are not real� (King, 2002, p.19). The use of Indian caricatures inaccurately depicts the majority of the Native American people. There are different tribes and nations within the Native American race. To generalize an entire race to an antiquated stereotypical mascot is extremely racists.
America would not be what it is today if not for the displacement and slaughter of the Native American race. These people have faced so much adversity throughout history and today we as a society continue to disrespect these people by use of Indian mascots. When I typed in the word Indian� into Google search engine the first page to come up was the Cleveland Indians Baseball team s homepage. That is not the way a race should be represented, as a baseball team s mascot.

I agree with mmaltagliati and Alex Levine that we the logos and names of our sports teams are trying to promote the good and not the bad. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that so many Native Americans are against it.

I agree with mmaltagliati. We have grown up rooting for these teams all of our lives. We take pride in the colors of our jersey and the names of our teams. We do not look down upon Native Americans or are we making fun of them. Instead we are honoring them. I am having a hard time understand why honoring Native Americans is a bad thing.

Native American Mascots
Native American mascots and nicknames are constantly being used throughout our society. People drive Jeep Cherokees, watch Cleveland Indian baseball and enjoy professional and college football teams such as the Kansas City Chiefs and the Florida State University Seminoles. I believe that these nicknames are an entertaining part of a great tradition and was never intended to harm or make fun of anyone. I tend to look at this much differently than someone who may be from the Native American culture. I would think that Native Americans would be proud to have their names acknowledged throughout our society. I feel as though if I were from that culture, I would be honored that teams would pick nicknames of my culture to represent themselves in front of the world. However I can see how some might find them disrespectful, degrading and humiliating. Therefore I do not believe that people should just stop voicing their opinion about removing Native American mascots. If people feel offended then they should certainly have the right to say something, however, I also do not believe that they should all be removed. I know I do not really have room to speak about what is considered offensive and what is not but I feel like in general, as a whole, our society might be taking these issues a little too seriously. I realize that there are a lot of stereotypes, but as an educated person I have the ability to realize that most of them are false and some are even funny. Although I do not feel comfortable using derogatory terms I am a believer in the idea that if maybe they were used more often they would not have such strong meanings behind them. For example, the term Redskins brings about the same feelings and meaning as Vikings, Cowboys and Giants; Desirable athletic qualities such as having a fighting spirit and being aggressive, brave, stoic, proud, and persevering (King, 2002, p. 392).� Throughout my education I have learned about Native American culture and I would never take seriously what I see at a football game. I really think that a person has to be completely naïve to believe that it is an actual representation of a given community of people. On the other hand, the main woman in that video began to cry because she was insulted. She saw the halftime show as demeaning to native dances and sacred rituals. But maybe if she was not quite as narrow minded, she might realized that these teams are celebrating these Native American tribes instead of bashing them. According to King, stereotypical images of Indians� have been around since the late 1800 s. So I guess my question is, why now, after over two hundred years, are we trying to remove Native American images when most Americans do not even see them in a negative manner? I feel that if we got rid of all Native American mascots, and nicknames in sports and in society in general, eventually these names will die out and future citizens will not be reminded of these tribal names. The Native American name would slowly fade away and be forgotten. Why would people from that culture want to get rid of these names when all society wants to do is represent them in a positive manner. Wasn't the Seminole tribe paid off to be able to use their name? I think the fact that they were paid off makes it much less acceptable. Therefore I think it would bring justice to both parties if we kept the names we already have and stop creating new ones to honor both sides of the spectrum.

The use of Native American mascots in sports is a controversial topic. Although it is 2007 and racial tensions have dramatically decreased in the United States, Native American nicknames as a sports team name is still an issue that needs to be resolved. And the only solution to that problem seems to be the complete removal of these names that are offensive to Native Americans. However, fans, owners and personell of sports teams with Native American mascots would argue against the removal of these names.
Since 1969 more than 600 school teams and minor league professional clubs have dropped nicknames deemed offensive by Native American groups (Price). While this is an improvement, the bigger issue seems to lie in the use of these nicknames in college and professional sports. The reason for this is that college and professional sports are viewed nationwide, not just to a local community. Professional teams such as the Braves, Indians, and Redskins are still using these names as a representation of their team. And these teams know the discontent of Native American groups, but still persist to keep the name. According to Karl Swanson, vice president of the Washington Redskins, the name and symbol symbolizes courage, dignity, and leadership and has always been employed in that manner� (Price). And fans that support the use of these nicknames would agree. Fans would argue passionately that these names represent a tradition of the team and its fans. But is the use of a nickname that denotes a racial slur to an ethnic group really a representation of tradition?
I believe there are other reasons why owners won t change the names of their teams besides the fact that it s a symbol of strength and tradition. The lose of a team name may cause fans to become upset and lose interest. While as ridiculous as it sounds that the changing of a team name may result in a lose of fanhood, it could very likely be true. With the loss of fans, comes a loss of money for the team and its owners. An example of this was illustrated in S.L. Price s article from Sports Illustrated. In it it stated that in April of 1999 a group of Native American activists stripped the Redksins of federal protection on their seven trademark. If it were to pass, the team and the NFL could lose an estimated $5 million annually on sales of licensed merchandise (Price). Any loss of millions of dollars to a team or the NFL would not go over well at all with owners.
On the flip side of this all would be some interesting statistics that were presented in the article. According to the article, a poll taken by Sports Illustrated showed that 81% of Native American correspondents said no to as to whether high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, and 83% said pro teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols (Price). I think that these figures are shocking, because the majority of Native Americans seem to be ok with the fact that these names/symbols/mascots are being used.

I see no problem in using Native American Images as mascots. For instance I'm a Redskins fan, and have been since I was very young, i've grown up with a sence of pride for my team. Granted they dont always play so well, and haven't been to a title game in years. The fact is though is the team and the image and even the colors of the Washington Redskins is something I take pride in and feel I am apart of that team on a certain level. It would be different maybe if I myself was of Native American heritage. Maybe I would think it was inappropriate or even slanderous to my race. But then again Ryan, didnt you say in class that there is no such thing as race, no gene is actually proven to be attributed to race, so what does it matter? There is also the team known as the Cleveland Indians, both these teams have history which comes from their Images and their mascots. I dont think its necessary to go changing what has been historically the name that these teams and images these teams have prided themselves on since they started years and years ago. There have been court cases to get the rights taken from the teams and they havent passed. Simply its an image and a sence of pride for the organizations dont take them away.

I agree with Angie Brewer and that media is not showing the whole truth behind Native American mascots (i.e. pictures). Before seeing the video I never had any idea about the controversy.

I agree with Justin and Brandon. It is a tough subject because though the mascots can be percieved as respectful, they can also be disrespectful. Although, some don't find them disrespectful, some do and I do believe that we should remove them. It would be the same for any other type racial mascot.

I agree with Brandon Nee. This is a tough topic to choose a side on. He gave great supporting details to support his decision on keeping Native American mascots in high schools, colleges, and other types of schools. His numbers show that the only people these mascots are "targeted" at don not mind these mascots existing in todays society.

This is a very tough issue to decide on. I believe it is up to the franchise owners and organization to decide the name of their team. Personally, I am a huge Washington Redskins and Atlanta Braves fan, and my reason for liking the two franchises has nothing to do with the history of their mascots or symbols representing them. I know that these symbols bring back bad memories for many, but nowadays I don t see the race factor coming into play as much as some do when I look at a team s mascot or hear their song and see fans chopping their arms. This country has been through many racial, political, and other numerous conflicts and controversies regarding race, and I feel we have made a huge progress and there will always be people who try to make issues regarding race. I know many Native Americans who are Redskins fans and just go to the game to enjoy them and have put the issues from the past behind them because they feel they aren t one in today s society. I have looked into it before when I began hearing about the controversy surrounding the Redskins symbol on the side of their everyday helmets. When I did that research I found similar information to what our reading said. Team executive Karl Swanson was quoted saying, Because the Redskins and their fans mean nothing racist by using the nickname, it isn't racist or offensive. "This has been the name of our organization for 70 years," "We believe it has taken on a meaning independent of the word itself--and it's positive." The statistics in this article questioning Native Americans and their thought on the issue should eliminate the controversy of this topic.

I have to say that I disagree with Mike's part response in defending the discotinued use of Native American mascots. I don't think that having a Native American as a symbol is nearly as severe as calling a black person the "N" word or any other type of racial slur. I also don't think that it is an issue that is not as highly contested simply because Native Americans are seen as minorities. As has been seen in movies, in the news, articles and even the reading, it is clearly something that has been discussed over a period of several years.

After reading responses from a couple of my classmates, I like the way that some of them said that mascots are supposed to be a pride thing and why would someone want to pride thier school on a weak group or individual. When I think of the Indian Culture, I think of a tough group that were warriors and did what they had to do to survive, not as a weak group who deserves no respect. So when naming a team, in which you want to be "warriors on the field," what better group could you find to portray toughness than the Native Americans? It is a sign of respect in my opinion.

In the case of the mascot naming, I feel very mixed with what is right and what is wrong. When talking about banning every type of American Indian mascot reference because "some" American Indians find it offensive, I feel pretty confused about what (and why) are the motives of the American Indians. The way that i look at this subject is very similar to the article written in Sports Illustrated. I beleive that if the team name (deemed by the indian culture) is not offensive to them, then why is it a bad thing to use that as a name, if anything it is representing the nation. When teams made up thier mascot names, I would think that most of them did not choose such names to be racist and mock the indian culture. Even such things as the chop are used as a ritual for school spirit and unity, not as a racial suggestion from the fans to Native Americans. I do agree with the natives that oppose these mascot names on one condition. This is where the names that are considered racist are used, such as the redskins. If it is a racial term, then absolutely the mascot name should be dropped and replaced. I beleive that other symbols like Cheif Illinawek's dance could be offensive because it is not the same as an actual indian ritual dance, but i do feel that if they learned an actual indian dance and that was performed, then that is a show of tribute to thier culture, like it was intended to be. Again, thinking about the chop, how is that being racist? The fanbase is using a symbol from thier team names heritage to rally thier players, not to make natives feel like dirt. As long as the team names are not racist then, what can the Natives be mad about? When refering to Native Americans, the majority of society know them as "Indians", this is not a racist name. So then why is calling Cleveland's baseball team the Indians bad? I look at it as like a pro team in Boston being called the "Irish". As we know, not everyone that lives there anymore is irish, many are, but not all. I think that Bostonians would happily accept that as thier team name and an appropriate mascot would be one that resembles the Notre Dame Leprachaun. There is nothing racist or derogatory there, again if anything they are saluting the Irish Heritage. So with respect to Cleveland, i feel they should be able to keep thier name. Its not derogatory, it would be like Washington using the "Americans" as a team name, nothing bad towards the US there. Thier mascot is Slider is wierd looking something that i cannot even give a name to, but is not a native american impersonation, and finally the only thing that they should maybe change is their logo representaion of Chief Wahoo.
In conclusion, for me, explaining my view on this subject has been hard, some of this may be a little confusing to understand but an outline of the way I feel goes like this: I do not think that many of the team names are derogatory (Indians, Tribe, Fighting Sioux, etc) and therefore should be allowed. I also beleive that the names were not and are not used as being racist (even the racist ones), along with the actions seen in the games by the fans, they are just poorly portrayed. I feel that if the name is racist (Redskin) and the actions (Chief Illinawek's dance) are racist, then they should be dropped with respect to the Indian nation, but if not considered racist and used mockingly by the Natives, I feel that it would be an honor to have a team name themselves after my heritage.

I think I would have to go more towards defending the Native American mascots. I think it is a good way to stay connected to the Native's and their symbolism, as they did have great meaning to the Native's. Also, they used symbols too and wasn't offensive, so I don't see how using it now to support sports and teams is offensive or violating. However, each person's opinion is different, I can see why some would think it is offensive. Also, mascots are away just to enthuse the crowd and players- and give more life to the athletic event. It is not as if they are derrogatory, or offensive- they are simply for motivation. I wouldn't be offended if a team I played on had a Native American mascot because I know they are not real, and simply for the entertainment of the game. Although, I think this topic is very controversal and can go either way depending on what your views on it are. I think it is just for love of the game and the players, and is not mean to be offensive or violating.

It surprises me to still see today so many teams with Indian mascots. We all know that Asian and African American mascots would be seen as ludicrous. Its equivalent to a German soccer team being called the Berlin Kikes� (Price, 2002). So why are Indian related mascots accepted in a country were racism is highly looked down upon. Some people may fight that it is part of the history of their school. And in some cases this might be true, but in most it is not at all related. Others might say that they are representing them with honor at their school. From watching the video in class we know that this is not true. The Native American s ceremonies and traditions are sacred and pretending to reenact them as a form of entertainment is disrespectful. There are numerous Native Americans in this country who are feeling the pain of all these Indian mascots.
Sports Illustrated wrote the article The Indian Wars�. The headlines used to entice the readers were such things as Are Indian Team Names Offensive?� and Our pool will surprise you.� (Price, 2002). This type of editorial framing of the findings in advance of their introduction can hardly be interpreted as balanced reporting.� (Goldberg, 2001). In the article they not once had a picture of a real Native American Indian, all they had were photos of Indian mascots, players, and fans. They did not represent Native Americans in pictures of them protesting or flyers that they had put up to defend themselves and their culture. The message that is sent across by Sports Illustrated is biased and conveys the reader to think that there is no controversy in having Indian mascots. Obviously this is not true and there needs to be more action taken to defend the Native Americans.

People have many different opinions on the matter of whether using Native American symbols as mascots is morally correct or not. Though it seems wrong� to say this, I believe that those mascots should be able to stay. It is hard to allow myself to say that, because in a sense some people could say it makes me sound racist. It is hard for me to fully understand how those who are offended get upset over this issue because I don t really see how we are making fun of the culture. Races, gender and ethnicities are used as symbols every day and it is not as if we can just cut those out of our lives. I don t think by using Native American background as a mascot that people are making fun of them. Mascots are used as symbols of pride for teams and schools and to me it seems like it should be seen as a positive thing that people are so connected to their Native American mascots (and other mascots in general). I would not personally feel violated or offended if someone were to take something like the sign for female� as a mascot. It s not like we as Towson University students think it s unfair to use the Tiger as our mascot and say that it is morally wrong for animal rights. In the article Of Polls and Race Prejudice, he writes that readers learn that a majority of sports fans apparently do not find Native American mascots and nicknames offensive nor go Native Americans� (Page 384). Despite this being a heavily debated issue, I also believe that although some are bothered by this, it may be true that not as many people are offended by it as is thought.

I would have to say that I disagree with Ashley P. If the Native Americans thought having a mascot that represent and made them proud of there culture then why would they be protesting so hard against it. Who's to say that if we had a team that represented another race that it too wouldn't use a slander nickname.

Native American mascots have always been a social controversy. More and more schools and sports teams have eliminated all affiliations with a Native American mascot but many organizations still take pride in keeping there tradition. Personally I believe that we should remove all attachments to the Native American culture. Teams like the Redskins and the Cleveland Indians are both racially suggested. If a team were to be named after any other race there would be an overwhelming majority to oppose. Just because the American Indians aren t a dominant culture doesn t mean we should take advantage and portray them in a stereotypical way. ..The mascots stereotype Native Americans as not only existing in the past, having a single culture, and being aggressive fighters.� (King, Staurowsky, Baca, Davis & Pewewardy, 2002 p. 392) There lack of a strong leader like Martin Luther King was to the African Americans makes the Native Americans subject to this abuse . The only positive from having a few persistent individuals of the Native American community is that slowly colleges are finally getting rid of the slander and insulting names.

i agree with verina79 that people like to leave the real world and enter the world of sports. It takes them away from a rough day, or even a rough life. They relate well with their teams, and don't like them to sometimes change as people fear change. I mean as long as a team doesn't leave an area i think it is okay to change some things as time goes on, and maybe make it a better environment.

i agree with bigcougar0000 as it is a degradation in that way. I mean it needs to be gotten rid of despite trying to make it look legit. Chief wohoo makes a mockery of some ones culture. I mean no matter where you go you are going to have someone complaian which sometimes is annoying but this is an issue that needs to be looked at seriously

I agree with Mike V that the country is trying to move foward and by having them being used it kind of makes the progression get hindered as instead of having everyone for it you have groups against it

Well I am somewhere in the middle of the issue on using native american mascots. I believe that even though Native Americans were persecuted and treated very unfairly throughout history. The trail of tears, pioneers saying their actions were justified by god told them to push native americans to the west, were some of the things that went on. Many Native Americans were killed and people saying they are trying to honor them, is like naming a team off people that died in the Titanic, you don't want to remember. I think they are also mad because they live in terrible conditions and many commit suicide. I think if they lived prosperous lives maybe it would be different. On the other hand people want to remember different groups of people (cowboys,vikings,patriots,steelers and more remind people of the history of civilization, and native americans are part of it too, so in that way it is looked as being part of history too. Most people from the other groups probally arent alive and as aa result cannot be mad. Now many teams have had the history of using the names because it was part of history and it might be racist. I mean just because something was one way in the past doesn't mean its okay to do the same thing today.(slavery,presecutions, seperation of caucaasion and african americans, aand more). My high school had to change its logo and mascot because of it. Our name was the trailblazer with a native american logo, and got shortened to blazer which is a goat. I feel that if people are very upset about the names or logos being used they shouldnt be used. I mean it would be the same as terms such as porchmonkey , guido or other terms being used. I mean some people wouldn't care but you know some people would be really mad about it. It makes the area safer as arguements don't come about. I mean the first amendment should be used except if hurting people. The washington bullets had to change their name because people shot each other and that was a stereotype of washington because of it. It may be a fact but you don't need to celebrate it.

I agree with what Mike V said about the United States being a progressive nation and that we should stop being so hypocritical. We are trying to move forward in getting rid of racism yet it is clearly alive and well, even among our favorite sports teams. Mike uses a great example with the redskins about how the government has already stated that the term 'redskin' is derrogetory and will not be patented for any use and also how the DMV does not allow those same types of racist and demeaning words on license plates.

I agree with Aaron C's comment about how you take the mascot. If things are done right, then it doesn't make a big difference what you use but using a mascot like that appropriately is very hard to so that everyone is appeased.

Using racial stereotypes as a mascot attracts many mixed reactions because some of the teams that use them have a storied history, and are therefore very attached to their mascots. It is something that is hard to let go for these people because they do not want to change what they know. According to one article, most people do not mind the Indian references (King et al, 2002). However, this is currently at the expense of probably the most belittled ethnicity in out country, the Native Americans. Many high schools, college, semi-professional and professional teams claim to honor Native Americans by naming a team after them. Most of the time, the team name is either derogatory or some made up tribe. A few schools have been able to get permission of the local tribes that share the name so that their beloved mascot can be kept. The government is starting to step in by making colleges do that and are even applying pressure to professional teams, such as the Washington Redskins, who can t patent their logo. The NCAA is even asking for teams with Indian names to not be scheduled unless it has to be done. These things are clear signs that Native American mascots are on the decline. Something like this just makes a race feel unwanted. It almost makes it seem like a good idea to just get rid of team nicknames, most of them don t represent anything with the team (aka the Los Angeles Lakers) and now a number of them are causing an ethnicity to feel oppressed.

I agree with ashley. I would be proud as well if a team had a mascot of my heritage. It wouldn't offend me and I do not think it is such a big deal. Everyone has a different level of sensitivity, we can't all fit everyones needs.

To add, the Native American woman in the film we watched in class did not want her children to have to see the mascot and how the crowd reacted. I almost find it hard to believe that their children were in tears and were disgusted. In no way does it look like people are laughing AT the mascot. People are cheering for the character. That may sound narrow minded, but there is no intention to offend someone of a certain background because of a mascot, or symbol. I think that people may jump to defend themselves when it is unneccesary.

In my personal opinion, it is okay for a school to have a mascot of a Native American Indian. While it may offend some people of that heritage, it doesn t offend everyone. I wouldn t mind if there was a mascot with my heritage; I would be proud that a school and its sports teams want that kind of mascot to represent them. In the article, Indians of North America, a poll done showed that 81% of Native Americans don t think schools should stop using Indian Nicknames and 83% of them said teams should not stop using nicknames and mascots in pro sports (Price, 2002). If the majority of Native Americans think that it is okay, then I believe it is okay to have. If the majority disagreed with it, then maybe I would reconsider my opinion.
On the contrary, maybe I don t understand how it offends them. I think if the mascot is performing a genuine dance with genuine clothes, I think I would be pleased. I can understand if they were angry about their mascot making up dances with a costume of an Indian. In the article by S.L. Price, he explains an instance where a Native American gets very offended with the way people refer to him. "I want to tell you something," Mills says. The man leans in. "I'm
Native American, and you calling me Chief, it turns my stomach. It'd be
very similar to somebody calling you Nigger" (Price, 2002). I find this mind boggling. I do not think it is the same to call someone a chief as it would to call someone the slang term for a Negro. To me, I do not see Chief as a degrading term in any sort. I see it as a very positive term, actually. The slang term for Negro has been said to be the most degrading term there is to call an African American, and I completely understand why people think that. I do not see how, in any way, Chief is a negative term. I see it as an authoritative figure; someone with wisdom and knowledge. If that Native Americans who are dissatisfied with the mascots because they see it as a joke should sit back and actually watch the crowd. They would see that having a mascot brings a crowd together, unifies them. Therefore, I think if people could understand that then everyone would agree that it is a positive thing to have a Native American Mascot.

I do not agree with L.McAfees comment in that just because a poll says American Indians think mascots are not harmful, does not mean the image the mascots make are right. Polls are misleading and who knows where this sample population came from, as it could have came from American Indians who may say they have Indian ancestry, but may actually not practice Indian traditions and such. To defend a person who says they are honoring Indians by wearing face paint is a cop-out, and certainly a weak excuse for having racist mascots in sports (If a white male dressed up as a famous or revered African American for Halloween, would that be considered "honoring" that individual? I wouldn't think so...)

To look at the use of Indian mascots in the sporting world, S.L. Price worded it best, stating it was a slippery issue� in that there is so much middle ground on the controversy, no one can really decide who is wrong (2007, p 2). Are we being too politically correct as a society and should we just accept something that has been around for almost a full century? Or should we stand up for the underrepresented American Indian population, and defend their dignity as a great and contributing ethnic group? In my opinion, I believe we as a progressive thinking nation, we should stop being hypocritical, and start taking responsibility for our past behaviors. A great example of this is the use of the redskin name, a term deemed demeaning by patent laws (White, 2007) and even the DMV (Price, 2007) but it can still be used in our nation s capital. The fact that the redskin name can still exist is disgusting and really shows how low society has sunk to defend a simple sports team. Fans of the Redskins for a fact cannot say they identify themselves as an actual redskin, so what would be the problem if the team changed its name? Probably only greed since new jersey s would have to be bought and time would have to be spent to get used to a new team name. Another point being, that recently videos have been released to the media showing racist behavior towards African Americans or even other cultures from a celebrity, and this person is rightly lambasted and berated until they do a full apology plus more. Why can t these prestigious sports teams receive this sort of attention? Sadly, do to numerous factors such as social status, economic power, and even just bad luck, American Indians will probably have to suffer this figurative slap in the face� by mainstream American sports until someday, hopefully their luck will turn.

The issue on Native American mascots is very controversial. We can see this issue being exemplified mostly in professional sports. The Cleveland Indians, Washington Redskins, and the Atlanta Braves have all stirred up mixed emotions throughout their history. Many Native Americans believe using these names are considered being racist towards them. While they have a point, I do no believe that Native American mascots should be banned. First, these team names have lasted a century long, if not more. It is part of the team s history and our heritage. You can t just change a team name and logo and expect fans to go buy the new apparel. Sports are a generating capital industry. Every fan has their team s apparel and would not change their fan hood because their team must be called a different name and change their logo. It is not like a team is changing their jersey colors, they are changing their mascot, logo, and team name which us as fans grew up to love. The second reason I believe that Native American mascots should not be banned is because these teams do not have any racist or derogatory meanings toward Native Americans.
Nevertheless, Redskins vice president Karl Swanson says the name "symbolizes courage, dignity and leadership and has always been employed in that manner.�
Because the Redskins and their fans mean nothing racist by using the nickname, it isn't racist or offensive.� This has been the name of our organization
for 70 years," Swanson says. "We believe it has taken on a meaning
independent of the word itself--and it's positive." (Price, 2002, pg. 4-5)
Native Americans and Americans have different views on the meaning of the word redskin. Although this is the case, the Redskins organization means no harm by using this word. They are not using the word as its derogatory meaning. Evidently, the Redskins have changed the meaning of the word around. What I believe is that this word redskin use to be negative until that is, the Washington Redskin organization turned the word around to be meant positive.

I believe that the use of Native American mascots is an inappropriate and offensive practice. Although I have overlooked how racist this is until the information from this class, I now realize how demeaning the use of a particular people to promote a sporting team is. It is a rather disgusting comparison that the minds behind these symbols draw considering that most other sport mascots are animals. By putting the picture of a Native American person on the same level as a bear, raven, turtle, or bull, to name a few, is an obvious slander of their culture.

While some of the sports teams do attempt to maintain a dignified persona of their mascot, others just make a complete mockery of the culture. Characters such as Chief Wahoo� provide a ridiculous view of a typical American Indian, whose name and appearance portray their people as nothing more than clowns. The use of goofy African American figures in popular culture has long since been a taboo action in America, so there the fact that the degradation of one culture is less offensive than another is terrible. If it is not politically correct to use the image of a black man as a silly sports figure, then the image of a silly Native American should have an equivalent social violation.

The franchises that currently use these Indian symbols should be forced to change their mascots, if not through authoritative regulation, then through the boycotting by fans. While this is something that is much easier said than done, if those that supported the teams demanded change, then our society would be much closer to not being racially divided.

i agree with Francesca, it is ridiculus to think that mascots should act as they are in real life. Mascots are fictional characters that are used for motivation and to pump up a crowd.

I feel that the use of Native American mascots should not be allowed at high school, college, and professional levels simply because it is offensive and racist to people within that community. People often argue that having a Native American mascot shows no disrespect to the people and that it should be an honor to have something named for you and for the hardships you have overcome in the past. American Indians deserve the same respect that is given to African Americans by way of thinking racially. If there were a team that called themselves the slaves, with a picture of a cartoon black man, the school or team would probably be shut down, not just forced to get rid of thier mascot. Maybe that example is extreme but the inequalities are blatant. People also say that there are some Native Americans who have no problems with the mascots. This sentiment is 100% alright but it should not detract from the fact that others are offended and hurt by what is portrayed. One activist for Native American rights points out in Sports Illustrated's "The Indian Wars" that "We lost our land, we lost our languages, we lost our children...we have more racial violence perpetrated upon us, and we are forgotten" (Price, p. 3). Like we discussed in class, the lack of a powerful spokesperson, who could be mirrored in this case to the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. is a great deterrent in the Native Americans push for racial equality and acceptance. I feel that it is not always the fact that the mascot represents part of the Native American culture that is offensive but instead it's the indecent portrayal of something that is held sacred to these people that crosses the line.

When thinking of this topic the phrase If it ain t broke don t fix it,� comes to mind due to the fact that Native American mascots have been used for so long that it doesn t make much sense to change now. Now I do see the point that some Native Americans may see these mascots as racist but what it comes down to is the idea that when these mascots were instituted there was not much noise being made. This can be seen as a blatant disregard for the Native American people in actually creating these mascots who have become icons for certain schools and teams. After reading both articles I have come to the conclusion that this excerpt clears up any questions that I may have. Also I completely agree with this quotation to some degree:

Although I am offended by the image of Chief Wahoo and the name of the Washington Redskins, I do not have to go to the stadium and subject myself to them. And although that image and name prevent me from attending a game or truly enjoying one if I did, I ascribe a lesser importance to that than the same imagery at an elementary or secondary school or college. (Baca, Davis, King, Pewewardy, Staurowsky, 2002)

I do feel that children and teenagers should be aware of these issues that have long been associated with Native American Mascots. But at the same time I do feel as though there are strong ties to the heritage of Native Americans. This in turn, in my opinion, is more of a tribute to the heritage of Native Americans than a stab at racism. This group as a people has been discriminated against for a long time but I personally don t feel as though mascots are a way to poke fun at Native Americans. Furthermore, just because Native Americans have been discriminated against in the past, a la 1400 s to present, they should feel proud about the use of their culture to promote strength and unity for people to connect to the rest of the world.

I agree with the comments about mascots being positive and uplifting and everything, but if some people are offended and it makes them think less of themselves then it's not worth it. I myself agree with francesca terrano that I would not be offended by any of those mascots, but some people would and that is why mascots can be harmful.

I agree with Brandon Nee's comment. The reason mascots are chosen are never neagative. He lists good positive points of why mascots are chosen in the first place.

Native American mascots in sports are dwindling down. Every year more and more colleges and professional teams have decided to eliminate their Native American mascot in an attempt to be politically correct.� While some feel like the Native American mascot is offending and degrading to the Native American culture; I think of it is as an honor. This is a very controversial topic and I could go either way but I just have a hard time seeing how an Indian mascot can offend a culture. The video we watched in class showed a woman who was truly upset by the mascot and felt it was an insult to have an Indian as a mascot. I believe the Native American mascot is putting that culture on a pedestal as someone to be admired. As someone had mentioned in class, it is a way for their culture to be celebrated and recognized for their way of life.
A recent SI poll suggests that although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently. Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.� (Price, 2002)
With this information, I fell the overwhelming majority of Native American people do not mind the usage of Indian symbols and mascots. Unless the majority of Native American found this to be offensive, I do not think mascots should be changed; let the numbers do the talking. Some Indian tribes argue that the dances done and face paint worn was not actually a part of their ritualistic ceremonies. The Illinois fighting Illini has said that the dance and attire worn by Chief Illiniwek was researched in an attempt to have an accurate Indian mascot. I believe Chief Illiniwek will truly be missed by fans, players, and alumni of Illinois because of his long history of hyping up the crowd.

I agree with J.Hyson. The facts don't support the cause. And he did have a good idea that these colleges and pro sports teams should know the history of their mascots and try to portray them as real as possible, instead of making a mockery of them as Illinois did. This subject is definitely a doube-edged sword.

The use of Native American mascots in our schools, colleges and professional sports teams seem to plague today s racially sensitive climate,� as Sports Illustrated states. As for whether they should be removed or not is a very hard question to answer.

In my opinion, I don t think that the Native American mascots should be removed. Now I do understand that these mascots could be seen as offensive to Native Americans, but why fight something that the majority of this ethnicity doesn t feel the need to fight? When Sports Illustrated polled Native Americans and asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native Americans respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols.� With this being the case, it truly makes me wonder why this is such an issue. I understand that Native American activists have made a big fuss but if they polled their race then they would realize that they don t support the activists endeavors. If a majority of the Native Americans said that this was an issue, my opinion would be different. But why take away the Redskins or Indians names when it s not absolutely necessary? These arguments just seem never-ending to me because if it s not one thing it s another, which is the politics in our nation today. It seems to me that the sports world would be more affected than the Native Americans. So, until the Native Americans unite as one and decide that they all don t like these mascots, I believe these mascots should stay in place.

I have been struggling to find an answer to this weeks blog. My gut tells me that it is not right to use Native American mascots however there are some key points that I am torn about. I was very suprised at the study from the Sports Illustrated article when i read that "Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name." That was baffling to me. A team that has the most derogetory name that can be used to refer to Native Americans and the majority of them do not find it offensive? Even the majority of those who live in reservations did not seem to mind. This has confused me a lot because I'd be willing to bet my house that if the Washington Redskins were to change their name to the Washington Niggers than the overwhelming majority of African Americans would find it offensive. So if most Native Americans are not offended by a name like the Redskins then what is offensive about all the other teams?
However i still believe that there shouldnt be Native American Mascots. My reasoning is that the very teams that are using the names are usually owned by the same people that nearly wiped out the Native American population and took over their land. I think Michael Yellow Bird said it best "...If people
think this is how to honor us, then colonization has really taken hold." I think most people nowadays do not think the names are offensive because we are too far removed from the history behind the Native Americans vs. Europeans. That might not necessarily be a bad thing though.

I would have to agree with Mike Manley on several issues. Being Irish myself, I don't find the Notre Dame Fighting Irish offensive either. In fact, I actual credit them for portraying my culture. Secondly, no school wants to or is willing to call themselves or create a mascot that will intentionally lash out at a group or ethnicity or race. This would only harm the school. Simply, schools are using and calling themselves by Native American aspects in honor and recognition.

When discussing the current issue of Native Americans and/or associations as mascots, I find it hard to pick a side to support. There are logical arguements for both sides. In one aspect, Native Americans are offended by the mascots and team names in sports. I also understand that this group of people are so limited in number in American society that a stand or voice is rarely heard to change this issue. But then I view the other side, in which, a study taken by Sports Illustrated is presented by Price which states, "Asked if high school and college teams should
stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols. Opinion is far more divided on reservations, yet a majority (67%) there said the usage by pro teams should not cease, while 32% said it should" (2002, p.66). Activists have been able to convince some schools and colleges to change their names and mascots and nicknames.
After deep thought on the issue, I would have to decide that it is alright for a school to maintain their mascot, depicting Native Americans. The activist group that has drawn up much controversy is only a limited number of the total population. If it were such a large offensive manner, one would think that the majority of the population (Native American) would be protesting as well. However, as demonstrated by the Sports Illustrated poll, the majority of Native Americans would like to see the names, nicknames, mascots remain with their current sport teams. I believe this allows them to still show presence in American society as well as in this world. Mascots and school names are mentioned in an honorable manner. No school name or mascot is chosen for negative reasons. Rather they are chosen to stand above others and recognized with respect and fear. Including Native Americans in aspects of our youths' lives plays an important role in their recognition and respect. It is the duty of our youth to control how far extremes are taken in portrayal of Native Americans, if their mascot happens to be related.
I think a large part in this debate is in regards to Native American's interpretation of mascots and names. Everything in today's society can be analyzed and interpreted in more than one way. Unfortunately, I feel Native American activists are interpreting this matter in a different way than intended. However, after watching the movie in class, some control must be enacted to the extent of which mascots and fans can portray Native Americans. The offensive nature that Native Americans sense, comes from these extreme aspects that are displayed during halftime shows and in the stands by fans (i.e. face painting, chants, and body movements). Although, taken as an offensive nature by some, the majority of the population under debate disagrees with the activists and much of society. Thus, my position on the matter stands with maintaining Native American aspects in today's sports.

I do agree with what most people are saying about how it shows respect when we have native american mascots. By having my school mascot be a Chief, it has taught me alot about the native american culture and without it, most people would not know about the culture. And like most people were saying, if you have a mascot that dances during halftime, then the dances and rituals should be authentic and not made up.

I have mixed feelings about choosing whether to defend the practice of using Native American mascots, or to argue for the removal of these mascots. Before we talked about it in class, I never realized how it could offend the Native American culture. But now I see where they are coming from. It would be the same as calling an African American the N� word. I believe there s not much of an uproar over these mascots because the Native American culture is such a minority in this country. You never hear on the news anything about Native Americans being upset about these mascots, therefore I don t think anything of it. That s another way the media controls what we see and hear about certain cultures. I can see where the person in the article is coming from about calling someone chief (SI, 2002). It is considered an ethnic slur, which I never knew before.
My high schools mascot was a Chief. Long Island is full of towns named after old Native American tribes. Towns like Massapequa and Wantagh are examples of Indian tribes that were settled there before us. Up until now I thought that naming our towns and mascots after them, would be a compliment and I never thought that it could be offensive. We always looked at our mascot with someone who had pride and honor, but never disrespected. Whenever I see the image of a chief or an Indian, I never think it is funny, instead I look at it as a sign of respect. Our school had a wall mural of a chief painted on it for school pride. I was always proud to be a chief; it felt like a name that is used for an authoritative type of person. When I was in high school they were thinking of switching our mascots name from the Massapequa Chiefs to the Massapequa Waves. It never happened, but everyone in the school was kind of upset about being called the Waves. If the Native Americans are so upset about the names of our mascots, do they want us to change the name of our town too? I look at the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot of a leprechaun and I don t feel any disrespect, being that I m Irish. I m actually proud that they are celebrating my culture.
Therefore, my decision would have to be to defend the mascots of these schools because I feel that we are not being disrespectful, but rather honoring the Native Americans.

Moconn7 proves my feelings about Native American mascots being offensive in the sense that substituted for a different race or ethnicity the concept would completely change.

As said in the article about Boston, the changes have been deemed as a good thing that could make a much bigger profit. By removing the Native American mascots, the same opportunity is much at hand. After watching the film on how the Native Americans felt about the use and after reading a book looking into the Native American beliefs, it is disrespectful and ignorant to use their culture as our entertainment. There is a deep spirituality and belief in the Native American culture that simply cannot be understood by others. By not removing the mascot after it has been brought to the attention of the discontent, it dates back to who has the power and enforcing that power. It is taking a step back in time and not learning from our own history. It would not be acceptable to use some of the other ethnicities as mascots or even to use a religion in that sense. Although it is not a traditional religion, their culture is highly spiritual and religious in their own sense.
If Boston can bear to make the changes to its organization why cannot the other teams. There is opportunity profit wise and to gain new fans promoting the product. Much how the owner is desire to make improvements more fan-friendly, changing the mascot could open the door for other improvements as well. There will always be that sense of the team the fans love, except now it will have improvements made, changes with to keep up with the time. Change is a hard thing to endure, but once embraced opens a plethora of opportunities.

I would like to defend the practice of using Native American mascots. I feel that most mascots are in no way really deroggatory or too offensive. Sports teams do no more of a bad job of portraiting Native Americans as they do in TV shows and movies back in the day. When people think of Indians, they think of the old westerns or old cartoons. If the teams were to hire an authentic Native American to carry out an authentic dance or performance during half-time, would that make it any better? Or if an authentic dance was taught to the mascot by a Native American, at least then, that would not be disgracing their honor or be disrespectful. What if they just changed the name to the Native Americans instead of Indians or Redskins? The way I see it is that a mascot is a symbol or logo for the team. A mascot is their to bring spirit and excitement in the game for the fans. It is not meant to be a negative term. Teams choose their mascots to be something to be feared. As goes for the examples of using other races. I would love it if they changed the mascot from the Cleveland Indians to the Cleveland Asians. They bang a gong at the end of each inning. I would not have a problem at all. I believe that people are just too worried about being politically correct and they need to learn to pick their battles, because sometimes it's just not worth it. ""The IndianWars� troubles us because of (a)
its pronounced bias, seemingly intent to distract from the history and implications of mascots as it derails efforts to challenge them; (b) its use of polling and representations of opinion; (c) its pervasive decontextualization of mascots and the controversy over them; (d) the impression it undoubtedly leaves on its audience that mascots are unproblematic, particularly because indigenous people say so; and (e) the legacies of such inappropriate and inaccurate renderings for public debate and social justice" (King, 2002,p.382). I feel that the only way to get around these issues is to have a person of that race become the mascot. In doing this, they will be able to portrait the character of the teams mascot in the proper way, or if it is inproper, then there is nobody to blame.

I agree with moconn7 that the mascots should be removed becasue they are just not right . I agree with her points about changing the mascots becasue what if the nickname of a team was after another race or religion that is not as much of a minority. Then it would be a problem but forget about the inidans its fine to make a mascot out of them.

I agree with Marc Ingerman that Native Americans do not have a large voice in today s society. If the Redskins were called the yellow skins, many Asians would be upset. If they were called the black skins many Africans would be upset. That type of comparison show s me how it is can be wrong. The Native Americans have rights also and should be heard.

I feel the Indian people have a right to remove their culture and name as a mascot. It is not right that the Indians do not have a large voice in today s society. People forget that Native Americans were killed and their land taken. Their culture and people are almost extinct due to settlers taking their land and putting them on reservations. Indian people do not have a large voice in today s society. African Americans were slaves in America and now have a large political voice. If the Atlanta Braves were the Atlanta Africans it would cause much outrage in the U.S. There is a small outrage for the Indian people but nothing is heard. The Indian people do not have a MLK or Jessie Jackson to speak loud about injustice toward race. Prior to conquest of Native Americans the bloodthirsty savage stereotype was rarely viewed as appealing (Bird, 1996; Deloria, 1998; Spindal, 2000) I agree that it should not be appealing. What culture wants to be known as savages? This is not right; maybe they were categorized as bloodthirsty people because they were trying to fight back for their land. The Indians are NATIVE AMERICANS, people forget they were here first and we killed them and took what ever we wanted. We still force our culture and the way of thinking of them. Trying to tell them that this is for praise and not a mockery.

I believe Aaron C. it is all how you look at the mascot. The reason for a certain mascot could be picked help the team get ready for a game or the crowd to help the team also. Also the schools do need to get to know the heritage of there schools mascot before doing a authentic dance.Which if done incorrectly could be offense to whomever you are trying to interpret.

I support the use of mascots being of Native American descent in sports. I support it because well by the facts for one. It is stated that not all Native Americans have a problem with the mascot being Native American. Show by the data in S.L Price s article in sports illustrated Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols�(Price, 2002). The results from the article show that yes indeed some Native Americans will have a problem with the notation of using Indian names, symbols, or dances for team. On the other hand in any situation you will always have a se of people who oppose the masses.
I believe that the use of the mascot at Native American characters or symbols or whatever it may be should be a loud. However the sports teams and organizations should know about there mascot, like in the movie we saw in class. It was stated that the dance done was an authentic dance, which ultimately as it turns out was not. The schools or teams have picked these mascots for a certain reason. They want to help build school spirit and school unity in some cases.
The name or mascot for a team or school might represent something that is totally different then the Native Americans interpret it as. Is this necessarily wrong to interpret two things differently? I know it is part of the heritage of the Native Americans and I totally respect that and do think they school should learn about that heritage. However in the big picture people interpret things of other peoples nationalities all the time and there is not a big deal made when that occurs.

I agree with mgenn1 when said "To me, the use of these mascots shows the strength and character of Native Americans." I do not think it puts down this group of inidividuals in any way! If Native American history is so sacred, this is one way to show others about them and have people of other nationalities become more familiar with the Native American people!

I personally do not think that Indian mascots should be allowed, as long as people are offended by them. I do not understand why a majority of people think it is okay to show racism to Indians but it is not okay to show racism toward African Americans. What is true for one should be true for all, and I think that means that racism should not be allowed toward any. The teacher had a few slides that harped on the fact that there are no team mascots like the San Diego Caucasians or the Cleveland African Americans. I think that is a very powerful point. What makes it okay to have Indian mascots? I think most people would make the argument that it does not offend anyone. That is just naivety on the part of most people. Of course those mascots are going to offend someone. As C. Richard King et. al. states in Of Polls and Race Prejudice: Sports Illustrated s Errant Indian War,� There is an enormous amount of evidence in the public domain that demonstrates the widespread disapproval of mascots in Indian Country. A litany of Indian nonactivist groups have all taken a public stand against the stereotyping of Indian people through sport team mascots.� And if that is the case the mascots should not be allowed. The problem is that Indians have not earned the respect of the majority like some other minorities have. Without respect, no one is going to listen to them. A perfect example of this is the video that was shown in class. The woman got no respect from the fans so they did not listen to anything that she had to say. I think it is shameful and an embarrassment that people are so selfish that they cannot even put aside their feelings for a sports team to help the morale of an entire culture.

Taking sides is never easy to do, especially with the issues of race and ethnicity. I am choosing to side witht he removal of the Native Amerian mascots.

I think many people want to dissassociate sports from real life. I think that this is why many people think that many issues concerning race does not apply when it comes to sports. However, I think that any issue concerning rece transcends sports and anything else.
I choose to side for the removal of Native American mascots because it is a fine line when dealing with race and racial matters, and therefore better left untouched. I think that if anything is offending to a race, it should not be done, especially at the expense of entertainment.

I do believe that many people do not see the matter from the perspective of the culture itself. Many of these teams have taken on these Mascots, with out any regard to the meaning and history of them. Many of these symbols are very culturally inherent to the Native American, and we should be considerate of that. Many fans take the Mascot and image of the teams to the extreme and degrade the meaning of the mascot and what it stands for. For any culutre, I would believe this would be offensive. I do not think anyone should play pun to anything they do not fully understand.

The Native American culture is rich in heritage and history that is often overlooked by many other Americans because of the way society has degraded them over the course of their exsistence. It is unfair for it to be the 21st century and the degradation of this culture is happening.

If something is offending to you or your traditions and culture, you do not want it to be exploited freely and unadulturated. I believe this is how the Native Americans must feel, as if they haven't been exploited enought.

I think it would be "correct" to do what is "correct" and force all teams to choose Mascots unrealted to a culutre, espcially if it is offensive, such as redskins, whick many fans don't even realize is offending. Besides, there are hundreds of thing to choose to represent a team, why does it have to be something that is contraversial and offending to a particular race.

I agree with the price article about the mascots becasue I do not really see how the american indians are madd about this issue. I find it hard to write on this issue becasue I do not really know how this feels becasue I am not a native american indian. But the thing that I have the hardest time about is how come there is not a team named after jews or blacks or any other race or religion. I think it is partly becasue there is not enough support around the native americans. They do not have the backing from huge loads of people. We killed all of the indians a long time ago and there is not enough of them to speak up and make a noise. It is sad becasue we do not really know how they feel becasue very few are interviewed or contacted about this issue. I have a personal experience about this to becasue my high school about 7 years agao had to change the name of the teams. It was the Newtown Inidans and we had to change it to the Newtown Nighthawks. Many people and alum were upset by this becasue they loved the Indian nickname. I had no real opion on this issue becasue quit frankly I do not care what a nickname is. It means very little to me. But I do know if the team was named the Newtown Jews that would matter to me. So I feel in the end it is unfair to have any nicknames regarding any mascots. I started out not caring much about the Inidan thing and agreeing with Price but in the end it is truely unfair to have these nicknames.

I have to agree with francesca and mocon1, that if they are going to have any racial mascot that they need to be educated in what they are doing. If they are going to say its an authentic dance it better actually be an authentic dance.

Where as I agree with price that the Washington Redskins located in our Nations Capitol should change their name because it is a very insulting name to the Native American Community its equivalent to a German soccer team being called the Berlin Kikes� (price, 2002). I how ever don t agree with the fact that all Native American nicknames and mascots should be changed. The way I look at it s the teams that chose these names did not choose them as a joke, or something to poke fun at a group of individuals. But as a name to be proud of, one that demands respect, like the Detroit Lions, or the Baltimore Ravens. You don t see the Florida Clowns or the New England Pansy s. I can see how the name like the braves, or the Indians could be insulting, but I think its all on how you look at it. You have to look at it the way the people the chose the name do. As far as mascots these are meant to pump up the crowd, so some are a bit, comical but they are meant to be and it is obvious that they are meant for comedy reasons. For instance the Cleveland Indians mascot is obviously a character not a real person, and not use to poke fun, but to pump up the crowd. The redskin name even thought it is not meant to be derogatory or offend anyone; it still is an inappropriate name and has never been associated with anything good. When we saw the video in class about Chief Iliniwick, the idea of him is not offensive but I could see how having a none Native American who is making up the dance moves and are not traditional Native American dances could be very offensive. So in stead of getting rid of Chief Illiniwick they could easily just have a Native American and make it an authentic dance. So I am defending the side of those who think we should not change our team s nicknames, or mascots.

I agree with francesca terrano with his point on stating how he really has a hard time seeing how it offends Native Americans by having a mascot. Thats basically how I feel

My stand on this issure is to defend the practice of using a native american theme for mascots in sports. I dont see how using it is negative, because its not like we are showing the mascots in a horrible way. We have many teams that have mascots that relate to a certain culture, like the patriots and cowboys, but do cowboys or late relatives of a patriot get affended by this. We know that the majority of fans are not of Native American descent, but I think its a way to learn and show that there is still tribes and a history of American Indians. Today we dont learn a lot about Native Americans in school so I think a mascot is a good way to learn about their culture. I think if a mascot is changed due to controversy then I dont know what has become of the preception of negative culture these days. I think they should change the mascot if it is depicted in such a way that they look horrible, or embarrased by it. I don't understand....
"Why should anyone's identity be defined by your games?We are a living people. Why are we used as entertainment for schools? We are a living people. Why must we be used as nicknames, logos, and mascots? We are a living people. Why must we, a living people, be singled out? Why must we, a living people, be stereotyped? " (Lauri Wautier Wisconsin Senate Education hearring march 15 2000). I dont understand how being a mascott is being singled out or subjected to embarrasment. I think it is showing that they are still acknowledged and people support them. I think as americans we should move past that.

In response to Francesca Terrano, i agree that if your going to have a Native American mascot they should be taught the real rituals and dances. They shouldn't be allowed to just make up what ever they want and then say that is a representation of a certain tribe.