Sports have many other ways of contributing to racial divides. Many collegiate or professional sports teams make use of cultural symbols to represent themselves. There are common names like the Washington Redskins, Ole Miss Rebels, Pittsburg Pirates, New Orleans Saints, and etc. These names in some ways can misrepresent a culture to a small extent, yet not as an attempt of mockery.

This week s video was called In Whose Honor�. This film told the story behind the controversy of the University of Illinois mascot named Chief Illiniwek. A Native-American woman, whom attended the University of Illinois on an art scholarship, was disturbed and opposed the mascot after seeing him perform at a sporting event. She explained that the representation of the Native-American culture represented by the university s mascot was not at all authentic. This opening performance involved Chief Illiniwek dancing a choreographed dance to drum beats and being dressed in traditional Native-American attire.

When asked whether the decision to support or not support these racialized mascots for athletics teams, much thought had to go into the decision. My decision was that I do support the use of racialized mascots. The idea of racialized mascots is not necessarily used to represent the history of the mascot s heritage or figure, but merely as a representation of the university or professional team. Against this backdrop of Native American stereotypes and real Native American invisibility, readers learn that a majority of sport fans apparently do not find Native American mascots and nicknames offensive nor do Native Americans� (King 384; para 2). This was a clear case that not all individuals find these mascots offensive either. In some cases, the sports team does have any symbolic meanings for the derivation of their name. The history of Native-Americas ended in great tragedy, but there are many other mascots whose history also does not have a glorious end. Colonel Reb, mascot for the University of Mississippi, was derived from the son of an African slave in representation of a southern gentleman. The college is known as one of the most racist universities in the United States, yet has a background of African American culture. This is the same case as the University of Illinois, where in the area there was once a vast population of Native-American tribes. The mascot is simply a representation of pride towards the university. A mascot simply does what its job is, to represent the students and university, and to bringing them all together as one.

After watching the film, In Whose Honor�, about the controversy over the Fighting Illini at the University of Illinois, I was given new insight into the whether or not racialized mascots, particularly Native American ones, should be allowed at schools. Even though the film provides reasons why the University of Illinois should change their mascot, these grounds were a bit dramatized and over the top. I do support the use of racialized mascots as long as they are used in a respectful not demeaning way. Most schools and professional teams that have Native American mascots portray them in appropriate ways in which even the Native American population is not offended. A poll conducted found that 83% of Native American respondents said pro teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols� (Price, 2002, pg. 3).
The only team that could possibly change their name to something more suitable would be the Washington Redskins. I honestly did not know the origin of the word Redskins until recently, and because of this, the owner of the Redskins might consider changing their name to something less discriminatory. On January 9, the Metropolitan Washing Council of Governments, voted 11-2 to adopt a resolution calling the Redskins name demeaning and dehumanizing� and asking team owner Dan Snyder to change it by next season� (Price, 2002, pg. 4). Redskins vice president Karl Swanson, stated: This has been the name of our organization for 70 years, we believe it has taken on a meaning independent of the world itself and it s positive� (Price, 2002, pg. 5). Roland McCook, member of the Ute tribe in Utah, commented on this issue by replying that, To a lot of the younger folks the name Redskins is tied to the football team, and it doesn t represent anything more than the team� (Price, 2002, pg. 6). I agree with Roland McCook s comment that many young people do associate the name Redskins with the football team. Many fans of the Washington Redskins do not find the name derogatory. However, for this particular team, after finding out what the true meaning of Redskins was, I am truly on the fence whether or not the team should change their name.

Racialized mascots have been apart of America s sporting experience for a very long time. The most predominant racialized mascot that we have seen throughout the years is the use of the Native American mascot. The reasoning behind a team having a mascot is not to pump the crowd� up, but it is used to sell that team memorabilia. With the mascot being a very important selling point for the team and the amount of people exposed to any given teams mascot it is important to address weather or not the use of racialized mascots is acceptable.
In rare instances where the racialized mascot� in question is not Native American and is perhaps a plantation owner such as Ole Miss s mascot, colonel Reb: I am very opposed to its use. Ole Miss has for a long time been known as a racist institution that is not at all welcoming to the black community. During the civil rights movement Ole miss was receiving a lot of pressure from civil rights leaders as well as the black community to admit an African American student. James Meredith was the first African American student admitted to Ole Miss after being rejected twice and having to bring his case to court. After Meredith was admitted to the school Robert Kennedy sent federal marshals to protect him from the possibility of being lynched. The result was 160 marshals wounded (about 30 by gunfire) and 2 bystanders were killed. So in the case of Colonel Reb (representing a plantation owner) I believe its use as an educational institution s mascot should be discontinued ASAP.
When it comes to Native American mascots I am on the fence. I think that Native American mascots were intended to honor the Native American people, but at the same time, I know that some Native Americans are offended by it. If I had to chose one or the other I would say that I support the use of solely Native American mascots. I am from the Washington D.C Metro area and I grew up a Redskins fan so I am partial to the mascot. I couldn t imagine cheering for the Washington Blue Birds or any other team name for that matter.

Ladytigerswim makes several valid points in her article. Like i said, this is a tough subject to talk about and I often find myself switching opinons. It was a good idea for you to use the statistics of Native Americans polled to justify your reasoning

This question, above all others is the most difficult to respond to. In the previous discussions, I have been able to relate to each topic in one form or another. Unlike the woman in the video, it is hard for me to truly grasp the importance and sacredness of the Native American culture that would make it so troubling to see a Seminole mascot at a game. I think being a college and professional team s logo would be an honor to have a franchise or university willing to use its symbol as a representation of the organization. To me, the term Indians has even become synonymous with terms such as warriors or knights. It does not sound disrespectful, but brave and courageous. Although, it has become more like a fictional character then an actual group of people who live normal lives.
With that in mind, if it offends a group of people, no matter what the intention behind it is, it should not be used; especially in the case of the Washington Redskins. As a child, it never occurred to me that anything was offensive about that name or symbol. Now, breaking down the term Redskin sounds derogatory and explicit. In Indian Wars, Price writes Popular usage dating four centuries, the word has been a slur based on skin color�. It is like having the Baltimore N-words or something of that nature. In the movie, some of the people were caught saying that it does not matter what a few people have to think, and that it does not matter if a minority of the population feels offended. Those men sounded ignorant and completely disrespectful. It is understandable why fans, students, and alumni would not want their team to be changed because of its tradition and history. But keeping Native American names and mascots when a few feel disrespected by them is contributing the racism that still roams the United States. I understand that a majority of Native Americans polled do not mind having Indian based mascots but I still believe it is still unfair and unjust.

Mascots are a symbol of entertainment and pride to teams and schools. There has been controversy concerning the use of a ethnic group or religion as a mascot. I do not support or agree that ethnic groups or religions should be portrayed as an entertainment medium. I believe this is not only degrading ethnic groups but also our society. Depictions like black face for theater and other forms of entertainment were offensive to the African Americans. African Americans were outraged over time after receiving rights fought against theater that did blackface. It is considered core racism characterizing blacks as being dark and huge lips. This is has been brought up to the media now with mascots such as American Indians/Native Americans. These mascots and emblems of Indians can be offensive to those around of Indian decent. I would not appreciate ever seeing a team named the Baltimore Negros because it is a racial slur towards blacks. Slurs like that for names can make people of that ethnic race to feel uncomfortable, sad, upset, and angry in a short amount of time. Native Americans not only have their physical features not being accurate but also their way of life being mimicked, mocked, and degraded. The Tomahawk Chop� created for the Atlanta Braves a gesture by bending the elbow 90 degrees downward like a chop to mimic what would be thought as using a tomahawk to throw. Indians do not always use tomahawks but also the chants, body paint, and so on ridicule American Indians. American Indians see their culture and use of body paint, dance, music, chants, and so on as a way to respect and honor what they believed. Teams and universities sometimes have used an Indian American as a mascot or slurs as names that have no affiliation with the founder or president of the University. As I watched In Whose Honor a film interviewing a strong Indian American who went through tough times of standing up what she believed is wrong and disrespectful to Indians. Charlene Teters was from a Indian reservation community in Washington State and she grew up learning traditional Indian culture, religion, and ceremony. Teters wished to pass on thos traditions with her children and other children of their ethnicity, but also had to fight and stand up against racism. (Rosenstein) University of Illinois was not the only University affected by such movements on a mascot. She wants Indian mascots and the tomahawk chop discarded, but she has no problem with team names like the Fighting Sioux (University of North Dakota) or even the Redskins. There's a lot of division, Gross says. We're confused, and if we're confused, you guys should be really confused. �(Price, paragraph 9) Racial controversy is a huge issue everywhere but now it is directing its way towards sports. I can understand and feel how American Indians feel about this situation because any other ethnic background would be doing the same things they are doing; however the difference between American Indians and other ethnic groups is other ethnic groups have more power than American Indians. There are more numbers of other ethnic groups compared to American Indians, which is making it hard to put their point across to win and ban such degrading mascots, slurs, nicknames, and emblems.

Mascots are an intricate part of any team. They boost fan moral, provide a comical identity for the team, and instigate fan support. They help set the mood for any game. However, I feel that mascots that portray a form of racial identity in an offensive manor should be allowed.
There are some people who believe that it does not hurt to be portrayed by a character intended to be taken as comical and cartoonish. But the fact of the matter is that these mascots do offend a portion of the population. Colonel Reb for example portrays a plantation owner. That is a racial identity that I can relate to and it is definitely not something I want to be associated with in any form. That mascot glorifies the history behind it. I don t think that is something to be particularly proud of.
The native American mascots have taken a substantial beating from activists who are attempting to get the mascots and names of teams changed. I support this idea. I think that if there was a team called the Honkies, I would be a little offended as well. In their situation, the native Americans have a harder time coping with these mascots because of the history they have undergone in this country. That must only intensify the amount offense taken. I do recognize that there are some native Americans who are not really offended by the mascots in any way. In just about every controversial issue there are people on both sides of the fence. The people who are not currently offended by these mascots will be just as well off if they don t exist.

Safchick787 and I used the same quote and I agree with the fact that if you take away their mascots it will take away from traditions that have been their since the beginning of the University

Being a college athlete I hear a lot about racialized mascots. I am apart of the Colonial Athletic Association along with William and Mary better known as the Tribe. Since my freshman year there has been discussion weather or not William and Mary should remain the tribe. So far they have remained the Tribe but I am not sure how much longer that will last. I personally do not see any issue with using racialized mascots. I can also see why some people may have an issue. Certain races take there history and religious beliefs very serious, and if there is some college kid jumping around as a mascot I could see how it could be seen as offensive. I also look at the other side and see the mascots as a way to get the fans into the game. It is their jobs to jump around and get everyone as pumped up as possible. It is a difficult decision on whether or not mascots are appropriate but, is there really even harm being done or are people just over reacting because they can. Native Americans took and poll and were 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, p. 68) With these numbers I think it is very clear that certain people are over reacting because they feel as though they can. If over 80 percent of people are not bothered then I do not see what the problem is with the other 20 who come from the same background. People may feel as though they are not being respected because their ancestors are being used as mascots. They should see it as a sign of respect that people wish to carry on traditions through colleges. Racialized mascots should not be banned because they are causing no direct harm to anyone and an over whelming number see no problem in them at all.

In reference to A Bennett: I agree with you stand on this issue. I do not think that racialized mascots be banned. But there are certain cases that should be looked over. The University of Mississippi is a prime example. The topic brought up about the frats is terrible to read about. Anything and everything to do with slaves should not be celebrated at a school or university.

The topic of racialized sports mascots is very controversial. The main issue is over Native American mascots. Many Native Americans find it very offensive and degrading to their heritage and culture. In my opinion, the names and mascots are not meant to be offensive in any way. As mentioned in our class slides, more than 3,000 mascots used in high school, college or professional sports teams reference Native Americans. The uses of mascots are not meant to be hurtful or demeaning to anyone s culture. The term mascot is defined as any person, animal, or object considered bringing luck to their school or university. Mascots are meant to represent a community or group with a common public identity. For any level sports teams they are the fighting spirit for the community as a whole. I believe that mascots that may seem to be disrespectful to certain cultures should not change. Mascots represent the history of the school or university. Changing the mascot would take away from the schools past. As for the Native American mascots, I think they embody bravery, courage, and fighting skills. They also stand for dignity, leadership, and strength. The article by Price includes statistics of poles taken, which stated, When asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native American respondents said no. As for the pro sports, 83% of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols� (Price, 68). I agree with the majority of this pole. A mascot is a schools or teams tradition. Changing it will take the identity away from their team. That, however, is my feelings toward Native American mascots. Racism and prejudice are an undeniable presence in our nation s history. Minorities are, and have been depreciated in our society for many years so it comes to no surprise that some schools still have mascots that reflect these passé views. The mascot at the University of Mississippi is a prime example of the fore mentioned. Colonel Reb represents all of what our country desperately fought, and is still fighting against to this day. This figure is an outright illustration of the ignorant sentiment of earlier centuries. The issues with the mascot at University of Mississippi are the confederate flag, Colonel Reb, Ole Miss,� and Dixie. All these symbols advocate the days of slavery. I believe this should not be accepted in today s society.

No the use of racialized mascots should not be permitted. Why? Because it s racist! That s it; I don t need to say more, but I will. Any non-Indian who claims it s not wrong, and that they understand what the Native Americans are saying, but they are just honoring them is complete crap. There is not one non-Indian that knows what it feels like, its impossible so the supporters of these racist symbols should get over their egos, change the mascot and move on. The biggest argument is the tradition of the mascots, but that tradition is significantly less than that of the Indian s having been here thousands of years before any of our distant ancestors. Once you make these changes, it only take a short time when the old racist way of life becomes a thing of the past and the new mascot is the face of these institutions.

The thing that surprises me most is that our nation s capital has the most racist team name of them all redskins�. Do people believe that the blackskins� or jewnoses� or irishpaleskins� would be acceptable? No, they wouldn t and neither should the Redskins, how is it any different?

When writing about the topic of racialized mascots in sports. I found myself debating this question internally. I had a difficult time deciding whether these teams had the right to hold on to there names, or should we abolish the use of Indian symbolism in sport entirely. Does it just stop at sport? Should we make sure that are children not wear American Indian costumes on Halloween, or watch cartoons that depict Indian Americans inaccurately. I also thought to myself that if there was a sports team called the Washington Caucasians� would that offended me? What makes this topic difficult for me to answer is my lack of knowledge with American Indian culture, but also my inability to know the difficulties they face and feelings they have living within our society.
Ultimately, I believe that although a team called the Washington Caucasians� would not offend me there are some names that might. I do believe that a lot of the sports teams that use American Indian symbolism should be abolished. For Instance, the Washington Redskins, I m not sure that anyone can make a valid argument that this name is not only offensive but racist as well. However, the Cleveland Indians is a team name that does not sound that offensive, or seem to be demeaning to me, but then again I am not an American Indian. I think the problem that most have with this is issues is the differences we have between your two cultures, and that the American Indian culture is such a minority culture within our society. When I read the article Of Polls and Race Prejudice by Richard King, Ellen Staurowsky, Lawrence Baca, Laurel Davis, and Cornel Pewewardy, they stated that that difference is not a uniqueness that causes others to want to be your friend or to learn from your cultural worldview but is rather more often a point of mockery and perhaps open ridicule� (2002, p.399). Now does a team like the Cleveland Indians make a mockery of American Indian Culture? I m not sure, but I m sure some of the fans, although they may not mean too, do.
In conclusion to this topic I m still not sure what classifies as being offensive and what classifies as a group of people being overly sensitive. Is it possible to have a Native American sports team that does not offend, and actually portrays the positives of their culture? I do believe that this is a very difficult and sensitive topic and one that I m sure will be debated on for a long time.

The fact that we would even go as far as to waste our time writing about this makes it obvious that we haven t come as far as we thought with the battle for racial equality. With my own natural heritage being so mixed up I could be one tenth Chinese and not know it, I really don t think its in my best ability to defend those against the use the racialized mascots. I ve never been one to point fingers at any race, and there have obviously been people in my life, of all shapes and colors that I have decided not to be particularly fond of. But it all boils down to what you as a free, opinion entitled American decides to think about a certain situation, and then the desire of others to believe or follow you. I don t necessarily believe in the University of Illinois disbanding its mascot after such a long storied tradition, not only because it disrupted school spirit, but mainly because it wasn t really there place to do so. I will agree that the school got a little off track with the true meaning of the mascot, but that s not entirely there fault. U of I is a big school, traditions get lost and new traditions are made, but it s the symbolism that stays with a school, because that is how it s identified. If the redskins were to change there name after all these years because people found it to be racist, you would have to change an entire history of tradition for a storied football program. I just think that its time for people to get over there overactive egos and craving for attention and realize that the only racism you normally see is the imposed on society by you. After reading Ryan Whites dissertation on Red Sox Nation, being a Red Sox fan myself I have to disagree with the statement alcohol consumption and sport tends to encourage white hyper-masculinity.� I believe alcohol consumption tends to encourage all male hyper-masculinity. Red Sox nation can be viewed as a mostly white community, but if you look around the entire sports nation as a whole it s all segregated to meet the geographic outline. From MLB, which is predominately white, to the NBA, which has about as many white players in it now as there are white running backs in the NFL. Take a look at the Kansas City Royals and Houston Astros compared to the Phillies and New York Yankees. Concentrated areas such as Missouri and Texas are predominately white, while Cities such as Philadelphia and New York tend to open diversity with there enlarged population. Its just life. That s how it is and that s how it works itself out, whether there s help in getting there or not. It all depends on whether YOU decide to slap the racism tag on it or not.

The topic of racialized sports mascots is a very tough subject to take a side on. I truly didn't realize how much of an effect it had on a specific race until I watched the video. It was insulting to Native Americans on the way Chief Illiniwiki danced at Illinois games and his overall performance in general. In that regard, I believe that there is no place for that in the sports world. But, Native Americans are viewed as warriors who fought to stand their ground to protect their land. Is that not every team's goal when playing a game, to protect their home field or take over another team's? It is tough to say that I would be proud of a team representing my race in that regard, since I am not Native American.

I guess its weird because I have no problem supporting Native American mascots but when it comes to schools like Ole Miss, I feel disgusted as a white person. For a team or school for that matter, to be glorifying white supremacy is terrible. This is 2008, not 1808 and times are much different. I guess I take this position because it affects my own race and I'm not looking into this situation as I am with Native American mascots. Just as I have no problem with Notre Dame and their use of the Fighting Irish, as I am not Irish as well.

So my stance will remain as I stand, I have no problem with the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, Florida State Seminoles or the Kansas City Chiefs or any other team with a Native American significance. They are popular team names because of their historical battles and proving their will to survive and protect their land. I'd rather play/root for/buy apparel for the Braves than the Wussies.

i agree with mwenkel with he says a "Native American team names and mascots should be aloud as long as they accurately represent the tribe in a respectful manner. " If a school or a professional team displays a mascot with respect and support from it community and students then why be against it.

After watching the video I must admit it did open my eyes and gave me an alternate perspective of how Indian mascots can come off offensive and insulting. Even though the video does provide great support in the defense of banning Indian mascots I believe that the video does make the incident more dramatic then it really is. I believe the only reason professional teams and universities even have Indians as mascots and logos are for the gallant image it portrays. When one thinks of an Indian they think of warriors and bravery. I believe Indians are used for a heroic term more then its heritage and customs. The same can be said about the Michigan State Spartans. The name Spartans was probably chosen because of courageous Spartan soldiers who fought and defend. Not so much for Sparta, Greece. If Indian mascots are said to be racial then I am sure residents of Sparta can say the same thing about Michigan State. I believe that mascots definitely give a school a sense of identity and pride so if the mascot is treated with respect and support I don t really find it being racial or offensive. So if a team or school uses a name like chiefs or Seminoles I believe it is given that establishment a bold and strong name to portray prestigious status. However I do not support racial mascots like the Washing Redskins. The name Redskin is very offensive and insulting to American Indians; the same way naming a franchise the Baltimore Chinks or Maryland WOPS would be offensive to the Chinese and Italian culture. I believe if a franchise depicts any race or any culture in a respectful and heroic way to name their team it should be taken as an honor not as an insult. I think voices should be heard from both sides and then decide if portraying a certain mascot or logo is the proper thing to do.

I agree with ladytigerswim616 when she says that removing Native American mascots would be removing the identity of the university. Mascots are symbols for university, and those that don't even care about the sports identify in them. If Towson suddenly changed their mascot, many people would reject it because they feel connected to the tiger. The universities would not be the same without their Native American mascots.

I agree and relate with alot of points in mesx116's post. My high school's mascot was the Braves and I did not even think about the type of offense that it could have. Also, being Irish and Catholic, I do not find the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame offensive at all. I think that the name is very neat and while it may not obviously pay honor to a group it still acknowledges a group and gives a race something to take pride in.

Racialized sports mascots are an issue which I do not think I am able to take a clear position on. Even after a class dealing with the topic, reading articles on the issue, and watching the assigned video, I still just have feelings that both support and do not support the use of racialized sports mascots. The main reason that I have such a hard time supporting either side of the argument is that my favorite team is the Kansas City Chiefs, who based on what we have learned in class, would be considered a racialized sports mascot.
After reading the popular reading for this week and seeing how calling an Indian a chief� can affect them, it does put me in an interesting position as far as to how I feel about this issue. The line from the article that made me think the most and really made me question whether rooting for the Chiefs might be wrong is when Price talks about how a flight attendant tells an American Indian, Calling you Chief doesn't
bother me Chief� (Price). While the rest of the article was meaningful and told an inspiring story, it was this line that made me question how I act as a fan of the Chiefs. For instance, does an American Indian think of me as less of a person when I scream my lungs out at the television saying, Go Chiefs Go�? I have really started to think if even simply rooting for the Chiefs is a form of racism that I participate in. The way I have come to rationalize this thought is to think like the article makes reference to and think of what it would be like if I rooted for a team called the N-word. Obviously in our society today this would be a huge problem and I would most likely be shunned for rooting for such a team. The dilemma in my head now is if I already root for an equally offensive team.
The other side of my mind wonders if there is anything wrong with rooting for the Chiefs at all. Isn t a Chief one of the highest positions in the Indian community and wouldn t naming a team after such a prestigious position be an honor? From my personal point of view there is a difference between the Chiefs and the Redskins, due to the fact that one honors a race, while one calls it an offensive name. A possible analogy that I draw is naming two white race teams, the Crackers and the Admirals. One is obviously offensive, while the other pays honor to a high ranking official. When I think about my love of the Chiefs in this way, I almost feel that I am actually paying honor to a race and not offending the race in any way possible.
This issue comes down to the fact that I am not an American Indian and I do not know that it feels like to have a team named the Chiefs affect me in a personal way. Each side of the argument makes sense to me and depending on the day I feel either way about the issue. Race is a tough issue whether it is Native Americans or any race, and this was the case again.

When I think about whether or not I agree with the use of racialized mascots I have to say that I fully do. Our use of these mascots to me is in no way derogatory if we are using them to show pride in our teams. This is like using the term Seminoles in reference to Florida State University. This is not a derogatory term, but is rather there to support the bravery of the Seminole and the ability to be a warrior. I do not in any way see how this is bad or wrongful to the Native Americans to actually celebrate their heritage as great warriors and want to celebrate them enough that we would associate them with a great university. I believe that there are instances that it can seem racist such as the chief of the Cleveland Indians a few years back had a symbol that was cartoonish and looked racist even though it wasn t. The same can also be said to some about the University of Mississippi and there mascot being colonel Reb. This too myself is once again not racist in itself because there are reasons that this was used but depending on the context that this mascot is used in it can be racist. Just having colonel reb at the games supporting the university and the fact that they are in the Deep South is ok. I believe that when they used to flay giant confederate flags at the games that students were only doing that to show racism and had nothing to do with their pride. Certain places I believe should be allowed to continue there names amongst the college ranks and I believe that the NCAA actually made this rule fair by the universities are allowed to use a native American name if they can prove that the particular tribe was once in that area. This is why I don t know how good it is for Ole Miss to keep their mascot because everywhere down south they were considered rebels but the other institutions down south do not use this. In that same breath though UNLV is considered the runnin rebels and no one says anything about them and that is where I believe it has a lot to do with context.
I would also like to point out that when a university is forced to change its mascot because it was protested against they lose their identity. How would Florida State do if they had to change their name? It would have been weird since everything they have accomplished they have done as Seminoles. I personally also believe that when people protest and get upset about the use of these names they are making a way bigger deal out of this than is needed and that it also spins a negative light on Native Americans in the media. I know it personally annoys me when I see this stuff taking national news when I just believe it is a name. I m Irish and have never once been upset over the derogatory name Fighting Irish of Notre Dame. This is because I know it is just a mascot and that the university is not actually trying to put me or my heritage down. I also noticed that when reading the article by Price that a lot of Native Americans feel as though I do and are not upset about their names being used for this cause. This just tells me that like most situations it is just a few individuals stirring up trouble and making it worse for everyone.

This is a topic that hits very close to home for me and the town I grew up in. When i was a sophomore in high school, the same people who have been trying for years to get the Redskins to change their mascot came after my school. A small school with only 700 students. How could we be bothering anyone when most people didn't even know we existed. We were the Poolesville Indians for as long as I can remember. My grandparents, my parents and my sisters all graduated as a Poolesville Indian. I however did not, I graduated as a Poolesville Falcon. After a long struggle and fight , my school was overruled in our vote to not change our mascot and by my junior year our school was an entirely new place. New uniforms, new decor in the school and basically a whole new gymnasium with not a sight of years of tradition.
I am for using Native American mascots, as long as you do in a respectful way. My school never participated in the tamahawk chop, no one ever dressed up in headresses and feathers. We valued our mascot and treated it with the respect it deserved. There are so many people out there who will say that, using NAtive American mascots is not respectful at all no matter what you say but I disagree. We were using them as a form of respect,we weren't trying to insult their culture we were trying to praise them and talk about how strong their culture was. There are so many sport teams high school, college and professional that use the mascot and if I were part of the culture I would be honored that different cultures thought so highly of Native American's and wanted to show their strength. No one uses a mascot to make fun of something, they choose their mascots to represent something, and in my high schools case it was tradition, respect, strength and courage.

I agree with clax, where does the streak of offensiveness end? Can white people start getting pissed off because of the use of cowboys as a mascot? Could African Americans get mad because of the Cleveland Browns? It's a stretch, but in this day and age you never know what will upset someone. There has to be a line somewhere.

The Cleveland Indians, Florida State University Seminoles, and the University of Illinois Fighting Illini are all teams who have been placed under criticism for their team names, which have been around for many years. These mascots are centered around the Native American culture and teams have been urged, by many activists, to change their names.
The team names and mascots are said to be offensive. The mascots are said to be damaging to the Native American culture, making them out to be savages. This is symbolic display of our [non-native American] leadership. We control you. We own you,� said Charlene Teters in the documentary In Whose Honor?. This argument is very skeptical. A man who was the former mascot of the Fighting Illini, Tom Livingston, said, The Chief [the Illini mascot] is meant to be inspirational, majestic, reverent, and moving.� There is no adjective in his statement describing the Chief as amusing, funny, or entertaining. The University of Illinois is merely taking a basis of the lands heritage and using that to represent its school. Certainly not making a mockery of the Native American culture. The same argument can be said for the Florida State Seminoles.
In contrast to these teams who have come under fire for their mascot names, the University of Mississippi has a base in their sports teams of racism and southern plantation living. For example, on the jerseys of the players Ole Miss� is written across the front; this term was used to refer to the wife of the plantation owner. Another example is the school s mascot, Colonel Reb. He is modeled after a Confederate plantation owner and solider. The theme carried through this university does not cause such uproar.
I think this mascot issue has been blown out of proportion. Many of the universities, high schools, and even professional organizations are using the names not as a mockery, not to portray people as savages, not to be offensive, but to bring to light the spirit of the team. I cannot say this for Ole Miss, but as for the teams whose names are based in the Native American culture I can agree.
To me the Native American culture represents a group bonded in spirit. This is exactly what a team is all about, being bonded in the spirit of sport and passion for the game. There is no sense of mockery or using the image of the culture to be amusing. It is solely representing the nature in which groups of men and women bond together to create an atmosphere that exemplifies the pride and passion for sports, just as the Native Americans have for their religion and culture.

I agree with mesx116 response people do just look for somthing to complain about because they got nothing better to do

It does not matter to me what kind of mascots are used in sports. I do not loose sleep at night over a team that has an Indian or any kind of "controversial" mascot. I think there is more in the world to be concerned with other than mascots. When we discussed the term Redskin in class I was amazed what it meant and how the term came about but I still do not agree with the women in the video who said she wants something to be done about changing Washington's football team name to something that is not offensive as the redskins. Today no one uses the term redskin in a negative or derogatory way that woman should realize that and stop living in the past and enjoy football also be more concerned with the falling economy or the impoverished people who cannot afford higher education. Teams that have mascots such as an Indian, Sioux, Braves, Colonel Reb, Seminoles, Redmen do not bother me they can dress up in whatever they want and I would be fine with it. I do not know why people always look for the negative in something. If anything I think having a professional or college sports team named after your heritage or nationality is an honor. If anything those people who are against those team names should feel privileged. I cannot emphasize enough on how ridicules this is; people get mad over anything these days. What about teams such as the cowboys, 49ers, fighting Irish, Trojans? I have not heard anyone getting mad over those names. I do know what the difference is. You do not hear of cowboys getting angry because Dallas named their football team after them. I really do not understand why people are getting so offended by Native American names on sports teams. When a team name is chosen for a college or professional sports team I am pretty sure the name is for a compelling reason and because of its historical meaning to the city or state. I am pretty sure when the owners and presidents sit to down discuss a name they rarely choose one because it is offensive and will cause controversy. People should just get a life and stop worrying about these things that have no effect on their own personal life and focus on the real world issues that this country faces every day. If a team decides to commemorate your heritage you should feel honored and accept the compliment instead of making a huge issue out of nothing. Who do those people think will pay for those changes on the team logos, banners etc? It is not free to make those changes. The innocent people will be the ones who will have to pay from their own pockets. The owners and presidents will not pay for it the only thing they would do is raise the prices for tickets, concessions, apparel and souvenirs. Overall this is just my opinion I respect Native Americans and respect what they have done throughout history but I just think the time that is wasted from them complaining about mascots they could have put their time to a more productive use and actually help people that need it the most.

I agree with ewilson, that I am still on the fence about Native American mascots. I think that there is a lot of good reasons out there for why we should and should not have Indian mascots.

I agree with the proposal by clax1027 about other non-Native American names and mascots that could be offensive. All of the examples brought up were valid because it could be argued that Pioneers, Cowboys, and Spartans are offensive too, if the media decided to throw them into the mix.

There are several reasons why I could go with either side of the racialized sport mascots controversy. Each point-of-view argues a valid point. Many colleges and universities claim that their use of Native American mascots is part of the heritage of the area as seen in the film, In Whose Honor�. On the other hand, the actual history of those areas shows the persecution of Native Americans.
Americans know that the indigenous people here were slaughtered and pushed off their land. This is a part of the history of the country just as all minorities were discriminated against at one time. Obviously, some ethnic groups would be opposed to seeing their people portrayed as mascots. There are definitely many Native Americans who are opposed, but there are many others who don t mind. I wouldn t mind if there was a team that used my German heritage as a mascot as long as they weren t totally just making fun of them. In the case of the Native Americans, I don t see these mascots as doing that. Since the names of the teams and the mascots were made a long time ago, I don t see why they should be changed; it is a part of the school s heritage.
The media sells controversies; it s what they do. I m sure there are people who are genuinely offended, but there are many others that probably simply want to bitch about something. The Sports Illustrated article by Price tries to say that most people, Native American or not, are for the Indian� mascots. King s article states that there is much more to the situation. There are always two sides to every story, and how can anyone say that either side is completely right. I guess particular names, like the Redskins, are derived from derogatory terms, but then again so are plenty of sayings that are still used today. After my internal debate, I ve decided that the teams should be able to keep their names and mascots.

Before class, I did not think twice about the use of racialized sports mascots. I did not see anything wrong with using Indians to represent teams. Initially, I assumed having an Indian mascot would be an honor to Native Americans. Mascots are chosen because they are tough or fierce, which is supposed to be a reflection of the team. When I think of strong mascots, I think of tigers, bears, lions, etc. Likewise, I think of Indians as warriors. Therefore, I assumed the use of these symbols would respectful to Native Americans. After learning more about it in class, I found that this was usually not the case.
In Whose Honor,� the video we watched in class, claimed that Native Americans are disrespected through the use of these mascots because they are being mocked. In some ways, I do agree with this. The outfit and dance that is associated with Chief Illiniwek is used for entertainment. Because these elements of the Native American culture are so sacred, I believe it is disrespectful to use as entertainment. I agree with Charlene s statement about Indian caricatures being less disrespectful. I believe that using the Indians in cartoon form would be more accepted because it is more fictitious. I think Native Americans would be less insulted because the cartoon is less real. When a non-Native American puts on the eagle feathers and does a dance, I can see why this would be insulting to Native Americans because these things are considered sacred. I can see why the Native Americans in this video were offended and were fighting for a change.
On the other hand, many Native Americans are not insulted by these names. I assumed many Native Americans would be opposed to the Washington Redskins name because of the derogatory nature of the word. However, seventy-five percent of Native Americans that were polled responded that they were not offended by the name (Price, 2002). The majority of those asked did not think the Redskins should change their name (Price, 2002). This information is very different from the opinions that were expressed in the video. Because of this, I am led to believe that Native Americans as a population are not as upset as I thought they would be over such mascots. It is unrealistic to classify Native Americans as for or against Indian mascots. There are always going to be people in favor of either side. When you look at other issues such as democrat vs. republican, gay vs. straight, etc., the entire population is not always going to agree on one side. I think this is the case with Native Americans. Some are insulted by the mascots while others are not. Those that are against them and voice their opinions louder are heard louder. It is easy to assume that these opinions are shared by the whole population. When statistics show they are not, I find it easier to accept that Native Americans are not as upset over the issue.
All things considered, I still do not see anything wrong with using Indians as mascots. I do not feel that teams use their mascot in a negative sense. In my experience, players and fans take pride in their mascot. I am proud to be called a Towson Tiger. With the respect and honor teams have for their mascot, I do not see why Native Americans would be insulted. Personally, I think of Indians as being warriors. I think the Indian portrays strength and courage. When teams choose their mascot as an Indian, I think they have the same thoughts. Native Americans should not be insulted by the use of the Indian in this way. They should be proud and honored to be thought of so highly in our society.

I agree with Travis, when he compares a Native American mascot, to another potentially racialized mascot. It would offend a lot of people if there was a team named after Caucasians or a team named after African Americans. It is not surprising that so many people are baffled by the attention this topic got from the activist. The reality is, the Native American population is so much smaller than other racial populations in the United States, therefore, less people to be offended by the situation.

I have found it interesting that several of the topics brought up in this class, are ones that I come in contact everyday, yet until this class, have not really thought about them in this way.
I think that the use of racialized sports mascots is a very debatable topic. I don t think that, by any means, these mascots were put in place to offend or upset a particular racial group.
Although there have been other examples, I think the use of American Indians is the most prominent in our culture. Initially, I think the idea for an American Indian mascot sprouted from the respect and admiration for true Native American culture. People wanted a mascot who was inspirational and exciting. As most things in sports, the idea turned into a lifestyle; people didn t even realize what they were doing and how they were offending people.
As I was watching the film, it was interesting to see the two perspectives on the issue. The trustees of the University of Illinois, as well as the fans supporting the mascot were completely ignorant. One of the trustees actually said she didn t see how it would be considered a racial slur. Although I don t fully understand how Charlene Teeters feels, I can understand where she is coming from.
When people are defending University of Illinois and their mascot, several have made the claim that they are honoring the people who have lived on the land before them. How is creating a fictitious character, with a costume that is not even from the correct Native American tribe, doing a completely made-up dance, honorable?
Sports and tradition go hand in hand, so I understand the concern surrounding changing a mascot. I know if Towson University changed our mascot, I would be pretty upset. When I think of a particular college or university, I also think of the mascot. It is part of the identity of a school, just like school colors. At the same time, I think it is also American tradition to respect others.
Personally, I don t agree with racialized sports mascots. I think any college or university can get along just fine with an animal, or other common mascot. The only problem is, where does the offending stop? What about the Pioneers, the Cowboys, the Spartans? Do they propose a dilemma too?

After viewing the video in regards to the mascot racial issue, I would have to say seriously people, isn t there a more pressing issue you would like to look towards instead of worrying about the meaning (or lack thereof) of a school s mascot? One of the biggest problems with the American freedom of speech is the essence of bringing up an issue that really has no major political impact in what our country issues really are. Ok, now that is off my chest.
Being of a minority, I guess I would have to put in my point of view if a native person of mine was fabricated into an animated display for a sporting organization. I am from the Northern Mariana Islands that are located in the south pacific. I am a natural born from those islands and my native blood is called Chamorro�. Or you can just call me a Saipanese� if you prefer since I was born on the island of Saipan. Either way, it doesn t bother me. The history of my heritage dates back to the 1500 s when Magellan, the historically world renowned explorer, had stumbled across the islands during his first ever circum-navigation of the world. As a conquistador, that s exactly what he did. He killed, pillaged, raped, and so forth. But that is how the islands were introduced in to the modern world. Unfortunately, the Native Americans kid of followed the same history when it came to the explorers coming into their world. But that was hundreds of years ago. History in this matter cannot be erased or corrected, but my islands do not stand bitter to the Spanish for what happened. It was as it was. But going back to this racial mascot video, why bring this up at the new millennium? If the mascots of Native American people i.e. the Redskins, the Indians, the Browns, etc, were portrayed by the media in a negative aspect, only then I can fully understand and embrace the motion of condemning Native American mascots. But this is NOT the case. Every single mascot is glorified, followed, and reverenced by an enormous loyal fan following. If you take a look at any historical reference of a mascot or symbol, everything is advertised by the media in a positive or historically reverencing way. Even the confederate flag that flies over the South Carolina capital is a symbol of history and heritage. I would have to say the same as the University Mississippi. Historically, the mascot was a slave owner. Today s mascot is the Rebels of the University of Mississippi. Not a symbol of slavery, but a symbol for a great school that embodies the pride of southern studies, scholars, and athletes. But there are always those individuals who live alone with no life, always on the internet and looking for a controversy that want to speak out and make much ado about nothing. C mon now people, worry about whether or not the economic crisis is going to affect you and your family, not about some mascot that you strongly believe is a racist symbol. But unfortunately as everything goes, there is always that cliché statement of there are always a few bad apples in the bunch�. Personally, I would absolutely love it if one of my native people were chosen as collegiate or professional mascot. It would make me a life-time virtual� fan if I was not able to attend any of their events if that was to happen.�

I think that mascots should not be able to portray Native Americans (Indians). After watching the video, I strongly agree that a mascot portraying an Indian is very offensive to many Native Americans. I know that the University of Illinois has been called the fighting Illini for many decades but that doesn t make it right. I think that it is said when a school s alumni go to the state senate over a mascot. I know that mascots are very important when it comes to a school s identity, but there are plenty of types of mascots out there that are not racist towards Native Americans. Even though Chief Illiniawic is a tradition at Illinois but I think that they should change there mascot to something less offensive like most of the other colleges in the nation. King explained that Publishers appear averse to acknowledging Native Americans as real people� (King, 383). I agree with this statement in that in a lot of sporting magazines and newspapers Native Americans are not portrayed in the proper way that they should be. You know that this is a big issue when other teams on your football schedule are refusing to play you because you still have an Indian mascot. As for some of the professional football teams like the Washington Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs, they should also have to change there mascot. Professional football has a major impact on today s society and influences a lot of people, yet Washington still refers to themselves as the Redskins, which is what they used to call Indians after they skinned them. These mascots are not only a disgrace to Native Americans, but to the United States as a whole because we still allow them to keep these obscene mascots that are very offensive to Native Americans. I know that all the high schools in the state of Maryland that had Indian mascots had to change them, because if they didn t there were going to be a lot of law suits against the Public Board of Education. One school in particular was Poolsville High School, which was formerly known as the Indians, but they know changed their name to be the Poolsville Falcons. I think that there would be a lot of African American people out there if there was a football team college the coloreds, the same goes for a European American team called the Caucasians. These tight of names for a mascot would be very offensive to the majority of the United States population and that is the reason why there are no teams college of professional that have these names for there mascot. But since Native Americans are such a minority people think that it is ok for every one else to walk all over them, even though it is not ok, and some thing needs to be done about it.

I definitely, whole-heartedly agree with Mike VonLange - "I think these people that take an active role in protesting against the names of these teams mascots really have too much time on their hands and really need to look at the fact that there are much bigger problems then that." What about the fact that we have issues with our schools that affect children of ALL races? What about poverty, and world hunger? If everyone unified and put all their brain cells to good use, we could solve these problems instead of arguing over history and creating even more divisions within our culture.

When it comes to the use and portrayal of racialized sports mascots, I think I am still on the fence. After watching the video of the Fighting Illini, I feel like I have a better handle on the whole issue, but I still am trying to figure out my exact feelings.
On the one hand, I completely understand the plight of the minorities, and I understand their argument with the mascots. The one scene in the movie where there was a glimpse of the advertisement with the Caucasians� and The Jews� made me realize what it must feel like to see your race stand for a sports team, or for a school. Having that caricature of your race and your history would be a tough burden to bear.
On the other hand, however, I think that this is such a small issue in the face of much bigger ones that we could be spending our time worrying about. As the Illinois students said, they only ever intended to honor the Illini, to whom they owed their history. Perhaps they had simply never been taught to honor those things, such as the chief s headdress, the paint and the feathers that are symbolic and meaningful to the Indians. Coming from a culture that has been raised on recognizing and pointing out the differences between cultures and races, I wouldn t expect anything different from the U. of Illinois.
The activist made one point in her speech that I didn t necessarily agree with she said that her children knew that they were being targeted and made fun of. I do not believe that this was the purpose of the Chief; the students were clumsily trying to honor and pay homage to that portion of their history. And furthermore, at that point, it does not become about any single person as a college student, I know that after a period of time, you don t even think about your mascot anymore. You just know that through history, it has been established that it stands for your school, and I don t think many college students think beyond that. At the college level, it s not about you� anymore, it becomes about the school, and what symbol people recognize as its own.
It seems that there will never be a resolution to this debate I think that it is a pretty minor detail and don t see the point in arguing about it, but perhaps in the future, schools and teams should only choose animals for their mascots!

In Response to mesx116,

I agree that people of today just look for things to complain about. Great point about how Disney was looked at. I also see tradition as a big aspect as to why teams don t want to change there name. Just look at the Redskin s who have been around forever, what would happen to there tradition if they decided to change there name. I don t know I just don t think this is really an issue worth focusing our time and effort into. There are more important things that I think we should be focusing on rather than the names of sports teams.

Being a white individual I don t think I am the one to decide whether or not it is ok to use racialized sports mascots. However, in my opinion I support the use of the racialized sports mascots. There are many reasons as to why I take this stance, but I don t necessarily think there is right or wrong answer to the question. An individual s answer to this question vastly changes depending on there ethnic background.
I see the use of the Native American mascots as a way of honoring them and there heritage. Native Americans throughout recent history have in my eyes been seen as strong fear less warriors. When I think of Native American mascots and how they are represented I see it as a compliment because most sports teams want to achieve the strong fear less warrior mentality themselves. Most of the teams with Native American mascots are really trying to honor them, not enrage them. However, there are some mascots like the Cleveland Indian s mascot that really needs to be changed. The Cleveland Indian mascot plays to all of the Native American stereotypes. However, for the most part, I see most teams who have Native American mascots as representing the good of the Indian culture. In today s society, I would believe that probably most people do not even know what the word Redskin means to the Native Americans. Individuals just know that the term Redskin is a football team in Washington. Being someone who has frequently gone to Redskin s games, I have never really noticed anything extremely wrong with what there mascot does. However, I am not a Native American so I am not really sure if what there mascot does is degrading or not. From the video, the Illinois fans talking about there mascot and paying state taxes was one of the most ignorant statements I have heard. That is not the issue. The issue is that your University is currently doing something that is being looked as degrading to the Native American culture. What if the Native Americans had a stereotypical white mascot?
This is such a hard question to answer because it changes from ethnicity to ethnicity. I look at the Native American mascots as being a positive mentality. When I watch sporting events with Indians and they show the mascot it is a never give up, or fight till the end mentality, both of which I see as a positive. However, some of the things different teams have there mascot do need to be toned down a little. I think that a lot of the outcry comes from the outlandish acts they partake in. The Florida State Seminole is the first that comes to mind who has the long black hair bound with a matching red bandana, sitting astride a horse named Renegade,� flaming war lance held aloft in a menacing gesture� (King, 2002 ,p.383). Entertainment aspects that colleges partake in at the Native American expense needs to be changed. Really does he really need the flaming war lance? This is the kind of things that really make the Native American angry. However, it is important to realize that not all Native American s see the use of the mascots as a bad thing because a lot of the times it is the only way they are in our culture.
I see using Native American mascots as a compliment of there culture. Being someone who does agree with the use of Native American mascots, I realize that there must be changes made. There needs to be a way to reach common ground between sports and ethnicities represented by racialized mascots. However, when professional teams are private entities reaching that common ground is a hard task. The first step to correcting the issue is to decrease the amount of outlandish acts going on.

The topic of racial team mascots is a touchy one for sure in which many America s are torn on. Personally I do not agree with some mascots that are racially offensive. For me whether I agree or disagree with a team mascot depends on the meaning behind the mascot. For example, I do not agree with the University of Mississippi s mascot, Colonel Reb. This is because he represents a slave owner. Thus, the meaning behind it represents power over another race, which should not be accepted in today s society. After all aren t we currently on a quest to reduce racism? And isn t Colonel Reb promoting it? I do not know what Ole Miss should change their mascot to but, I do not think they should be permitted to keep it as Colonel Reb.
However, I don t think Indian mascots should have to be changed. Indians are seen as worriers, so in my opinion it s kind of a compliment to Native Americans. I think that Native American s should think of it as a tribute to them when teams use Indians as a symbol to represent their team. When Native Americans were asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81% of Native Americans said no� (2002 pg. 3). Since a majority of even Native American s do not believe that teams should change their names and mascots from Indians, I don t think that us non-Native American s should be concerned about it either.
Where to draw the line is tricky. It would be difficult to tell some teams they had to change their mascot while allowing others to keep theirs. Fans of the mascots that are racially offensive would make the same argument for not changing their mascot that many make when old stadiums are tore down and new ones built. When people try to build new stadiums fans usually get upset because of the history in the stadium. Although many times in the end new stadiums are built, and the new stadiums still manage to attract thousands of fans. If the University of Mississippi changed there mascot to something less racially offensive, new generations would fall in love with the new mascot just like generations before them fell in love with Colonel Reb.

I have to very much agree with Mike VonLange when he says, "I think these people that take an active role in protesting against the names of these teams mascots really have too much time on their hands and really need to look at the fact that there are much bigger problems then that." There are bigger things in this world, especially today. A mascot is a mascot, and probably was established many many years ago. People will protest anything and everything, because they aren't the ones who have to defend that right.

To put it blatantly, there are too many people today who have too much time on their hands and that s the reason for many of the problems people have with things today. I don t meet to sound bitter or ignorant but I know when I was in elementary school I dressed up as an Indian for Halloween and no one had a problem with it. Does anyone remember people being angry when Disney released Pocahontas? No, because their minority was shown in a good light. Why now does it matter now if your mascot is a minority?
My high school was the Fair Lawn Cutters, aka we were a ship and our mascot was a pirate. What are pirates known for? Drinking too much, being disrespectful to women, and stealing. Not so reputable, but no one fought our school for it. Meanwhile, only five minutes away our rivals at Indian Hills High School were the Braves and by the time it got to our senior year people were beginning to get mad about the title and mascot.
I believe mascots are somewhat traditional for the school and mean a lot to those who went there before. In reference, my school got its name because the day before the biggest game of our football season all of the starters got drunk and went to the beach and were written in the paper as the cutters who went on to win the game. No one really cares that were actually named after a ship and our mascot is actually a pirate.
As a hockey fan there really aren t that many teams with out of the ordinary mascots. Do you see the people of Canada getting mad because there s a team named the Canadians, or even worse a team named after foliage (Maple Leafs.)
Hey, major league baseball has the Yankees. Let s get a little more stereotypical. As someone who is less than ten minutes from the city I don t take offense to it. There s even the Fighting Irish, and do I take offense to that, NOO.
People these days will protest anything and everything simply because they can. Honestly (and I don t mean to sound like I don t care, because I almost do) feel since my Fiancé is in Iraq right now, fighting and maintaining the reason people can say these things, almost furious at the people who are protesting. There are so many bigger things in this world. Yes, it might be offensive to you, but there are many things that are offensive to me too. Protest all you want. Be angry for all I care. Because to put it simply, I don t at all. Mascots are history, they are tradition. Ole Miss, yeah it might not be right, it may have never been right, but it is what it is. You can say you don t agree, you don t have to like it, but really all it is, is simply your opinion. We are all entitled to them, and yet we all don t have to agree on each others. And that is the beauty of freedom of speech.

Whether or not it is appropriate to use Indian team names and mascots is a very controversial issue. I agree and disagree with arguments from both sides but any solution will require compromise from both.
In the movie, the main focus was the University of Illinois and the team mascot, Chief Illiniwek. I do not blame the students, alumni, and the town for fighting to keep their traditions since 1926 alive, but their reasoning is hypocritical. School officials claim Chief Illiniwek is a way of honoring Native Americans, and is a remembrance of the tribe who occupied the land before the university was built. No one thinks of Chief Illiniwek as a mascot� but as a piece of the school s heritage. I do not see any reason why Chief Illiniwek would offend Native Americans as long as the school used respectful and factual representation when impersonating the tribe they are supposedly honoring. In the case against the University of Illinois, that is not the case. First, Chief Illiniwek is a fictional historical figure. Second, the mascot s costume is influenced by the Sioux, who did not settle on the land before the school was built and is an entirely different tribe. Also, the dance the mascot performs during sporting events is 100% choreographed by the student body and the drumbeat used is different from the beat used in history. It is described in the movie as the Hollywood� drumbeat by a Native American activist.
The University of Illinois has almost completely fabricated their mascot which they defend as being a token of honor. Native Americans in the movie described the mascot as trivializing� their culture and making a mockery� of their customs. I can see why Native Americans would take offense. The mascot symbolizes how Americans have persistently over-simplified, disrespected, and belittled the indigenous people. The school should take the time to recognize the traditions and cultures of the individual tribes in which they are representing.� Instead, they took several Indian stereotypes and assembled them into a tangible object used for entertainment purposes. I see no honor and only ignorance. It makes the Native American heritage seem insignificant to Americans which has been constant through out history.
I do not agree with the misrepresentation and stereotyping of any culture because it is demeaning and a form of mocking a particular group. Like the article in Sports Illustrated, Indians of North America� suggests, if sports teams would require an accurate representation and would eliminate the imagery� like face painting, feathers, and the tomahawk chop, then a lot less people would be offended. I also like the idea of changing the Washington Redskins to the Washington Warriors because the term Redskins� originates from massive killings of the Native Americans and is the most blatant racial slur in Native American culture. If the Washington Redskins changed their name, the fans would need to purchase new team memorabilia and apparel which will bring in additional revenue to the organization.
My point is that I believe Native American team names and mascots should be aloud as long as they accurately represent the tribe in a respectful manner. Some may still feel offended, but others may feel honored that sport organizations want to associate themselves with Native American history by choosing a historical figure to represent their team.

I have to agree with derelyct21. Today people do try to sew and make money or some type of noise anyway they can. Being an attorney today has to be an unbelievably rich career. If you did eliminate all of the teams that offended Native Americans then there would not be many teams left to root for

I really do not mind the use of racialized sports mascots. I do think to an extent there should be some restriction as to what can be used, but overall it does not bother me. After learning about how the term Redskin is one of the worst possible things that a Native American can be called was actually very surprising to me. I had to agree with the woman in the video when she spoke out to the fact that we have the team the Redskins playing in our nation s capital and nothing is being done about changing that name so it is not as offensive. Overall I think calling a team the Indians, Sioux, or Illini to me is not offensive because I almost feel as though those groups are almost being honored because they are now being recognized with a state university or professional sports team. I think getting upset about it is ridiculous because I have never heard anyone have a problem with naming a team the Cowboys, Fighting Irish, or the Mountaineers. All of these teams have someone that dresses up in an outfit that is supposedly warn by these people and they have parts that are acted out. I have never heard anyone say they are offended by these acts or anything along those lines. I overall just do not understand why people feel that Native American names are so offensive. These names do not just have a long history in society, but they also have a long history in sport and usually when a state university or professional sports team decides on a nickname for the team they usually choose something that is extremely significant and important to the surrounding area. I never recall a team picking an name that is intended on being offensive or to have one that is picked so that other groups or things are being made fun of. However, one exception could be the Redskins. I think if Native Americans actually looked at the overall picture as far as team mascots and nicknames go that they would start to understand that there is a significant meaning behind naming a team a certain name. I think also that if there is an issue with how a school or professional team portrays the Native American person or group then I have no problem adjusting the mascot so that it portrays a better image of what they actually do and act like. However, having to completely rename the team and have all types of logos and writings being banned I think is absolutely ridiculous. I understand that that is just my opinion and it might not bother me because I am a very laid back person and overall it has no reflection on my family history. I do respect that they stood up for what they believed in and did not agree with how a lot of the people in the video were treated, but at the same time I do not think it should be that big of a deal. I always look at it as there are so many other problems in the world to worry about that sports mascots should be the least of our worries. I think these people that take an active role in protesting against the names of these teams mascots really have too much time on their hands and really need to look at the fact that there are much bigger problems then that. However, unfortunately there are people that will never see that and we will continue to have people protest against meaningless things.

This is a topic that tends to have me torn. Speaking as a minority I can understand completely how Native American's feel about using their traditions and everything that they hold sacred just to entertain people. In that instance I think that it's completely wrong. I mean everyone talks about why does Indians get so uptight about the whole issue, but that sentiment is usually coming from individuals who probably have never had to deal with something like this. In my opinion if it weren't for the freedom of speech I would say that these are people that have no right in discussing something that they really don't know about and can't relate to it. But if I were to say that then I would be the one showing ignorance. Everyone has their opinion and that's cool with me, but in this instance why is cool to use an Indian logo to represent many different institutions of higher learning and professional teams? Who said that is was appropriate and if they did say that it's appropriate then who gave them the right? I mean honestly to have Native American's in such an uproar gives me the impression that they weren't the ones who had any say in the matter. Just thinking about that then makes me wonder why weren't Native Americans even involved in the naming process if their traditions are the ones that were going to be used? These are just some of the questions that came to mind when looking at the video. I am a big proponent of cultures coming together and learning about each other so that we as a people and society can prosper and move forward into the future. But I do have a problem when a woman is ridiculed and even spit on just because she stood up for what's important to her and her family. Nobody has the right to tell someone else what's good for them especially if the person giving orders has no direct relation to that culture. That right there bothers me deeply.
But on the other hand I guess I can say I have also been one to feed into that same ignorant mentality. I went to a high school in Baltimore City that had a Redskin as the mascot. My entire time there I used to argue with me friends daily about who's school was better and what sports team would prevail in a matchup. I never even realized that I was promoting that same negative mentality until after my school changed the name and mascot itself. It was then that I began to realized that maybe their was a valid reason for the change. So I too think that it becomes easy for one to get wrapped up in the whole idea of school spirit and trying to help represent "your" team. I just think that we all have to be conscious of the fact that we all have to be accountable for our actions because whether we realize it or not someone else may not understand or even feel that what we hold true to be right. I think there are a million other things that can be used to name our teams. Even if someone wants to use mascots such as these, just make sure that they are ready to deal with the repercussions of their actions.

In repsonse to A Bennett-I agree with your thought descussing "The tomahawk chop is probably not the most positive in regards to the culture of the people it refers to, but again, I don t think its as bad as some people make it out to be."
That is the issue with a lot of racial problems. Those involved take too much offence to things instead of taking a moment to look at how the other person may be viewing the issue. Sometimes they make too big of a deal on issues that don't require it.

I agree with you with A Bennett. People do tend to pick apart every little aspect which creates an ongoing problem, and takes away from tradition, history, and experience with sports. There will definitely always be someone out there to take offense to things such as these.

I support the use of racialized sport mascots. And not representing one of the races that are against utilizing their culture as a mascot, it is harder for me to comprehend why groups, such as Native Americans, get so uptight about it. Yes, I understand that some of the Native American population feels like an Indian should not be represented as a mascot, that is a given. But the mascot of a school or university represents something strong, tough, and prideful. A mascot also symbolizes a tradition and is full of memories for the school/university it represents as well. It may be on a different level, but it is just a mascot. The university and its community feel pride in being a part of their mascot. Those who celebrate native mascots obviously don t have the knowledge for all they represent as a culture, but they aren t out to destroy what the Native American chief represents. If the Native American mascot gets removed, then you are taking an identity away from the University of Illinois area among other colleges who support a Native American mascot. Kids play a role when they dress up as Indians at Halloween, why don t natives make a big deal of that?
The truth is, the native community is respected, it just isn t the majority of the United States. So although they may protest, they really won t get anywhere because there are too many people to over-rule it. Which makes those who protest the use of Native American mascots even worse, is that the majority of Native Americans are pretty laxed with the issue. The article by Price includes statistics of poles taken and the results surprised me. When 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, p. 68) A few people in the In Who s Honor� film that were against native American mascots seemed to think they were speaking for their entire culture, where as the majority poled in Price s article were okay with the use of Indian mascots.

The decision between supporting or not supporting the use of racialized sports mascots was a very tough one for me to make. Previously, I did not support it. I felt that if a race or ethnicity took offense to the mascots, then it should be banned. I have now decided that I do support it. Here is the problem with the current state in our country: People find something that they take offense to, and if they hire a good lawyer, they are successful in sewing a person, company, or corporation. If you take away every sport mascot that a Native American would take offense to in professional baseball for example, what other mascots does that leave you with. Well, we would have tons of teams with animal mascots, and more often than not birds, for example the Baltimore Orioles and the St. Louis Cardinals. We would also have teams like the Los Angeles Angels. I am pretty sure that not everyone who goes to one of their games believes in Angels, and could take offense. We will never escape the problem of people being offended by a sport mascot because there will always be someone out there to take offense. I'm sure there are animal rights activists who feel that since humans are making money off of animal mascots in collegiate or professional sports, that animals should get a portion of their profits for their habitats. We should keep sports mascots like Indians. This quote from the Price article gives interesting statistical insight to the controversy: "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. 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."
Where else could you share in a little bit of Native American culture by painting your face. Native American history would be limited to museums and textbooks, but nothing hands-on. Of course a couple people will get dressed up for a professional sports game, get drunk, and make negative comments directed towards Native Americans, but don't people make negative comments about whoever our current president is every single day?

I feel that the use of certain racialized mascots should not be banned. The main one used is related to Native Americans; however, terms related to our war history, such as rebels, are also common. Most of the names used are not meant to be derogatory in any way. The way that the team, coach, and fans portray their mascot and team have a lot to do with how the name usage is perceived. The Washington Redskins probably have the most offensive name of all of those referring to the specific race, but nothing that the fans or team does is considered insulting gestures. That respectful aspect alone justifies the use of the name to me. Granted, some teams aren t quite as respectful. The tomahawk chop is probably not the most positive in regards to the culture of the people it refers to, but again, I don t think its as bad as some people make it out to be.
Most of the terms used, such as warriors, chiefs, etc, are directed much more at the old culture of tribes from centuries ago. Just as a patriot mascot would be that equivalent, I think that would almost be more of a complement to their strength. The use of the mascots is not meant to hurt anyone s feelings, nor be intentionally derogatory. Obviously, if a term used to insult and segregate people in our past, such as the N� word, it would be extremely unacceptable. I can see how a name such as Redskins may have that argument, but, again, the team is very respectful of the mascot. That makes all the difference in the situation.
The fact that many of the Native American people have made money off of these situations also affects my feelings towards it. Obviously it can t be that offensive to them if they ll accept payment for a team to keep the name, right? I just think that if something were that bad or prejudiced that there would be a stronger fight to just get rid of it altogether.
In regards to the University of Mississippi, I can see where the connotation would be offensive to society in general. Ole Miss�, referring to a female plantation owner, is very out of date, and suggestive of the days of slavery. Although it s been around for many years and is a big part of the school s history, it is more inappropriate because of other aspects of the university. The predominantly black fraternities are referred to as the slave quarters . When this factor is added into the entire equation, it does seem very wrong.
Mascots should not have to change, and if they do, not drastically. However, when there are factors tied into the name that are directly referring to a racial slur, I can see where the arguments arise. Even if the frats at Mississippi were not referred to the way they are, the name would not seem quite as literal. I don t feel that the Native Americans should be concerne