I agree with you. Like we have said in class, would it be alright to create a team called the Nebraska (n-word)? I dont think it would be ok to do that, and I dont see how that doesnt correlate to teams like the Redskins and Ole Miss. I understand that there may not be a big voice against native american issues like this but that doesnt make it OK. Nor does it make it OK for Ole Miss to waive the flags they use during games. I think if we are going to outlaw discrimination, we need to follow through on it and not just follow the law according to who is going to respond to us doing wrong and who isnt. Its just wrong

At my high school our mascot was the warrior. During my time in high school there was a huge argument over whether or not the name of our mascot should be changed or just have a new one entirely due to the fact that many people within the county found it very offensive and racist. Personally at the time I didn't see what the huge deal was about our mascot. I thought that it was very stupid people fighting over this matter. Now that I stand back and look at it though I think that many mascots are racialized and its not alright. I agree with jgreen that when he says "if we are going to outlaw discrimination, we need to follow through on it..." I feel that sports have a huge pardon in many areas as we have already discussed in this class. Many things are overlooked and just played off when it is involved with a sporting team. Ive been on the fence about this subject for a while now ever since high school with our mascot. I see both sides of the story now and believe that yes it is very wrong and yes that we need to be politically correct and follow through with outlawing discrimination; however, at the same time i think to myself that everyone is never going to be politically correct and that everyone is always going to discriminate something or someone somehow. Honestly, this is a never ending battle that each generation is going to fight. We can keep trying to make things right for those certain individuals that find wrong in things, but we will never be able to satisfy everyone.



Kasi Harris

I agree with when you say that is inappropriate to use mascots that represent somebody else's ethnicity. It is wrong and it can make them feel small and useless. Like it is said in the video, the chief that was used for the University of Illinois was very controversial. One, the dance was not authentic. At first, the university said that it was, but then when people started finding out that it was not, they had to change it. Using a dance that misrepresents the symbol you are using can be very disrespectful. Another issue that people had was that the suit that the mascot was wearing was of the Sioux tribe. Not the tribe that the fighting Illini were supposed to be representing. How can they say that they are honoring somebody or something and not fully understand all the facts? Another thing that it mentioned in the video was that if people made posters about the fighting Caucasians, or fighting Jews, or fighting blacks, people would react a lot more differently and hopefully understand where the American Indians were coming from. If the University decided to just use the chief as a symbol of the university, then maybe people wouldn't react the way that they did. But the moment that they started using mascots, songs, and dances, then it starts to insult the culture. One interesting fact that I got from the video was that one in five American Indian youth, have attempted suicide because of low self worth and low self esteem which can be attributed to the mascots used in sporting events for entertainment.

Scott Rappaport.

I have to agree with the professor's take on the mascot issue; it is not ok to represent another person's ethnicity by using a mascot. I am Jewish and even though I don't consider myself an active or participating Jew I would find it offensive if a University showcased a Rabbi as its mascot. It would infuriate and disgust me to see a University exploit my religious and spiritual faith in to something they call “inspirational, reverent, and moving.” I could somewhat understand the pro-Illiniwek movement if Chief Illiniwek was himself a Native American performing traditional dances but the current Chief clearly has no Native American heritage and performs a basic gymnastic routine. A mascot name like the “Ragin Rabbi's” albeit clever and unique would not sit well with the Jewish community as a whole. If people actually put themselves in other people's shoes then they might realize the harm that they are inflicting on the innocent. The idea of using ethnicity for forming a mascot reminds me of blackfaces in minstrel shows during the 1800's. Have we really gone backwards in terms of discriminating, that we are promoting demeaning acts of the past? Newman (2007) states that dual processes of a collective conscious and commodity racism “enacts an antihumane polity and ideology that to this day maps privilege and works to oppress the marginalized peoples of the region (p.316). No institution should be able to capitalize or neoliberalize on someone's religion or ethnicity because it is immoral and unethical.



To comment on what 9 Tremblay Rd. said how can you call using ethnically motivated mascots, "inspirational, reverent, and moving" when people are killing themselves over the issue? It seems that the Illini fans who are pro Chief Illiniwek are just ignorant and naive.

I agree that using mascots representing racialized stereotypes is wrong and should be changed. Native Americans are not mascots, there people and deserve to be treated with the same dignity as anyone else. The term “redskin” is a racial slur against Native Americans and yet it continues to be the name of a major NFL franchise. We would never see like Kyle 6082 said the “Ragin' Rabbi's”. It seems like being decent and politically correct doesn't apply to words used for Native Americans. There are in some instances where the use of a Native American name and mascot are ok. For example, the Florida State mascot is the Seminole and to use that name they went to the Seminole tribe in Florida and made sure that using the name and mascot was ok. Also in return for using the name, the university pays the tribe small royalties. I believe that all other universities and sports teams should follow what Florida State has done. If they want to continue to use these Native American names and mascots, they need to have the permission of the Tribe or Native American's they are representing. They should also be willing to pay if necessary. I think asking permission and paying royalties is a decent comprise, but ultimately the best case scenario and what should be done is eliminate the use of the names completely.



Bill Reem

I agree that the display of mascot that represents racialized stereotypes is morally wrong and sporting franchises should come to an agreement with these teams that display these mascots so they could change their name. Even many people say that it is harmless for these mascots to be displayed, with the die hard fans of these sports the racialized stereotype is being played at throughout the entire game. For example, Newman says "Indeed, sport is central among these cultural technologies of separation and alienation. While attending an Ole Miss sporting event, and particularly a contest involving the university's championship intercollegiate football team, spectators are immersed in a univeristy of the Old South symbols and signifying acts" (Newman 2007). This means that even though the University of Mississippi is an intergrated school in the South the University becomes a "civil war encampment" during these sporting events (Newman 2007). This blatantly display why these racialized, stereotypical mascots are morally wrong. Turning the University back into the civil war encampment would cause any other student from a different university to feel uncomfortable, but in the University of Mississippi this is of the norm which is also morally wrong. Such teams as the Redskins are socially insensitive to the fit that the term 'redskins' is equivalent to the 'n-word'. If anything this would cause any of the sporting teams that do display this socially insensitive mascot to change. But of course the sporting franchise wants to make profit and they feel as if changing the name would cause them to lose money. In actuality, this will help them make money because of the die hard fans that will go out and buy everything with the name change on it. You would never the Towson N'word or the Towson Chinks so why would should have any team with the term redskins when it is considered a racial slur to the Native American community. This is also display the lack of respect for the Native American community since their voice is hardly heard and then when they are heard they are ignored.



Kierra Palmer