What do you think of Native American mascots in sports? (thoughts, spokesman)

[gardener34]

I always thought that the whole controversy had to do with the fact that public state colleges get federal money. And sports teams are privately owned.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by caution

I think it is freedom of speech. You know after they got done changing a bunch of mascots over from "Braves, Indians and Seminoles" they started changing the mascots of other schools. Mascots like "Pirates, Raiders, Warriors, Wildcats, Crusaders, etc" were also changed at high-schools and middle schools. I think that trend died off.

If it continued, we'd be cheering for the "Bunnies, Ostriches or the Unicorns".

I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue of freedom of speech... that only applies to individual citizens, not entire organizations and schools. (not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the two issues are unrelated) Not to mention, once the mascots are printed and distributed as images, you're no longer just speaking.

Oh, and I'd love to have a Unicorn mascot!

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by AOYAS

Hi Gizmo!

I certainly understand your point, and I do agree with you that "tradition" should not be the sole argument for not changing something that is inherently bad. However, "tradition" was not my main argument, and I don't think that sports team names/mascots are inherently bad.

I guess the point I was trying to make regarding the "tradition" aspect of sports team names/mascots was not made clear...that's my fault, sorry. I mentioned the "tradition" aspect in order to point out that the names/mascots are not meant to be malicious, damaging, or insulting to particular races/ethnicities (unlike slavery, etc), so there is no *good* reason to disrupt the historical and traditional significance of the teams to their fans (and to the sports, themselves) by changing the names/mascots (and, thus, the very things that many teams stand for), in order to appease small groups of thin-skinned people, who have nothing better to do with their time than protest long-standing, non-malicious, non-threatening sports teams and their names/mascots.

I get your point... I still don't like the tradition excuse, but I understand that wasn't your main argument. I agree that these names weren't intended to insult or degrade - but if they do offend someone, I just think we can at least hear them out.

[Martin Karadagian]

Originally Posted by anonymous

Mr. Anonymous.

And your opinion was that they are offensive and should be changed. You also mentioned that animal mascots aren't an issue with PETA, and I was providing you with info.

As far as the incident with PETA, I find it very interesting, and I would say that would stand as the best argument I've personally seen for the "where do we draw the line" question. I honestly hadn't heard of this incident. However....In my opinion, because we are talking about a deep concern of an ethnic group, I would place higher value on that as opposed to protest against a nickname related to animal abuse. If SC students were holding **** fights on Big Game night, I would say that would be something of concern. I'm against **** fights, and any form of animal abuse, and I don't blame PETA for protesting per se. But, it's the schools call.

My apologies to the individual who brought PETA up to begin with by downplaying them as an example. But, again, given that we're talking about an ethnic group, and their concern, I personally believe that takes much higher priority.

[Martin Karadagian]

Originally Posted by AOYAS

You seem to be somewhat of a hypocrite. You started this thread, asking for other posters' opinions regarding what they think of Native American mascots in sports. However, it doesn't seem that you actually want to hear other posters' opinions. You seem to want to encourage others to express their opinions, so that you may get on your soapbox and attempt to censure said opinions. If you start a thread titled as a question regarding other posters' opinions on a certain subject, why don't you let others state their opinions (as you asked them to do), instead of posturing and starting an argument with anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Not following you. Are you saying I shouldn't give a counter-response? How can I stop anyone from expressing their opinions even if I wanted to? The only posts I came down on in any way was when someone claimed I was putting a guilt trip on him, and when I misunderstood someone pertaining to what they posted, with which I then apologized for misunderstanding them.

[Colomonter]

I can see where both sides are coming from. I don't see many mascots left in this country that are offensive except to a very small segment of the PC crowd. But, there are a few. I for one wish that the Washington Redskins would change their name. No, it is not a huge issue, but nevertheless I do think that is one that many would agree is at least somewhat offensive.

My problem with this whole issue comes from who instigates the uproar. An example would be the University of Utah Utes. Until 1972 they used a dual nickname of Redskins and Utes. The Redskin name was dropped and with permission from the Ute Tribal Council they became known as only the Utes.

In 1996 the university added a mascot, again with permission from the Ute Tribal Council, of a red tailed hawk a bird indigenous to the state of Utah.

End of story and all lived happily ever after.....except that there are still those from the ultra PC group that is comprised of mainly white liberal elitists that are still on a guilt trip that don't think this is good enough. So they still push for what they feel is a less offensive nickname.

Sometimes these do-gooders and their agendas cause nothing but tension and conflict where non existed before.

[CelticLady1]

Originally Posted by Colomonter

I can see where both sides are coming from. I don't see many mascots left in this country that are offensive except to a very small segment of the PC crowd. But, there are a few. I for one wish that the Washington Redskins would change their name. No, it is not a huge issue, but nevertheless I do think that is one that many would agree is at least somewhat offensive.

My problem with this whole issue comes from who instigates the uproar. An example would be the University of Utah Utes. Until 1972 they used a dual nickname of Redskins and Utes. The Redskin name was dropped and with permission from the Ute Tribal Council they became known as only the Utes.

In 1996 the university added a mascot, again with permission from the Ute Tribal Council, of a red tailed hawk a bird indigenous to the state of Utah.

End of story and all lived happily ever after.....except that there are still those from the ultra PC group that is comprised of mainly white liberal elitists that are still on a guilt trip that don't think this is good enough. So they still push for what they feel is a less offensive nickname.

Sometimes these do-gooders and their agendas cause nothing but tension and conflict where non existed before.

I agree, that it can get out of hand, which is why, in my earlier posts, on this thread, I said that each tribe should be heard on this matter. Some of them don't have a problem with mascots. My great-grandmother's tribe, the Seminole of Florida have a decent relationship with FSU. I also remember the incident with the Utah Utes. Again, as they had no problem, then it should be left alone. The problem is when some folks want to ignore the situation entirely, tell others to grow a thicker skin, and act as if there is no problem at all. Because, again, this is a sensitve matter for many Indians. Obviously, not all Native Americans will have a problem with mascots, (anymore than some will have a problem with the term, "Indian" as opposed to "Native American"). However, that doesn't mean that the mascot question should be thrust aside, as though it does not exist. Of course, the mascot question is not the most important issue facing Indian Country. But, in my opinion, the tribes should be given due consideration, if they do have a problem with it.

[MontanaGuy]

This whole subject is foolish. Consider the fact that the Minnesota Vikings have fans who come to games in all sorts of Viking attire. Minnesota has many descendents of Scandinavian countries and it just seemed to fit. Isn't it interesting that this situation is exactly the same as teams with Indian names but it's not considered offensive? This is political correctness that's gone way too far. There are real problems that Native Americans have to deal with in our nation, this just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[Baltic_Celt]

Isn't the purpose in naming a team, to give the impression that the team is strong, brave, fearless, winners, warriors? Perhaps even implying ferocity & in no way will this A-1 team back down. If so, then naming a team after anyone is a complement, yeah?

Errol Flynn was portrayed as a verile swashbuckler in the movies, John Wayne a cowboy who couldn't loose, etc. Would it be an insult to their heirs, heritage, religion or place of birth to call a team the Fighting Flynn's or the Winning Wayne's? I don't think so. So, unless I'm missing a very important point & please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm willing to learn, the teams names are used to portray winning qualities & to honor those qualities. Am I off the mark here? No offense to anyone named Mark...

[Kingsnkali]

Orangemen. Redskins. Vikings. Fighting Irish. Braves. Celtics. Aztecs. Indians. Padres. Rebels.

All of these names deeply offend me! WAHHHHHH.....EWWWWWWH!

We should name all our teams after fuzzy, cute little animals like squirrels, chipmunks, kitty cats and poodles! I hope I haven't offended any fuzzy, cute little animals here....maybe I should be more sensitive.