The Washington D.C football team has started a controversy with many people that are from the American Indian background. The “indian” sports mascot, logos, or symbols show an image of the Native American people that is not true. To some this may concerning, but to others this is no big deal. I think that this is something that people and teams should care or think about. Not only is what they 're doing offensive it’s also disrespecting to the history of Native Americans. They have been suppressed for years and now with the Washington Football team name it causes the Native American people to be upset EVIDENCE: Racism and racial discrimination are attitudes and behavior that are learned and threaten human development. Which means that people should be taking proactive steps to prevent intolerant or racist acts. Indian mascots, symbols, images, and personalities establish an unwelcome hostile learning environment for American Indian Students. School systems that show negative images of American Indians give of a negative impact on the self esteem of the American Indian students. This also disrespects the spiritual beliefs and values of the American Indian people. In the State of Oregon they announced that their public schools are not allowed to use Native Americans as mascots or sports teams names like “Indians”, “Chiefs”, “Braves”, and “Redskins” but not “Warriors because it’s imagery did not specifically mean Native Americans. The schools were expected to change the names …show more content…
So the use of “Redskins” would be switched something else because the word Redskins is a racial word that was used in the olden days. That would be the same situation if a team you the word N***a as their Team name. The thing that both of these words have in common is that they were used to suppress the people that were different to
The teams claim they do not want to insult but honor Native Americans, and it is all in “good, clean fun.” They claim sports should be fun and leisurely without complaining because there is enough bad in the world. Churchill counters by saying if it is all in playful fun then why not use certain names and symbols from other ethnic groups. Churchill suggest using the N-word to honor Afro-Americans, and players will wear leopard skins and fake bones in their noses. Churchill includes other groups like Hispanics, which could be the Galveston “Greasers” or Wisconsin “Wetbacks”.
The context portion in a Rogerian argument is to provide insight on the opposite stance, which Jane Willy fails to do. The author attempts to do a lead up to the point of view by stating the NCAA told universities such as “Arkansas State University was told to stop calling itself the Indians, the University of Louisiana at Monroe was told to drop the name War Hawks, the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana was told to drop the name Illini, and the University of Utah was told to drop the name Utes” (Willy, 2005). This is useless information to the reader because it comes before the viewpoint and does not sync up properly in the passge. Next, the author gets to the position of which the “NCAA was responding to a report issued by the U.S. commission on Civil Rights” which labeled the usage of American Indian tribes as mascots as racist and disrespectful to their communities (Willy, 2005). This important information was misplaced and should have been put before the list of colleges affected by the NCAA’s decision to yield a better understanding.
The name Redskins is seen as a derogatory and racial term traced back to the 18th century. It is found to be demeaning and offensive towards the Native Americans due to the history of the word. Some sources state that the term is in reference to when the Native Americans would paint their faces red, but others proclaim it's related to the scalping incidents. During the mid-19th century, authorities offered bounties for the scalps of Indians and referred to them as redskins. This issue has resurfaced once again as a dispute between the Washington Redskins and the Native Americans over the name of this certain National Football League team.
When people talk about mascots being named after Indian cultures they think that the Indians being recognized should feel honored. However, when that team plays their rival the other fans are taught to hate those people causing them to hear hateful and degrading comments throughout their lives. “If it’s the team’s tradition, then it’s a legacy of bigotry.” (Wulf). People don’t show respect for Native Americans they use them to create a profit.
The author uses a personal anecdote to begin his argument: he “bought the Cleveland cap with the famous Chief Wahoo Logo on it” (520), which betrayed his Creek mother’s faith; as a result, his mother jerked the cap off his head and “threw it in the trash” (520), which left an indelible impression on him. Shakely’s personal experience is efficient to draw a vivid picture about “Indian Mascot” abuse for audiences. Based on his experience, he believes that possessing dignity and respect is the right to everybody, and it doesn’t apply to majority rules. Therefore, Shakely claims that college and professional teams should abandon Native American names and mascots because it is racial
In the 21st century, Native American culture is largely represented by mascots. Issues of isolation, education, and alcoholism continue to plague Native American reservations, but these issues are largely ignored by the general public. Instead, much of the battleground relating to Native American rights has centered on where they are most visible--sports. In “Racism American Style…,” Elizabeth Delacruz presents the problems with the mainstream portrayal of Native Americans. She uses four examples of problematic mascots to support her claim that racist imagery depicting Native Americans continues to be prevalent in American society.
Goodbye to Racial Mascots: California Bans the Use of “Redskins” in Public Schools Oct. 11 marks the victory of a statewide movement to prevent a racial slur from public use. On that day, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the ban on using “Redskins” as team names or mascots in public schools. The bill was well received by the majority, and many expected that this would set a good example for other states and the next generation. Without a doubt, the term in question — referring to the brutal crimes that British colonizers had done to Native Americans — is a racial slur that many Native Americans have long found offensive. However, when it comes to something as prestigious as the Washington football team or as intimate as a tradition of Amherst College.
Recently, the use of controversial words has become a heavily debated topic and has gained international attention as seemingly truthful statements to some, cause insult to others. The Times article "Why 'Redskins' Is a Bad Word", by acclaimed linguist and professor John McWhortor, was published around the time the use of the word Redskin was being debated. In the article, McWhortor aims to clarify the condemnation of the word Redskin, by suggesting that the offence does not stem from the literal definition of such words, but instead the negative and often derogatory connotations the words have. McWhorter begins by introducing the recent discussions surrounding the use of the word Redskins, especially the actions taken by Californian schools
Throughout the nineteenth century events played out time and time again in college football that would end up having a sweeping significance on American culture. Issues such as racism and women having a larger part in the sports world were dealt with. Business and the art of cheating through one’s sports team were seen as growing rapidly in the football world and obviously having a vast effect on how American business would end up carrying itself. College football and all of its antics would end up not only transforming the American culture then, but everything that was decided on then would set the tone for college football and how it operates now and American culture and the system is handled today.
3. Pain: There 's no way around it -- it 's a term that hurts, and those feelings should be validated. So Snyder and his foundation can try to silence certain tribes, but the Change the Mascot movement http://www.changethemascot.org cannot be bought and it certainly
Also, if any professional sport teams were forced to change their names, it would have a huge negative impact on commercial products. Lingebach addresses in his article how “in another sign of support, the majority of Washington, DC fans would not purchase new team merchandise if the Redskins changed their name” (qtd. in Lingebach 2). If Native Americans and most of the National Football League fans infer that the name is not derogatory, the Redskins should not have to change their name. The Kansas City Chiefs have been lucky enough not to face the same issues as the Washington
There are many sports team names and mascots whose names reference Native Americans; this has become a public controversy due to the sports team names being interpreted as a racially offensive pursue. Most people do not take into consideration that these teams have an important meaning behind them, and how they contribute to the insightful history of Native Americans themselves. It would be a catastrophe having to lose all the history. Many claims toward this idea of "racism" are due to NFL and college team names such as the Washington Redskins, Kansas City Chiefs, and the Florida State Seminoles are just a few.
I noticed the tremendous amount of discussion being faced about the controversy of the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo. Is this entire thing a racial slur or just a way to honor our Native Americans? Even though some might think that it is an honor to the Native Americans that Chief Wahoo is the mascot, but there is a whole other side of the argument. I believe the Cleveland Indians should ban their mascot.
But according to MascotDB, a database of sports team names and mascots, many hundreds of American teams retain Indian imagery, ranging from local high schools to major teams like the Washington Redskins.” The Native Americans want it all gone. There is only a handful of teams that have be accepted by the Native American communities. Those teams are either on Indian Reservations or are sponsored by the local tribe. A large percentage of teams that use Native American mascots and logos would have to change their name because there is no way that all the teams will be able to keep the Native American logo and/or
“Redskin” is an extremely derogatory term used to describe the reputed color of a Native American 's skin tone. Along with the simply disrespectful terminology, the phrase has a history of being used alongside bounty for the scalping of Native Americans, so it is without a doubt offensive to many people. Washington 's choice to continue using the word as a name for their popular sports team has been the cause of much controversy. Despite the pleas of millions of people, advocacy groups and even government officials to change the name, the sports team remains unchanged. Even the United States Patent and Trademark Office has refused the renewal of their name, logo and likeness, citing the combination as “disparaging to Native Americans" National public opinion polls have found that 60 to 83 percent of the general public supports the teams ' decision to continue using the name, yet only a small majority of fans think the term is offensive to Native