These are all teams that have stereotypes. If a team name, mascot, or insignia is offensive, then just change it; it is just a sports team. Even if a team changes it, it is not like every jock, or sports fan is not going to know theyour new name, mascot, or insignia. Using Native American images and names in professional, collegiate, and high school sports teams do reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes because the mascots and team names give stereotypical features. These stereotypes are mainly coming from mascots.
Is using Native Americans as mascots for sports teams offensive? It does not matter if it is a high school or a college, sometimes even the NFL. Examples of sports teams that use Native Americans images are Washington Redskins, Florida State Seminoles, and a high school Cherokee Braves. It is not offending and there should not be any problem because it is not making fun of anybody. Using Native American images and names in professional, collegiate, and high schools sport teams does not reinforce and perpetuate stereotypes because it symbolizes their culture, shows that they are ready to play, and appreciates their coexistence.
Other teams around the nation have gotten rid of the symbols that are offensive. According to the Syracuse University archives the athletic teams used to be named after an offensive Native American stereotype called the Orangemen . After decades of criticism the university decided to change it’s name to just simply the Orange. The school rebrand was seen as an attempt to remove the negative and stereotypical depiction of Native Americans . Despite this the school continues to uphold their traditions without the name.
"The team and its leaders are so obsessed with clinging to a dictionary-defined racial slur that they are willing to abandon their hometown and local fans in order to continue degrading Native Americans," said Joel Barkin, spokesman for the grassroots campaign. "Now that Bruce Allen has been relieved of day-to-day responsibilities as general manager he must have a lot of free time on his hands to double down on this racist moniker and try to figure out what to do about Native Americans returning donations from the team. Unfortunately, Bruce Allen, team owner Dan Snyder and the Washington team fail to understand that you cannot buy acceptance of continued racism. The Washington Redskins football team through the years has been put under increasing pressure to change its name in order to stop causing offense to Native
In doing so, evidence will be provided stating that the mascots are not meant to become a slur, Natives are alright with the idea of having a mascot named after them, and what the Supreme Court decides. When opposers view the Washington Redskins, they think of a racial slur that is meant to offend and stereotype Native Americans. It seems as though the opposition has not done the proper research on a stance they are so adamant about. Researchers say that the name change of the Washington Redskins, “coincided with the hiring of a new coach, an Indian named Lone
Native American mascots though are a misrepresentation of the Native American people. As stated in the article “Native American-Themed Sports Mascots are Racist and Reinforce Negative Stereotypes” former APA President Ronald F. Levant states that “These mascots are teaching stereotypical, misleading, and too often, insulting images of American Indians.” Teams such as the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, and different schools across are depicting the
Ellie Reynolds advances a rhetorically effective argument on why government should not have regulatory control over offensive Native American mascots in schools across the country. She believes this control is more of a detriment to society than a service. Her article published on the DenverPost.com, “Native Americans Have Become a Political Pawn,” offers a compelling point of view on this controversial issue because Reynolds is a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe herself (Reynolds 659). Along with her strong view against government involvement on this issue, which she considers censorship by political correctness, Reynolds uses her personal experience, historical context, and the negative effects of political correctness to convey her effective
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.
Couple teams that carry names that are very offensive to the natives are the Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, and arguably the most popular of them all, the Washington Redskins. These teams carrying such names bring offense to all the native
Why Some Sports Teams May Have to Change Their Name Have you ever been offended by a name that someone has called you? More likely than not, the answer to this question is yes. This is the stand that some Indian tribes and the government are taking on the use of Indian names and mascots in sports. This controversial topic has been discussed and argued over for at least the last decade, if not longer.
“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
First off, the definition of a mascot is “An animal, person, or thing adopted by a group as its representative symbol and supposed to bring good luck” (Dictionary). A mascot is something people are proud of and rally behind, it’s an honor to be a mascot. Karl Swanson, vice-president of the Washington Redskins professional football team, declared in the magazine Sports Illustrated that his team's name "symbolizes courage, dignity, and leadership," and that the "Redskins symbolize the greatness and strength of a grand people.” (Wikipedia). In 2002 Sport Illustrated conducted a survey and found that 81% of Native Americans not living on a reservation and 53% of Native Americans living on a reservation didn’t find this discriminatory (Wikipedia).
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
From Eleazar Wheelock in 1769 to Philip J. Hanlon in 2018, Dartmouth administrators have always been under fire from the student body. Whether it was the quality of food back in the days of Dartmouth’s early founding, women demanding equal rights and fair treatment on campus in the 1980’s, or recent student protests dealing with the demise of old traditions, Dartmouth’s legacy has gone through a great deal to land where it is today. Among these “obstacles”, one of the most prominent, and problematic, was rooted in the school’s mascot. From 1860 to 1970, Dartmouth’s use of a cartoon “Indian” went on with little to no public aggravation or protest. However, in the 1970’s and 1980’s, people began to realize the mascot was inhuman, as it depicted
Back in June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Asian-American rock band named “The Slants” and stated the federal government cannot ban trademarks, on the grounds that it offends, to do so violates the first amendment right to freedom of speech. While the rock band was trying to trademark their name as an act of “re-appropriation,” an attempt to reclaim a slur used against their community, the outcome of the court ruling has opened a door for those who would use this ruling for less principled causes. The disparagement clause in the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act prohibited the registration of any mark that officials consider disparaging or offensive to people, institutions, beliefs, etc. Now that the clause is deemed unconstitutional for