Pros And Cons Of Washington Mascots

Mascots and team names are stereotypical or offensive. 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.

“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

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.

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. However, the underlying truth is that teams with names like these are meant to honor and represent the pride and strength these tribes have had throughout their history. "We Seminoles embrace the mascot... they honor us", says James Billie, the tribes chairman. When he claims this statement, he is referring to their mascots having more than the appearance of calling out a specific race but to recognize the ones who deserve the merit (source C).

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. Other schools have done the same throughout the nation as well removing their offensive symbols. According to USA Today.com several schools have made the change . This shows that schools are starting to realize that these symbols are offensive and demeaning and are coming around on this

The Indian mascot was originally designed to render tribute to Native Americans, not as a racial symbol. In the past forty years, changing the name backfired, and citizens began taking offense to the name because they felt like the name represented the color of Native American’s skin. Nevertheless, many fans, including Native Americans, do not consider the name or the mascot to be degrading or racial. Fans of the Washington Redskins participated in a poll that reveals, “77 percent reject changing the name” while in another poll “71 percent of NFL fans did not find the Redskins name offensive” (Lingebach 2). Clearly, from the results of the two polls, many fans would be unhappy if the Redskins’ name were to be changed. 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

The United States of America is a land of freedom, a land of equality, and opportunity. We value independence and should look to exercise this in every form, as a nation. We must stay united and show respect to one another. This means we should not disregard ones ' ethnicity and culture, and use names in which are offensive towards their culture, in order to promote any sort of activity. This is aimed mainly at sports teams that carry racially inappropriate names. 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

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

"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

As of 2015, the NFL consists of more than two thirds of African American and almost 90 percent of penalties were received by players of color. The league continually make racist comments towards certain athletes of different race. When looking at the case between Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger and Quarterback Michael Vick, we see how racism is portrayed through these two powerhouse Quarterbacks. Michael Vick (QB for Atlanta Falcons) was convicted on the terms of animal cruelty and was sentenced to 22 months in Prison. Ben Roethlisberger (QB for Pittsburgh Steelers) was found guilty for sexual harassment and was suspended for 6 games (later brought down to 4). Looking at the article “Race and Crime in Media Sports” we can see the clear cut definition of

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

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

The Pittsburgh steelers has a lot of history behind it, from the uniforms logo and even the name.The Steelers are owned by a man by the name of Art Rooney who bought the franchise in 1933 for 2 thousand 500 dollors. Since they were found in 1933 they are the 5th oldest franchise in the NFL.

Proud To Be (Mascots),” produced by the National Congress of American Indians, convinces the audience of the importance and necessity of changing the mascot of the Washington Redskins to something not offensive or racist towards Native Americans or any other group. Throughout the video, rhetoric provides levels of techniques in language and imagery in order to persuade the audience. The intended audience, mainstream American football fans, and their relationship with the speaker establish what group of people the ad needs to convince for the mascot to change. The video’s use of ethos, pathos, and logos through one word descriptions and images serve as the most effective visual rhetoric to the argument. Music, diction, imagery, suspense, and

Racism in team names such as the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins causes a lot of controversy because of the meaning of the name because it obscures the reality of Native Americans experiences, traditions, and place in U.S. history. Some people think that this isn’t really a problem but others want the teams to change their names because of how much they are bothered by it. I do not think teams should have to change their names because if the NFL or NBA doesn’t see a problem with the names then there probably isn’t a problem with it. People are probably over reacting over this thing.