Essay On Ethnicly Related Mascots

Do ethnically related mascots truly need to be changed in the world of sports? Most would respond with a resounding “Yes,” arguing that names such as “Redskins” and “Chiefs” are derogatory, and need to be removed. On the other hand, others argue that these mascots show pride and dignity towards America’s past history. The debate on whether or not it is appropriate to name sports teams after native and foreign groups of people, has become a tremendous debate, but the side with a more cogent argument, is the side that supports the keeping of particular mascots. While many would argue that ethnically related mascots need to be changed, the reality is that these so called “offensive” mascots do not need to be replaced because they show respect,

The past times have been revolutionary and epic, so at the least, sports organizations with these mascots should be allowed to keep them as a way to show the respect Natives truly deserve. For example, the team with the largest controversy in today’s football world is the Washington Redskins. The owner of the organization and the team itself has fought time and time again to keep the unique, yet meaningful name that they have had since the year 1937. In an interview done by Travis Waldron, a businessman who owns the majority of the Washington Redskins, Daniel Snyder adds, “We’ll never change the name,” (qtd. in Waldron). Another team battling to maintain their mascot is Florida State University. Lindsey Lowe, writer, and editor for Scholastic News writes, “However, the Seminole Tribe of Florida gave FSU permission to keep using their tribe's name, as well as the Chief Osceola mascot. They say FSU is honoring their history,” (Lowe). While the NCAA has told almost twenty teams to drop their team names and logos, the Seminole Tribe that resigns in Florida, gave Florida State their approval to use the well-known tribe name. As spoken in the article written by Lindsey Lowe, “We Seminoles embrace the mascot,” says James Billie, the tribe’s leader (qtd. in Lowe). Rather than making the effort to alter these mascots to something more mutual, why not keep them, and realize the

Why does the opposition believe these mascots are offensive? Critics believe they show disrespect, and those people see the truly honorable names as racist or offensive to the Native American culture. Many who view names like “Redskins” as offensive also find these names, “inappropriate,” (Lewis and Tripathi). By saying this, Native Americans are trying to emphasize the point that they do not want their culture and race being viewed as just a mascot. Natives want to do bigger and better things with the honoring of their culture, and all people who believe the names are offensive, just simply want names removed. Another claim opponents may believe is that the chants and mascots do not truly represent the Native Americans. As quoted in the article written by sports reporter Erik Brady, Kevin Gover, director of the National Museum of the American Indian adds, “They never honor the Native American truth. They are honoring their own notion of heritage, their own non-Indian version of history,” (qtd. In Brady). Although the argument to remove these names is compelling, the majority of people conclude that all team names, mascots, and logos involving any relation to the Native American culture, should remain as they are. Those who consider these mascots honorable, respectable, and dignifying towards the past people, contain a stronger argument that all mascots with any