Is the use of Native American mascots wrong?

Question

I have an English paper that I have to do, and I am arguing for the use of Native American mascots. Does anyone have any arguments for the use of Native American mascots? The ones I have so far are:
- The use of mascots have been approved by some tribal leaders.
- Names such as the Seminoles, or the Braves aren't offensive. They are just names. Some have even argued that Warrior is an offensive Native American name. Why??
- The mascots are not intended for insulting the Native Americans, but rather to represent their strength and celebrate their culture.

Thanks for any opinions that you may provide.

Answer 1

personally, I'm partly Native American, I even look it, and I am NOT offended by the use of my ancestors being used as mascots I mean, as long as you don't like make the person look really degrading or play into stereotypes or use racist slurs it's ok to use names as mascots

Answer 2

There is nothing a mascot celebrates then the team. Do you really think a person sees a mascot and stops to think about real Native Americans? Highly doubful.
Native Americans are the only culture I can think of that are used as a mascot. So what if a few tribe leaders agree? There are quite a few that don't. Check out the link bellow on an interesting artical about it.
As a white person with not a drop of Native American in me I totally agree on how offensive it can be to their culture. It's also not the actual word that is offensive but how it is used. Again it's not actually used to celebrate their culture it's only use is to hype up the team and crowd. Sometimes taking things that are sacred to Native Americans. For instence if there was a team called "The demon slayers" and to support the team the crowd would buy a foam cross, do you think Christians would be happy about that? Probably not since the cross means a lot to them and could be considered a blasphemous use of it.

Answer 3

No. it isn't meant to be offensive in besides. The scuffling with Irish shouldn't replace both, and Irish are for sure white. The scuffling with Whites even if are created specifically to offend whites. If there change right into a crew created called the Raging Blacks or something, i'd be adversarial to it too. yet calling a crew the Illini or Chiefs or Seminoles is superb. similar with calling a crew the Patriots, that is superb even if that if it represents white individuals. Edit: My element change into it isn't like the scuffling with Whites the position the purely reason it change into created change into because human beings did not like community American mascots. The scuffling with Irish are not offensive, neither might want to the Seminoles be offensive. They were chosen specifically because they were seen as a sturdy human beings.

Answer 4

the fact is, these are generally used without one bit of regard for the actual people.

There's a Native team out west called "the Screaming Whiteys." Think about it. That kinda sums up their reaction to the use of NA mascots - except then, the genocide and cultural devastation is still missing from the way we would react to "screaming whiteys"

Answer 5

It is horribly wrong. It falls under the same umbrella as Lawn Jockeys, the term "Indian giver", and the name Engine Joe. It's offensive. Remember the Lone Ranger? Well the word "Tonto" means stupid.

Answer 6

knights are insulting to the army
soldiers are insulting to everyone
animals insult animals
and people insult people.
my advice is to tell people to get over it man.

Answer 7

I don't think you could call genocide, celebrating their culture.

Answer 8

yes they shold not name any more teams that way...holla