Also the fabric used to manufacture Underarmour's products is sourced by Underarmour's manufactures from suppliers pre-approved by them says investor.underarmour.com/company/products.cfm

I disagree. There are many football players in the world. Many of them wear Underarmour shoes.

That is because Nike has been up in running for a long time. Underarmour became a store later than Nike. Nike's date founded was January 25, 1964. Where as Underarmour's date founded was ín 1996.

Underarmour's quality is also better than Nike. Underarmour basically originated the ¨dry-fit" style football undershirt but has clearly branched out into so much more theses days. Underarmour for quality always wins when it comes to athletic footwear says www.thefitnesschamp.com/home/2010/1/24/nike-vs-under-armour.html

I think that Underarmour is better than Nike because they are expanding there variety. Apparel retailer Underarmour, has unveiled new products that are going to be marketed in 2013. New performance of ¨Armour 39.¨

That's one person though. Many other Indian children probably think its disrespectful. More Natives think cultural mascots are disrespectful over not disrespectful.

I agree. It is very rude, it may not seem like they are mocking them but they really are. They are probably dancing in some form that is disrespectful to there culture and they don't like it. If I were them and people were dancing in my cultures clothing I would be offended and not want to be a part of my culture anymore because they are making fun of it.

The Indian reservations have people from there culture in the reservation so it is not disrespectful for them to have cultural mascots because there culture is in the reservation so they are following there religion.

It may not be offensive to some people that they have a team named after there culture it might be a pleasure to some but too most people it is offensive. The angry crowd may have been protesting for other schools to ban cultural mascots because they are disrespectful. Also the Sioux Lake member Eunice Davidson probably isn't even in the culture that the team is named after so he would know how Natives feel about there culture being named after a sports team.

Yes that's true that it would cost a lot of money but It is offensive to cultures and I'm sure that the people who run the mascots and own the Washington Red Skins stadium have enough money to pay for new logos. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide for young people, partially because of teams mocking there culture and they feel insecure by that.

I believe cultural mascots are disrespectful. I think they are disrespectful because it is offensive to cultures. A girl at a Washington Redskins game became so offended by the cheerleaders dressed in butt skin clothing and headdresses, she began to cry and asked her father if they could leave the stadium. Also the term redskins is particularly offensive, it refers to the scalps of a Native american which early settlers would sell and trade there supplies for more convenient supplies. I believe that cultural mascots should be ban from sports teams because it is disrespectful and offensive to cultures.