Are cultural mascots insensitive or disrespectful?
Are cultural mascots insentive or disrespectful? Examples: Cleveland Indians, Fighting Irish, Washington Redskins.
Yes, disrespectful.
Side Score: 25
Winning Side! |
 |
No, not disrespectful.
Side Score: 15
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
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. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
2
points
1
point
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. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
Cultural mascots promote stereotypes. Some opponents of cultural teams show American Indian culture in a cartoon driven way. "American Indian mascots and logos promote negative stereotypes." Says Barbra Munson, a member of Oneida Tribe of Indians in Wisconsin. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
1
point
I disagree, most of the mascots, except a few, represent them as strong figures. An example is Marquette High School. The mascot is known as "The Chief" The Chief was once the leader of the tribe and is legendary.The Chief is and was once took away by the counsel, which led to an angry, 1,200-person rally led the nearby Native American Community. Side: No, not disrespectful.
1
point
|
This may be true, that it will cost a high amount of money. Yet, I don't think that really is a big deal. For example, The Red Skins should be able to pay for it because they are a popular team. I think that they should pay for it and change the name. As Ray Halbritter, the current Nation Representative and CEO of Oneida Nation Enterprises, said in a ad "We do not deserved to be called redskins. We deserve to be treated as what we are- Americans." Side: Yes, disrespectful.
2
points
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. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
1
point
I disagree, I think cultural mascots are very racist. Coachella Valley High School's mascot is "Basically and angry 'Arab' head- honk nose, long beard, head scarf and all." Said Abed Ayoub, a legal policy director. Ayoub has insisted that the schools mascot and any other "offensive" imagery are examples of Orientalism. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
but that is why they can just change the look so it wont be so offensive to the crowd or any body and say if people like it more than not what should they do they should just keep it because if they change it they might not get such a show up and might not get enough money so if they would not get enough money they might not have a football team. Side: No, not disrespectful.
1
point
I disagree that the mascots are disrespectful, because after the school district of Marquette High School yanked their mascot of the Stoic Indian, an angry crowd of 1,200 Native Americans protested. This proves not all of the people the mascots represent are against the mascots. Another example is a quote by one the Sioux Lake member Eunice Davidson said "I am very, very honored that they would use that name." he was talking about North Dakota's Fighting Sioux nickname. Side: No, not disrespectful.
1
point
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. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
1
point
I think that mascots should not be changed. Some of the mascots are a tradition to some states and city's. There are Indian reservations that have schools on them and they have Native American mascots why cant other schools. Also if the mascots are offending people they can speak up and the school or other things can change the look of the mascot. Just like in a different state there is an Arabian mascot and people don't like it so they are just changing the look of the mascot so it wont be offending but they can still have the name of the school because they say that they would have to spend a lot of money on the school to change the look. There are also Irish mascots and warrior mascots that have no problem with the name it is, they think that it can support the name or them. So i think mascots are never offending to anything at all. Side: No, not disrespectful.
Yet some mascots have changed to not offend people and even if they are a tradition I believe cultural mascots are disrespectful. Even Barack Obama was wary on the subject stating he would "think about changing" the Redskins name if he were to own the team. I think this applies to all cultural mascots teams. Side: Yes, disrespectful.
1
point
1
point
I agree, some of these mascots have also been there a long time. The Mukwonago School District had their mascot of the Indian for 86 years. This all changed during the 2009-2010 school year when the board voted the Indian out, and the new mascot in. Side: No, not disrespectful.
|
