Americans only see their point of view but the Indians feel different. If you look at their point they said they don't feel honored for example a full-blooded American Indian went to a Redskins game and became so offended from the mascot she became teary eyed and asked to leave the game. It's a pro football game some people never get to see one so she has to be very offended. Also sometimes it can bring up dark memories from Indians past. For example, Redskins reminds them when at one point said white settlers could earn bounty money for each Indian Scalp( it's the skin covering the head, not including the face). Also, Clara Standing Soldier said cartoon Indian Mascots remind her of Nazi or Japanese being captured in camps in world war II.

Lots of people say that mascots are treated with respect. But are they really people don't like mascots because of who they are representing. Only if it's the team you like so basically they just want your autograph and photo with you because of the team your on. So they treat them poorly they only care for the team they represent so that's pretty low. Also sometimes fight songs and chants can be pretty offensive you may sometimes not realize it. Some people don't realize it because they don't pay attention to the words that much. For example, the Redskins fight song says "scalp the Indians" now if you asked people at the game many would probably pretty clueless. That's why I think mascots are not treated well.

I think that Native American Mascots are racist because they can create harmful stereotypes. The Cleveland Indians logo of chief Wahoo reduced native Americans to cartoon and war chant. Also, the Atlanta Braves do their tomahawk chop, showing we are not real people. A second reason that I think that Native American Mascots are racist is because they are a sign of disrespect. Groups supporting Wisconsin law say native American sports references are insulting, and each tribe has their own cultures and traditions. Another piece of evidence is that opponents of these mascots say they show American Indian culture in a cartoonish way. A third reason why I think that Native American Mascots are racist is because they can create havoc. One piece of evidence is that before a mascot get banned in Wisconsin, a resident must first file a complaint and if that complaint goes through then they may be havoc in that area. My second piece of evidence is that members of Spirit Lake Sioux tribe sued the university of North Dakota to keep the fighting Sioux name.

Mascots like the Redskins are offensive to the native American culture. Teams like the Redskins offend anyone with native American blood, like Mr.Cooper. According to a panel: Native Mascots Devalues Culture. Mr.Cooper was with his daughter at a high school football game, when the other team's cheerleader came out on the field looking like a native American. She had a feathered headdress and a buckskin clothing. When Mr. Cooper and his daughter saw the teenager flip around they became so offended that Mr. Coopers daughter started to tear up and cry. Also, what the cheerleader didn't know was that each feather on the headdress was a life taken in battle. People that do believe that native Americans would be proud of this need to think about if someone was making fun of them would they want to have that person stop or just let it continue.

Some people don't think that it that it's such a big deal and say why does it matter but it does really may a big impact. Like if someone sees them they may say mean stuff to them just because of that mascot or game. Also, they are humans too it's not right to make them into mascots and parade them like a trophy. That's what they do and they have broadcasted 162 games in a season do the Indians have to get put up with them being made fun of. They just have a different culture or custom just like African American we don't make them into mascots and disrespect them. Because that's what they have been doing to Indians so probably when you look at it that way sounds bad. That's why it is such a big deal to them.

You say controversial mascots aren't a problem, but I think controversial mascots should be changed because they can offend people, they can change what people think about themselves, and they can give kids a bad example.

Firstly, the clothes the mascots wear can offend people. When a Native American saw a mascot made to look like another Native American, he said, "his daughter because so offended, her eyes filled with tears and she asked if they could leave." (Panel: Native American Mascots Devalues Culture). In the same article, (Panel: Native American Mascots Devalues Culture), the man claims the school with the offensive mascot didn't know about real Native Americans. ". . . making a mockery of us." He said this while referring to the mascot's headdress, knowing that everyone around him had no idea of the meaning of the headdress, which is made for Native Americans in battle. Each feather symbolises the loss of a life. Most people don't notice small details such as this, but for a real Native American, these details can be offensive.

Another reason offensive or controversial mascots should be changed is because they can change what people think about themselves. People, like Native Americans, might not be as proud of themselves and who they are after seeing a mascot made to look like them. "The symbols may also affect how young Native Americans view themselves" (Are Native American Mascots Racist?). Also, seeing an offensive mascot made to look like someone can affect their whole lives because they just think that everyone thinks of them as a joke or that they are someone who doesn't deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. "After seeing American Indian mascots, the students reported having a lower self-esteem. They were also less likely to predict that they would get good grades, graduate and find a job." (Are Native American Mascots racist?) Offensive mascots can change someone's life more than most people think.

Finally, offensive mascots can give kids a bad example. While talking about stereotypical Native American mascots, a man says "They're supposed to be teaching kids to respect other cultures" (Arab-Americans cry foul over California high school mascot). Kids shouldn't be taught to think of mascots made to look like people -- people who deserve just as many rights as we do -- as just a mascot. Just as someone who is there to make sports more fun. The same man (mentioned above) wrote a letter to te California high school "describing the mascot as 'harmful' and 'demeaning'" (Arab-Americans cry foul over California high school mascot). Offensive mascots can be giving kids a bad example.

All of these reasons are proof that offensive mascots should be changed. Clothing can offend people, they can change what they think about themselves, and they can give a bad example. Offensive mascots should be changed.

They should change controversial school mascots because most people don't like it. One reason is because their names can be offensive to many people. Some evidence is that Pro football team Washington Redskins are offensive because they refer to African Americans as colored. And I agree this is offensive. Also, another piece of evidence is that the San Diego State University Aztecs is a "strong tribal name" and it is offensive to many people. And I agree with that because that is a strong tribal name and is very offensive as well. And another reason is that they can be stereotypical to many people. One piece of evidence is that the Atlanta Braves do their tomahawk chop and-and that is stereotypical to American Indians. I also agree with this because it is very stereotypical. And another piece of evidence is "representing us as characters is very toxic for Native Americans" Suzan Harjo tells JS. And another reason is they can be a sign of disrespect. One piece of evidence is groups supporting the Wisconsin law say Native Americans sports references are insulting. I agree with this because like the tomahawk chop that the Atlanta Braves did is insulting just like that. And another piece of evidence is a lot of Indian Mascots dress up in a cartoonish and is very disrespectful. I also agree with this. And my counterclaim is to the other side is They should change bad school mascots because they can be very offensive. One piece of evidence is the Washington Redskins are offensive and refer to African Americans as colored. And another piece of evidence is the SDSU Aztecs is offensive to many people. I agree with both of those pieces of evidence. In conclusion, they should change controversial mascots because they can be bad. With all the evidence I think that they should change them.

Americans only see their point of view but the Indians feel different. If you look at their point they said they don't feel honored. From the source Panel: Native American Mascots Devalues Culture, a full-blooded American Indian went to a Redskins game and became so offended from the mascot she became teary eyed and asked to leave the game. It's a pro football game some people never get to see one so she has to be very offended. Also sometimes it can bring up dark memories from Indians past. From the source Indian Mascots: Should They Stay Or Go, Redskins reminds them when at one point said white settlers could earn bounty money for each Indian Scalp( it's the skin covering the head, not including the face). Also, Clara Standing Soldier said cartoon Indian Mascots remind her of Nazi or Japanese being captured in camps in world war II.

One reason is that their names can be offensive to some people. One piece of evidence is that "Pro football team Washington Redskins are offensive because they refer to African Americans as colored." That is from Native American Mascots Devalues culture. That is a strong piece of evidence because it says they are offensive and I think that they are offensive as well. And another piece of evidence is that "The San Diego State University Aztecs is a "strong tribal name" and is offensive to many people." I agree with this as well because it is offensive as well too.

If people are taking offense to mascot names they should have to be changed. It can be harmful to cultures, for example, the Redskins now people see Native Americans different just because of a name of a mascot. The biggest case of this happening is the Redskins but it has happened much more time with high schools and colleges. The Natives of this tribe have taken high offense to the name of the Redskins and want it changed but the NFL have decided to not changed it. Some people say that it is a way of honoring them but if they don't take it as honoring them, they should have to change it.

Another reason is that is stereotypical to many races. One piece of evidence is "The Atlanta Braves do their tomahawk chop is stereotypical to many American Indians." Another piece of evidence is that "Depicting us as characters are very toxic for Native Americans" Suzan Harjo tells JS. I also agree with this.

Schools or teams with Native American mascots are creating harmful stereotypes. According to the article "Panel: Native American Mascots Devalues Culture," a man named Mr. Cooper who is a full-blooded Native American brought his daughter to a football game. He saw a cheerleader dressed in a headdress and buckskin clothing and was highly offended. In fact, his daughter became so offended "her eyes filled with tears and she asked if they could leave." The cheerleader didn't understand that every feather in the headdress represented a life that was taken in battle. Also, according to "Are Native American Mascots Racist?" a Native American man says "Every time the Atlanta Braves do their tomahawk chop, we are not real people. WE are no longer successful businessmen, doctors, soldiers, co-workers, or neighbors. To the fan, we exist only in the 1800s as a warrior culture." In conclusion, many Native Americans feel offended with schools and teams mascot choices and therefore, we should change them to be less offensive and more accurate.

At a certain point it will become good business sense, if nothing else. Well structured and deliberate rebranding is an expense, but usually a well oriented one if the original branding becomes mired in controversy. Other business enterprises do it, why not the athletic industry?