Over 3,000 high schools have changed their name to not be associated with derogatory term. Yet 1,000 still remain, including our neighbor, the Jefferson High School Indians. Stanford University also, used to be known as the Indians.
I find it hypocritical that the Redskins say that they are supporting Native Americans yet are still committed on keep their discriminating name. They say that they are just trying to keep a tradition but how can that be justified when your teams name is immoral. But is it really discriminatory? What is the background of this specific name and many others? Who is actually hurt by this? Do you think that organizations should be allowed to pick the mascot they want because they have freedom of speech? Or is it do bad that they should be restricted in their mascot pool?
Link 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/24/redskins_n_5025175.html
Link 2: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/24/daniel-snyder-forms-native-american-aid-organization-remains-committed-to-redskins-name/
3 comments:
Since 89% of the people surveyed think that the name should stay, with nearly 90% of the Native Americans not finding that term offensive, the Redskins should not be forced to change their name. I also don't think that the term "Redskin" carries that same derogatory nature that it has in the past. It is not anti-natives and is not intended to offend people. However, I do understand why one would be for the change of the name. The opinions of the Native Americans should matter more, and there is still that 10% who are offended.
I don't think it's alright to use an ethnicity as a mascot. Coachella Valley High School uses the "Arabs" as their mascot, and I think that's quite offensive. I feel that mascots carry a humorous or caricature quality, and it seems off to use a group of humans and generalize them into a character. I think in general it's bad practice and tasteless to do that. I agree with Keith, it's kind of hypocritical to support native americans and call them "redskins". I'm not too aware on the names implication, however, it doesn't seem very positive. I'm sure the organizations have the freedom of speech to that, however, it makes them seem quite ignorant in my opinion.
I think that the use of Redskins as a name isnt right. Even if there are thousands of fans that want to keep the name for the sake of tradtion, there are still Native Americans that find the name offensive. While I can see how its not intentionally trying to be racist, but it seems incredibly ignorant to say that its something that should be ok. I agree with what Keith said in that what they said was hypocritical. They have recognized that this name is offensive yet they think that it would do good to keep the name. And this might be just me, but it seems like he's trying to buy their support with the donations he's giving out.
Post a Comment