Therefore I think that controversial mascots should not be banned due to the fact that it can provide historical back round that people may not have known about. Others like, David Hinkle, who graduated from Coachella Valley High School, said “I don’t think it can be viewed as offensive,” He also added “He is proud to be one of the Arabs” (His schools Mascot) Others may say that mascots can be offensive but mascots could promote stereotypes when, the mascot is designed to look stereotypical (Like big feathery head dress, or long nose, etc). Mascots can show racism when they have names like “redskins” or “Arabs” (Like Red-Skins is almost insulting their ethnicity). I still think that mascots can be very beneficial to us with the back round knowledge it can give us.

Mascots can promote historical background by people seeing the logo or mascot, can show them how certain cultures dressed or still do dress that way, leading people to respect that type of culture even more than they did before.

I agree they would have to change everything not just their costume but if they had their mascot painted on their field the team would have to repaint what the mascot is and that would cost more money than just keeping it the same

I think University's don't need to change their mascots don't need to change their mascots because the tribes that are used to represent the mascot are honored to be apart of that. At Marquette University’s Native American community, stated that “They've always seen the Chief as a positive symbol”