I think we should not change school mascots because some Native Americans feel honored. The Florida State University kept its name after receiving support from Seminole tribes. Spirit Lake Member Eunice Davidson told the New York Times " I am very honored they would use that name."

-Honor or Insult

I think that mascots shouldn't be changed, after all most mascots are in the history of the given area in which it represents.

I think we should keep the traditional mascots because changing the mascots will cost thousands of dollars in change. When changing mascots community's have to change the football field, the gym floor and jerseys all of that can add up very quickly.

A 1,200 person protest was led by Marquette’s Native American Community. They’ve always seen the chief as a positive symbol.” Mind Your Own Mascot.

they should not change mascots because A 1,200 person protest was led by Marquette’s Native American Community. They’ve always seen the chief as a positive symbol.” Mind Your Own Mascot. day was angry btws

I believe that we should not change mascots, because its just a mascot, not meant to offend anyone, it goes along with the town's or area's history.

opps the second one is the one i ment to post (and now im just typing random things cuz it says i need to put 50 characters so)

Some people believe that they should change mascots but I say that we keep it because changing mascots will result with more problems. People also say that they like the mascot at school. At some schools, they say that after the name change, the mascot became some kind of floppy shrub and that the mascot changes causes complaints. People think we should change the mascot because a person said that a mascot caused a firestorm in the community and that a cheerleader was making a mockery of a crowd. I just hope that when this debate resolves, we might be able to get 2 mascots but I hope we can work this out.

I believe that mascots shouldn't be changed. Mr. Cooper, a full-blooded American Indian says “If one person, if one child is offended, then we need to stop it." One persons opinion should not matter on a large scale of mascots of a sports team. From the article Native American Mascots Devalues Culture

I believe that mascots shouldn't be changed. Also mascots are meant to strike fear in their opponents when they are challenged so if a mascot uses a stereotype to create that mascot that their opponents fear it shouldn't have to be corrected to something politically correct. For example the California high school mascot is a angry ‘Arab’ with a hook-nose, long beard, headscarf and all. American-Arab should not be offended just because that this one high school in California chose something intimidating. From the article Arab-Americans cry foul over California high school mascot

Arguments about Native american mascots have been going on since 1972 and should be stopped. The people who have been fighting for their mascot that they find offencive should not have to be what and what isn't politically correct. Some of the schools might fear the outcome that is similar to Stanford's: after the name change, the school’s mascot became, inexplicably, some kind of floppy shrub. Source: Mind your own mascot

I agree, mascots have a lot to do with the towns history, it wasn't put there in the first place to offend people. It was meant to honor the past Native Americans or any other race. Especially native american men, a team mascot is to give strength or luck to a team or group. Native American mascots or other races are thought of strong and brave.

Some people may be very offended by the mascots but I believe that the school mascot might play a very important role to the school and should be able to have a say instead of just having one person be angry and this would also save time so it doesn't have to be politically correct. Source Native american mascots devalues culture

Some people need to mind their own mascots, the Washington Redskins, they go along with the state's history, and people from other states (even non-Redskins fans) are disagreeing with the mascot because it's "offensive"

I think that teams and events should not have to change there mascots because some people think its offensive. I mean its not meant to be offending, its meant to be fun and learn about what the mascot (Indians) all about.Arab-Americans cry foul over California high school mascot - ‘ A faraway land’- paragraph four and five. “... tenuous Middle East connection inspired a frenzy of Arabian fantasies that continue to this tay- including festivals (Date Fest), architecture (turrets), and town names (Mecca).

the only things banned that should be banned is stereotyping of the race. that offends people. not the mascot itself therefore they should not change mascots as long as its not in a mocking way school mascots should stay the same.

In 2004 they published an optional poll. In which 90% of those who identified them selves as Native Americans said the name did not bother them. So i think they should keep Red Skins as the team name.

I think they should not change mascots because if only a couple people are offended and they change the mascot to something else then that might start a whole other argument between the people who liked that mascot and thought that, that mascot they originally had was a part of the towns history. So just because a few people are offended doesn't mean they have to change the mascot. They have to keep the other people in thought before they riot against the mascot, and not all Native Americans are offended by these mascots. In the article Mind Your Mascot, By Gordon, Devin; Alvord, Valerie, a Sioux Lake member Eunice Davidson said that, "I am very, very honored that they would use that name," He stated about North Dakota's fighting Sioux nickname.

local communities should be able to make the choice because it may have connections to heritage and history. For example, a city in Wisconsin named Berlin was forced, by the department of public instruction to change their Berlin Indian name.

I think teams should be able to keep there name for this reason. The cost to change logos and advertising materials is expensive as well when forced to make a change. The financial impact to the name change could cost between $12,000 and $15,000 on equipment for school athletics, something most schools cannot afford and do not plan for. The town of Cleveland, Ohio researched the financial impact and found out that it costs millions of dollars to change all the team gear.

Also the controversy caused divisions among people in the community as well. High schools around the country feel pressure from various civil rights groups and student groups to change names which causes division and fighting among groups of people and even families. A young boy from Illinois who was very much against the team mascot of chief illinwek was sent to school in Minnesota because he was being tormented by classmates and the community.

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.

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.