The Instigator
brookhogan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Elord
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Native American Mascots

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Elord
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 74748
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

brookhogan

Pro

I feel that Native American Mascots should not be changed. The mascots are a representation of the tribe itself and a connection between what this country used to be to what it is now. Also, the Native American Mascot means more than just a tough look and sound to the team, but also gives a meaning towards the tribe. The Mascot also shows awareness for the tribe in current situations. In some interventions between schools/ team owners and tribe leaders, the tribe leaders find it offensive that the team would want to change the name to something unrelated to the Native people.
Elord

Con

I would like to apologize beforehand because I may rant a bit.

Rebuttals

"mascots are a representation of the tribe"

Evidence?

"connection between what this country used to be"
How is this good in anyway? "what this country use to be" was disgusting and racist. We slaughtered the Native Americans. It was a genocide! We enslaved them and killed them. This is the most insenstive argument that could be made. In the words of Christopher Columbus "They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. ... They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want." They were giving gifts and the first thing Columbus thinks of is enslavments. According to Howard Zinn, a professor of Boston University says "When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead." Why should we keep something that reminds us of a destrutive brutal period in history?

http://www.historyisaweapon.com...

"also gives a meaning towards the tribe."
See last point. Also in the example of the Redskins, that name is a degragtory term of Native Americans with the streotypical Native American, is disgraceful. It's being racist at best. Would it be meaning for to the African-American community if there was a team called the "Washington Niggers/Negros" (the term they used for Africans in colonial times) with a picture of a shaved African with generic tribal tattoos?

"The Mascot also shows awareness for the tribe in current situations."
Sports teams are businesses. What do they have to gain for raising awareness of Native Americans stuck in their tiny reservation? Can you show any evidence that shows these mascots alerting the crowds about the cycle of poverty they're stuuck in? Also as I mentioned, these mascots are a streotypical portrayal and if anything, it reinforces common misconceptions.

"the tribe leaders find it offensive that the team would want to change the name to something unrelated to the Native people."
They should be overjoyed! Refer to everything I say.


Argument
I feel that the mascot should be changed so it actually represents the Native American community, and if that's not possible to remove it. They're stuck deep in a hole without these mascot.







Debate Round No. 1
brookhogan

Pro

brookhogan forfeited this round.
Elord

Con

Extend all.
Debate Round No. 2
brookhogan

Pro

brookhogan forfeited this round.
Elord

Con

Extend all and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
brookhoganElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and failed to refute Con's case. Con completely destroyed Pro's case and backed it with sources.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
brookhoganElordTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeits by Pro, so conduct to Con. Pro provided an initial argument, but this was later refuted by Con, and Con proceeded to provide their own arguments, which were never refuted by Pro, due to the forfeits. Sources were only used by Con.