The adults continue to argue over the Washington Redskins football team's name. Native Americans and others say the name is a racial slur, and should be changed. The NFL and many fans say that in sports, tradition is important too.
But a recent report commissioned by the Oneida Indian Nation, which has advocated for a name change, suggests that the debate should consider the children. The report suggests that the mascot, and others like it, may actually be harming Native American children and teens. It was written by clinical psychologist Michael Friedman and presented to the NFL at a recent meeting.
Tell Me More host Michel Martin speaks with Friedman and NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam about the research. Also joining the conversation is Wilson Pipestem, a dad of four and member of the Otoe-Missouria tribe.
Eagles are only following their nature, which is to be a predator. That does not make them aggressive, it means that they are taking their place in the food chain. It is just as stereotypical to keep the Eagles as a mascot as it is for teams to keep Native American mascots. We should not have mascots at all.
The Philadelphia Eagles mascot is just that, a mascot. It has nothing to do with the animal itself. Mascots portray the team they represent, not the actual animal. Just with any other mascot, the Eagle of Philadelphia signifies the strength and determination of the team. A mascot is a representative of a team and one should not look any further into it than that.
I do not think the Eagle mascot portrays eagles in general as too aggressive. When you think about it, the Philadelphia Eagles have been known to be a fairly aggressive team, and I think that is the idea they are going for on this. A strong willed mascot represents a strong willed team.