Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
You completely missing my point. You (and the NCAA) treating the "indians" as if they were unified in their stance and that all portrayals are bad. They're not. While an Illini has every right to be offended by the use of their image, none of them have any right to say anything about the use of a Seminole image if the Seminoles approve of the use. Yet, they've placed enough pressue on the NCAA to have the use of the Seminole's also restricted. That, according to some, will actually harm the Seminole's or others like them who approve and benefit from it's use.
|
I agree that some of the mascots should not have been lumped in with some of the others. I've agreed with that point three times, now. But some mascots, such as "Braves", "Indians", "Redskins" and so on do apply to the whole group. It may be that not every Native American is offended by these. But enough are that the effort to get them changed has been supported and encouraged by national groups over a long period of time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Why not extend the mascot ban so that only images of plants are acceptable. I'm sure there are people that are offended portrayal of animals or any group of humans. Isn't that Purdue mascot a bit of a humorus person...not exactly flattering...coudn't someone be offended.
|
C'mon, Camron. This kind of sarcasm is beneath you. Can't you find a more eloquent way to make your point?
[Edited by rainmaker on Aug 12th, 2005 at 12:33 AM]