This thread has something to do w/ prejudism? :confused:

LIONLOVE, What is wrong with MULES?:confused:

Brother Adams of Lamar Mo was reknowned for His Mules world wide.

In Fact CMoU has the same Mascot! 1 st I heard of anyone else being a Mule!;)

Hell, How Would You Like To Be A GORRILLA in Kansas?:eek:

I Love this as the SOONERS of some team in Oaklahoma were the claim jumpers for land!

Washburn U in Topeha Ks, the Ichobods, what the hell is an IckyBod! God use to get in fights over that! HEHE!:D

I get heated up when the Original Americans get upset when Schools have Indian Types as Mascots as it was chosen as something of honor not being a snub to those proud people!

LOL. Nah, but it seems she only comes around nowadays if there is a race-related topic.

Tom Earp, if they are paying tribute, they can be a little less stereotypical and a little more accurate. And you getting heated over topics of ethnicity is nothign new. Sigh.

Exactly, a topic that has to do with prejudism.

Guess what thread I'm rereading. Does anyone want me to bump it? :D

Libra, what the heck are you talking about?

These are facts not getting heated for a debate.

Ethniticity does not have a thing to do with my post!

If You would be so kind as to explain what you are taliking about, I would appreciate it?

What does that have to do with this thread anyway! I am English and Irish and what ever else may have been thrown in over the many years.

Being an Ohio University Bobcat, I hate to admit that Ohio State does anything right -- but maybe having a mascot (the Buckeye) that is a tasteless, scentless nut with no apparent social value is a really good idea.

LOL, nothing wrong with mules. They are strong creatures albeit a little stubborn and it does make sense that they are our mascot because my school is named Muhlenberg. We just got sick of the ass jokes so we now tell them ourselves to beat our opponents to the punch. :p

I was actually using your own words...you said you get heated about this topic...here:

Actually the topic does have to do with ethnicity. You know...it is kinda important.

I have to agree with LibraSoul and Valkrie here...

In reading the posts, I think some of the arguments are a bit flawed because they are comparing different factors.

Fighting Irish: well I actually DID believe when I was very young that all Irish were red-nosed alcoholic racists. If the Irish wanted to protest that Notre Dame mascot, I wouldn't fault them for it. The fact that they have little problem with it is not germane to the debate--it just means they don't have a problem with it.

Mascots generally: I have no issue with many of the "Indian mascots." ( as a 1/8 Native American). I can sympathize with those who DO have an issue with such mascots however, and that's what cultural sensitivity means to me...that simply because "I" don't always "get it" doesn't mean it's not a relevant "issue" to be discussed and debated.

"Honoring" people through mascots: I also think this argument is debatable. Everything promoted as a "brand" is not an honorable promotion. In the retail world, the guy on the Cream of Wheat box, Aunt Jemima, Little Black Sambo/Sambo's Restuarants (who was actually Indian anyway), Darky Toothpaste....these were products that earned millions of dollars, people loved 'em...but they were not "honoring" black folks by putting black faces on them. Although mascots are different from retail, I don't necessarily buy the argument that mascots were always created to "honor" the group from which they are named--sometimes yes, other times, no.

Tradition is important, and I for one respect and honor traditions. By the same token, respecting traditions to the point of irretractable behavior can be sometimes be synonymous with being “resistant to change”. Change happens. Humans evolve. We once thought the world was square, that black people were savages, that only certain people should get an education, that masturbation caused hairy palms and insanity...the list is endless--and there are still folks out there that still believe some of these things! That which we said or did 50 years ago does not always seems as appropriate now. That's life. With those changes I agree with, I will support. With those I do not, I will not. But I never question anyone's right to try to change those things that are offensive or uncomfortable for them, because it is only through the process that humans continue to evolve.

Some excellent points, Shelacious.

Personally I think it's a difficult decision to make because some of the race-based mascots are obviously offensive, whereas others aren't. I feel like the "Redskin" as a mascot is definitely offensive, whereas "Seminole," "Aztec" or "Indian" are all decidedly less so, depending on context (what the mascot looks like, etc.). And although many of you think the idea of comparing Native American mascots to, say, the Pirates or the Fighting Irish is ridiculous, every Native American mascot that is changed just opens up the door to more and more people believing that some other mascot is offensive. If we allow every one of the race-based mascots to be changed, it's just going to open up the floodgates to more and more ridiculous charges -- that the Fighting Irish is a prejudiced name (whoever said that it isn't because the Irish are white and hold power obviously doesn't remember the long history of prejudice the Irish faced in this country), etc. So where do we draw the line at trying to find perfectly politically correct mascots?