This has both sides of the argument. I say we shouldn't change mascots because all their trying to do is show a little pride in their schools. Also pride in the history of the country, state or cultures. There is no racism just pride, they are respecting the people and cultures around them.

I disagree with this because why would you change the name Redskins when they've had it since the team was started and plus they aren't trying to mock those people they are just trying to show that they support them. The mascot could also give history about the town too.

I agree with this because what is the use of having a mascot when everybody think they shouldn't have one jut because of who it is and they don't like it just cause' of their race.

Mascots are also meant to be fun and exciting. Just look at Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians they meant for him to be an encouraging icon of the city instead people look at him as a mean, disrespectful mascot. People who disagree with this are mostly the heritage the team is. They should look at it as a compliment because we are encouraging them and giving them support. Also the mascot can give history about the town like being a famous Native American who did something great or will be remembered in history.

I think we shouldn't change mascots because mascots are meant to encourage the city or it's heritage most people think it's racist to Native Americans such as the Cleveland Indians it's meant to encourage Cleveland's history not give Native American's a bad name.