Steven Staggs

I do think that athletes have some responsibility when it comes to being role models. Although I do get his point that parents should be a kids real roll model. Not all athletes want to be a role model and don't want to feel like they have to live up to someone else's expectations.

I think that Charles Barkley is 100% correct that parents should be the role models for their children.  However, I think that professional athletes should also own up to their roles as a professional athlete as a role model to children as well.  Athletes are going to be role models for children no matter what because athletes look up to high profile sports figures.  Athletes had role models growing up and athletes that they looked up to, so it is unfair for Barkley to say that parents are the role models for children.  

I agree with the parents needing to take a bigger leadership role in the family when it comes to who the children view as role models. Parents need to be a good example for their children first and foremost. But when it comes to sport the parents need to be cheering for the right type of athlete who is a good citizen as well as role model.

I agree that parents need to be positive role models for their kids, but sometimes that is hard to do. Many parents are just regular people that work 9-5 jobs in business, and arent often on t.v. or in the media. They are still hard working people that are positive role models, but kids often times dont see that. They dont appreciate the work and effort that parents put in for them. Instead, they see Tom Brady on t.v. and strive to be like him. While it is important for parents to be positive role models, sometimes because they are not constantly in the media it is hard to do.

jonathan gimm
kids look to athletes, when i was a kid i played all kinds of sports and wanted to be just like all kinds of people in the NFL, and the NBA. when Charles says that we isn't a someone that should be looked up to, i think that he is right, but he needs to realize that he is always in the spot light and kids look up to people like that.

I was thinking about what we talked about and class and I think that it is important that people can seperate the difference between how people act on the playing field and how they act in really life. I also think many people are able to seperate the the good qualities of an athlete from the bad ones and try to act out those good qualities in their own life. I feel that many athletes are viewed as role models but I also feel that this is unfair for some athletes. Athletes dream of being champions not of being role models, and sometimes to accomplish an athletes individual goal you have to act in ways that are not completely agreed on. They arent necassary bad or deviant, but some people might not agree with them. If an athlete has to try and be a role model for everyone and never make a mistake their individual success could suffer.

Role Models

All athletes are role models whether they like it or not. Athletes are under a microscope and kids look up to them for a few reasons. First of all sports are popular and kids want to be successful at them so they try to emulate athletes the best they can. The second reasons is that kids in the inner city might not have a positive influence in their life and sports is a a outlet for them. I looked up to sport figures my whole life. Brett Favre and Michael Jordan in particular. Each had their off-field struggles luckily for me a was to young to even realize what they were doing. But if I was a teenager and I see that Brett Favre over used painkillers i would have given them a shot.

For me personally, I look up to many professional athletes as role models. At the same time I realize that they are human just as you and I are, and may make a mistake off the court that will hinder their image to millions of people across the world. Everybody makes mistakes, but the true sign of a good person is learning from past experiences, and making sure they dont make the same mistake again. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that professional athletes whether they are role models or not, they are still humans and it's ok for young kids to look up to them as long as they understand that they could make a mistake.

Role Modelz

I too believe that being a professional athlete carries with it the responsibility of bring a role model whether you like it or not. I think that there are many consequences, Both positive and negative, that can arise from societies expectation for athletes as role models but it is the way it is. When professional athletes engage in negative behaviors like over celebration or dunking, depends who you ask, these behaviors and actions or more often than not passed down to some child who looks up to that athlete. What is sucky about the situation is that athletes are never really focused on for the positive things they do outside of the sporting world, sot he only thing a young child has to look to is what the media portrays the athlete to be. I think parents should encourage kids to have role models, especially if they are very positive role models. I know growing up in the sport of wrestling that it was the role models my parents pointed to and encouraged that ultimately made me the athlete and person I am today.

When we talk about role models there are some good ones and some bad ones obviously. When i was growing up there was a guy a few years older than me that i wanted to be exactly like, and i benefitted from knowing him personally because he did all the right things to be successful and i wanted that same thing. I think personally knowing your role model (like a parent or friend) is much more beneficial for someone growing up. You don't know what these professional athletes are doing with their actual lives, all you see is the stuff in the news and a lot of times what you see could be bad. For those people who do see pro athletes as role models they may imitate exactly what they are doing and end up getting in trouble. This kind of reminds me of the whole WWE thing where people try and imitate these superstars and end up hurting or killing themselves in the end. So in the end having a role model in close contexts i feel is much more beneficial and the way it should be.

Although athletes are huge role models, I do agree that parents should be huge influences in there childs life as well. The problem though, that somebody already stated, is what if that child doesnt have good parents to look up to? What if he has no good role models in his family? That is when his or her role model that is a professional athlete has a huge affect on that child, because he has nobody else to compare too. Most kids get largely influenced by there parents or an older sibling as well as there hero on TV, but for those who dont, they are influenced solely by what they see from there role model on TV making it that much more difficult of a standard for that athlete to look up to.

Whether they like it or not, athletes need to be role models for our youth. They are televised and regaurded so highly for their athletic abilities, work ethic, determination etc that they should set positive examples. They can be living proof that anyone can make it no matter where they are from. They should strive to be role models, and choosing not to be is being awfully selfish

Kobe Bryant

A role model for me growing up and still is someone I admire is Kobe Bryant. When the rumors of his accused rape allegations came about I refused to believe them because I respected him. He has really bounced back I believe since that situation. He’s become a great father and is a great influence for kids who watch the NBA now. He’s one of the leagues true stars and he’s now I believe a great role model for young athletes. I am not saying that rape is by all means ok it’s totally not and I was pretty devastated to hear he was even apart of such thing. But I feel he’s learned from the situation and now embraces his status as a role model. Whether the allegations are true or not he is human and he made a mistake so I had to look past that and see him for whom he is now.

I agree with Barkley's statement that athletes shouldn't necessarily be role models. As a parent, you want your child to look up to someone who has the qualities that you would want your child to have some day (honesty, integrity, etc...) Now I'm not saying that athletes don't have these qualities, some do and in fact some professional athletes might make a fine role model. However, as Barkley says in the commercial, kids shouldn't look up to athletes simply because they can "dunk a basketball." The reason most kids look up to these athletes isn't because of the qualities they possess, but rather because they are in the spotlight, which in my mind doesn't automatically make someone a good role model. You might be able to walk up to any random person on the street and that person might possess just as good or even better qualities than any random professional athlete, so why not have your kid look up to them? It is because that random Joe isn't in the spotlight like athletes are. Now, since athletes do have the spotlight on them, should they try to act like a model citizen? Probably, but they are also human, they aren't perfect just like the rest of us, and they make mistakes too. I once read an article that talked about the double standard placed upon athletes in regards to legal/off-the-field issues. If an athlete gets pulled over for a DUI, all of a sudden its "oh my god, how could they do this? What about all the kids that look up to him/her, how do we explain this to them?" But if uncle Joe gets pulled over for a DUI, parents will tell their kids that he's still a good person, that he just made a mistake and all of us make mistakes. There seems to be a double standard placed on athletes in situations such as this that it is almost laughable.

Athlete Role Models

Barkley’s argument is valid. Athletes shouldn’t be expected to be role models and parents should try to guide and direct their children along the right path. With that said athlete’s kind of take on the role model role without asking for it. They are in the limelight and every move they make is exposed to the public eye. A lot of athletes embrace this, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning, Albert Pujols are just a few that come to mind when I think of athletes that are good role models for kids. All three of these athletes possess qualities like leadership, hard work, and values.

Deviance, Athletes as Role Models

I would agree with Barkley parents should be role models more than athletes should be role models. Kids are with their parents more and will see more of what their parents do, so parents should strive to act in ways that they would want their kids to act. Athletes are going to act in a number of different ways, some of which aren't always the best. I think that it is okay to think of athletes as role models as far as the way they play the game. I think it is fine if a kid looks up to an athlete that plays the game hard, yet isn't an outstanding person, if the kid realizes that the athlete is not an outstanding person and doesn't try to model the way he lives his life off of the athlete, just they way he plays the game. Role models are people that others look up to, and try to imitate. That being said I think that there are different types of role models. There are role models as far as being a good person are and there are role models on the athletic fields. Sometimes there are cases when a player can be both types of role models. I think Derek Jeter is an excellent example of someone who is a good role model on and off the field. However, I think it is important to make distinctions between players on and off the field because most times I would say that players can be great role models on the field, but not such great role models off the field and kids need to be aware of this and know that it is okay to not like the person and instead just like the player or the way they play. If I was a parent I would stress to my kids the idea that they can think of a player and the way he plays as a role model and try to play like that certain player, but I wouldn't allow them to try to imitate the way the player acts, if he does not act with great character off the field.
I think when athletes over-conform to the norm it can be dangerous because, as with the football cases, they can injure themselves. Athletes as well as coaches need to be cognizant of what is most important in life and realize when they might be hurting themselves and preventing them from leading happy lives in the future. If I were a coach I would make sure they realize that the sport is not the most important thing in their life, and that they know exactly what is at risk.

This is a very interesting subject because it seems that regardless what these athletes want to think, they are role models. Somebody out there grew up loving Charles Barkley and wanted to be just like him when they grew up. When your a kid all you wanna do is be like the people you see on TV, which more often than not, turns out to be professional. I know that this isn't in any of these athletes contracts, but they owe it to the fans and all of the viewers to act appropriatly, because at any given time they could be shaping a young kids life. Should these guys be role models? That can go either way, because some of them are outstanding people as well as outstanding athletes. Unfortunatly, this does not go for all professional athletes. Regardless good or bad, the actions kids see on TV rubs off on them, so when they see there favorite player argue a foul, they are that much more likely to do the same thing when they play.

I believe it is imperative that athletes act appropriate in the pubic eye because the reason they are where they are is because people have supported them. The least they can do is act like normal citizens. A lot of people look up to these athletes and they should be acting just like a normal citizen would everyday.

Jonathan Gimm
Athletes are roll models, i remember growing up and wanting to be just like Jeremy shocker. Athletes are roll models because kids see them on TV all the time and the kids want what the athletes have. any athlete that says that they are not a roll model is just ignorant because they know that kids look up to them because of their fame.

Whether they want to be or not, athletes have become role models and should view themselves in this way. The reason athletes make the money they do is because of the media coverage they get. If the media didn't cover them like this, they would not have their celebrity status, and not get paid the way they do. This status comes with responsibility and whether they like it or not, they are role models to young people around the world.

I definatly think athletes are and should be role models to the thousands of kids that wish to be in their shoes when they grow up. I'm not saying athletes should be role models for every kid out there, but athletes should accept the role of kids who want to be like them later down the road. Not every kid grows up wishing to be the next superstar athlete, but for those who do, I think professional athletes need to act as a role model to them. Kids who are interested in sports and who go to sporting events, find their favorite player and copy everything they do. So I definatly think athletes are role models for those kids who wish to be like them.

"Role Models"

I feel that Barkley's arguement that he is not a "role model" simply because he plays basketball is right. Because "role models" are not meant to be put on a pedestal but more like angels with broken wings. I feel there is no such thing as a "role model" because you only look up to them for the right things but at the same time they have faults because no one is perfect. So why arent people "role models" when they do bad? Instead of taking it for granted we should really just learn from their wrong so we can become aware. Now if i were to consider someone to be one you would have to be able to love them literally and they will always try to their best to lead you in the right direction all the time and never the wrong way even though they may have their own faults in the past so they teach you whats right and wrong. I feel that is someone you can really look up to even though you may think their wrong because you're stubborn or let your ego get in the way, at the end of the day you come to realize that person was right and they weren't trying to lead you in the wrong direction. I feel that Barkley is right when he says parents should be "role models" because their the foundation of guiding the child in either direction. So an athlete shouldn't have to take on the responsibilty of educating and teaching your child how to be but only a reflection of who made them.

I believe that sport athletes are not role models, and we shouldn’t expect them to be. Athletic talents do not make a person a role model. However, I don't believe it's the athletes fault that they are in that position. I believe that society has created the cycle of athletes being role models. We expect athletes to be perfect, yet we love to criticize them when they aren't. As a society we automatically call amazing athletes role models. But yet, we complain that as a role model they should be acting better when they make a mistake. I believe the media is responsible for all this because once athletes mess up, they quickly point the finger and call them out. There are athletes that are role models but they are because of their actions off of the field. I remember when Roberto Clemente helped earthquake victims in Nicaragua. Examples like him are athletes who are role models and also happen to be athletes, not role models just because they are athletes. I still think though that it’s okay for an athlete to be a kids role model. They get us to do things many of us will never have a chance to do. But we shouldn't criticize them when they do something negative because they get paid to show us their skill, not raise how to raise kids.

I believe that a role model is a role model. Whether a child is exposed to sports, arts or logical science while growing up this will dictate more or less their interests and their respect for a certain person in their chosen field. I believe that parents provide this direct affect on their children and this can also be the statement that justifies parents as the sole role model of a child. Even though, children will look up to and value other people's decisions, role and superiority for whatever reason. A parent may sway such a decision either way but ultimately I do not think it is right or necessary for an athlete or any other person to come out and say they do not feel they are eligible for a role model position. Every person in this world will be a role model to someone at some point in their life and I think it is an honor to be looked up to for positive reasons. None the less I think that he should not be a role model because of this rude and inconsiderate statement. The reasons backing a person's decision to choose a role model are individualistic and personal. I do not think that we as a society or generation should have simply one role model and with this in our immediate family. I think that role models from all aspects of life and generations help shape and form our minds in a postive way. So to end this I believe that a person can choose whatever type of role model he/she may want and that is personable and no one else's business.

This is kind of a two way street i think. Children always seem to have two different role models. One being there parents who show them the way, and maybe an athlete or a superhero. Superhero are not negative because usually they are made to be positive. Athletes are not always positive. They can be posiive if they are doing the right things. When children have athletes as role models we want everything right but as soon as the athlete has something wrong with them society does not accept it.

I think that deffinently the childs parents and siblings should be the main role models in there lives, but if that kid likes sports he is bound to have role models that are athletes. That shouldn't be a bad things though I think athletes embrace it and be proud that people look up to them and want to be like them. However this could lead to bad behavior because the kid could look up to an athlete who doesn't handle himself in ways that kids should look up to. Somebody once told me to always handle myself in a possitive manner becasue wether you know it or not somebody is always watching and alot of times that somebody that is watching is a little kid who wants to be just like you. In the end I think athletes will always be looked up to by little kids so I guess they should try and act in a possitive manner for those who are looking up to them.

Certain Image

There is no question that athletes need to maintain a certain image. It doesn't matter if they like it or not, but kids will try to be like them in some sort of way. Charles Barkley may not want to be a role model, but he doesn't really have a choice. As a kid I looked up to a lot of athletes and I tried to be like them when I played. For the most part athletes were good role models. It seems like today the attitudes of athletes and how they present themselves has changed drastically in the last 10 years. It would be a mess if athletes tried to be like T.O. or Plaxico Burress. Maybe the media is responsible, but athletes need to be role models, and today they aren't doing a good job.

I feel that athletes should not be the main role model in children's life's. I think that the parents of the child are the most important people to influence the child and should be the child's biggest role model. But no matter what sport figures are going to be looked at as role models for children. And even if they don't want to be looked at this way I personally think that they should act accordingly. I think players should be conscious of this and try to provide a good image for kids because many kids will try to play the game just like their role models

Charles Barkely is correct when he says parents should be role models in children’s lives but that is not going to stop a child to look up to a particular athlete as well. I believe role models come from the type of character, values and beliefs they portray, which is why parents should be the main role models in their own children’s lives. But I also believe there are athletes out there who present the same type of character off the field. What about Tim Tebow or Derek Jeter? Maybe children don’t know them personally but because athletes play a huge role in our society, what these athletes do impact the lives of little children. Personally I wouldn’t mind my child looking up to an athlete who is not just a successful athlete but a quality person.

Role Models & Sport (Jordan Garretson)

I think almost all professional athletes that are visible in the media are role models, but whether they are "good" or "bad" role models is another story. My definition of role model is someone you look up to — they are an example of how you/want to act.
Whether Barkley admits it or not, I'm sure there were plenty of kids that looked up to him when he was in the prime of his playing career. That doesn't necessarily mean thy acted just like he did, but they still may have picked up on certain mannerisms or other aspects of Barkley's character.
Does the fact that every athlete is a role a model mean that they have to do everything perfect? No. Honestly, it comes down to an athlete being a good person anyways. If they have enough character to be a good role model, they probably don't have to *try* to be a role model. If they don't have the character, they will probably never be a good role model. In my opinion, being a role model is not something you conscientiously do, necessarily.
I do agree with Barkley as far as parents go. All parents should be their children's primary role models, it's as simple as that. But very, very few people have only one or two role models, and often times a kid is going to look up to a professional athlete, in addition to their mother or father.

Role Models

I think Barkley's arguement can be positive and negative in a way. It's a positive thing because who wouldn't want to look up to their parents who raised them since they were little kids, and look up to them as their role model. It can be put in a negative way because Barkley at that time was probably one of the most dominant players in the league and many people look at him as a role model because they want to be like that a good athlete. You can't just go off of a person's ability to do something good, and they be considered your role model, because you don't know what that person does on his or her day to day life. Those things can be good or bad. I believe not all athletes are role models because how some of them conduct themselves on and off what he or she is doing. A role model to me is a person who can show good leadership and can show what's right and what's wrong to follow, but most younger kids look at what athletes demostrate athletic wise, because they want to do the same type of things that person is doing. So they look up to them as a role model.

Role Models

I think the problem with this situation is that athletes don't have a choice if they are a role model or not. They are paid to be a professional athlete and achieve success in whatever sport that may be. But i think the issue Charles Barkley is making is that it shouldn't matter what he does off the court because that's not his job. I think that if you are a good professional athlete a certain amount of kids are going to look up to you regardless of whether you want them to or not and that's why they should act accordingly. So to me its not really a choice whether they should be or shouldn't be looked at as role models because they are going to be viewed that way no matter what. The question should be whether or not that person should take on that responsibility and act like a good role model because he or she is in that situation.

I think Charles Barkely makes a good point parents should be and are the main role models in young childrens lives, but athletes are to and it will always be that way. It's the parents responsibility to act appropriately in front of their children and show them right from wrong. Athletes aren't necessarily looked at the same way. They are more looked at as sports heroes and little kids just idolize them by what they accomplish on the field or court. This is how athletes are looked at as role models of how they play, not what they do outside of that. Parents, the kids get to know them personally, that's why they should be the main role model. If young children were to meet an athlete many of them will try to avoid giving out autographs, so by meeting an athlete it might ruin what the kid thinks about that person showing that they aren't a good role model.

Athletes as Role Models

I believe athletes should be looked at as role models for many ways. First of all and most obviously, athletes especially pros have achieved great success through hard work and dedication, which in itself is something that many children admire as they hope to do the same someday. I think one of the more important aspect to athlete's ability to be a role model is to be aware that athletes are people too. They make both good and bad decisions and I think it is important for the general public to understand this. Yes, sometimes their actions can be more than what anyone could contribute in a good way, but they could also be so terrible that it could land them in jail. Granted the two extremes aren't something that everyone will be in contact with in a lifetime but should still be considered. It is important to realize that just like society, there are good and bad athletes (as people) and some are deserving of being role models and some aren't. Some athletes just make a mistake or do something behind closed doors they think will be okay and it ends up going national (i.e. Michael Phelps hitting a bong after winning the gold). For parents, I think it is important to instill a sense of light and dark in all people when allowing their children to get so attached to an athlete and what they stand for. Being a role model doesn't mean someone has to cure cancers or fast for the freedom of a country... it can simply be that they enforce good values and morals for younger generations and promote them on a higher level to reach out to people. Being a role model can be as small or large scale as a person wants it to be. It's just a matter of understanding that all people make good and bad decisions and that kids shouldn't copy them, but understand both the good and bad and choose what to personally act on.

Ultimately, I do believe that the parents/family members should be the role model for the children in our society because they are most directly connected with each other and have responsibility to take care of one another. But in addition, I think it is hard to totally exclude athletes from having any influence on kids in the society because of the amount of attention that sports and athletes receive. I believe as a parent you should explain to your kids that there are certain athletes who are doing the right things and should praise that athlete for acting in this way, while reprimand another athlete whose actions are unacceptable and should not be repeated. I also think the athletes should keep this in mind, even though it is not their job to be a role model, it is their job to be professional in their approach to their occupation and understand the amount of attention they receive from society.

I agree with what Charles Barkley is saying. I don't think that athletes should be required to be role models and parents should be the ultimate role model. But at the same time its really unrealistic because of the attention professional athletes receive. Kids are always going to look up to athletes because they are a kind of hero figure and that's how they want to be. So even though it shouldn't be the athletes job to be a good role model they should realize that regardless of what there job is they are going to be looked up to by young kids and should act accordingly. And if a kid is looking up to a bad example athlete than the parent should step in and correct that situation. But in my opinion i don't see why an athlete wouldn't want to be a good role model that sounds pretty stupid to me. I mean what if Charles Barkley has kids he doesn't want them to look up to him just because his job isn't to be a role model that sounds pretty stupid to me.

I agree with Charles Barkley in a way and then I don't agree with him. Yes parents should be role models, but athletes should be role models also. I think that kids look at parents and athletes for role models. In some cases, maybe athletes more than parents. If you are an athlete, it does not matter if you want to be a role model, it's what you have to do because kids of different ages are watching your every move. I think us at athletes definitely take this issue for granted, ESPECIALLY professional athletes. We must think about the outcome?!?! If we are better role models, then there will me more athletes who are role models. No one will ever acheive perfection when it comes to being a role model, but this should definitely be the goal we are reaching out for.

Deviance, sport and role models

This week we are discussing what constitutes deviance within the sporting realm. This will include notions of under conformity as well as over-conformity to norms. Often when athletes are caught under-conforming to the norms, the issue of athletes as role-models is brought up. Charles Barkley has repeatedly said he is not a role model, just because he can dunk a basketball, rather he believes parents should be role models not athletes. What do you think about Barkley's argument? Are athletes role models? What is a role model? When athletes over-conform to the norms is this just as dangerous to children, as when athletes under-conform to the norms? If athletes are role models, what qualities are they demonstrating that would make them role models? Do we know enough about any particular athlete to situate them as role-models? If you were a parent would you want your child to look to athletes as role models or elsewhere? Below is a link to a commercial in which Barkley states he is not a role model.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8vh2MwXZ6o

football and concussions

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/sports/football/15concussions.html?fta=y
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keown/091027&sportCat=nfl

Code of Silence
Mike Messner (2002) Taking the field: Women, men and sports

Text-book
pp. 163-172

jonathan gimm

I believe if you are an athlete and you want to speak your mind about politics, then you should be able to speak your mind in a positive way. i don't think that the young girl on the college basketball team was right for turning her back to the flag when the national anthem was playing i think she needs to express herself in a better way.

joanthan gimm

athletes and politics don't mix very well i don't think, i think that athletes need to stick to what they are good at and let other speak about politics. i feel like every time athletes talk about issues, most of the time it gets turned around on them and the media makes them look bad because they are trying to take a stance in a issue.

Steven Staggs

I agree with that because when an athlete comes out and speaks there mind about something, a lot of the time the media will flip it somehow and make it out to be more than it is. Esp. if it is an athlete that is widley known.

i agree, athletes are highly watched and there viewpoints are important to pay attention too and take in. even though some stand out more than others eather way all there comments and stand do have an impact on peoples veiwpoints. If its politics or just the media in general there are positive and negative coverage and i like when an athlete speaks up and speaks their minds. Some my speak too much but again you arent obligated to listen to them.

There is no doubt that the media does a great job of getting the word out what athletes, coaches, and owners think about certain situations and viewpoints.  Some people believe that maybe the media focuses on their thoughts too much and that their viewpoints may influence the general population too much outside of their profession.  Maybe it does, but it is our responsibility to consider the source and take what high profile athletes words are worth.  Athletes  can say what they want and that is their right.  No one is forced to listen to what they have to say.  People should consider the source.  

I did not think athletes should make political statements because they can influence people to easily. Sports should be a distraction from politics and world affairs. Athletes can get involved but on there own time. As a fan, I personally do not care what an athletes think about a certain issue because what do the actually know. I want to see athletes performing during the game and talking about what happen during the game after it is over Not what there political views are on Obama or anything else for that matter.

Athletes in our society have become role models and very influential figures. I feel that if the media is going to cover them so much, that they should be able to use the media to make statements and let their voices be heard. Not all of us will agree with these statements, but they have every right to make them. I do agree with Jordan however, that these statements need to be educated because these athletes are role models and people do listen.

Obviously, politics plays a large role in sport with the example of Rush. He is not allowed to take part in the bidding for the Rams because of his political stance. I agree with this aswell. If I was a minority athlete, I would not want to play and represent an owner that is thought to be racist. I would feel that he is just using my skills for his own benefit, and has no true passion for the game as most owners do.

sports and politics

Sports and politics go right a long hand-in-hand. As for athletes taking political stances using media sources, they have every right to do so. However, like i've read in quite a few blogs, these athletes should take educated stances meaning they should have a good deal of knowledge of the topic at hand. Just going out there and rambling a couple facts here and there really doesn't do much. Right a long with that however, a lot of athletes today are huge players in in our world and what they say weighs quite a bit more than if i made a political stance or comments. Going off that topic, i'm liking the fact that Rush Limbaugh was taken out of the running for the owner of the Rams due to a lot of players taking a stand and speaking out against it. He had made a lot of racist comments about African Americans and for people to take a stance on that is the correct thing to do.

I think that athletes don't want to take political stances now days because they don't want off field issues to affect them on the field. They want to perfect what they can on the field, and off field distractions do not help their cause. I also think that there are not as many major political issues now days than there were back in the day. If I was a professional athlete, I would do the same and keep my mouth shut and focus on my job - on the field performance.

Politics and Athletes

This is an interesting contrast. I feel that athletes are entitled to take political stances but I believe that they should fully educate themselves on what they are actually taking a stance on. The reason I feel this is because athletes are some of the most powerful and influential people in our nation. There is a difference between a high profile athlete taking a political stance and someone such as myself taking a political stance and the main difference being the weight what an athlete says being so much greater than what I would have to say because of the media attention that would follow the athletes comments or stance.

I think it is interesting that these players would come out and say that they wouldnt play for the team if Rush Limbaugh was the owner. I know they are trying to get there point across that they do not like him, but when it comes down to it, for 15 million dollars a year they might play for hitler. When you think about it, how much time does a player even talk or deal witht the owner? Its not like this is a position or head coach who they deal with for hours and hours each day. Not all owners are like Jerre Jones or Al Davis, some keep a comfortable cushion between them and there players and coaches.

Athletes never speak out about politics anymore like they used to. I believe this is because they are afraid of getting criticized by the media, and they don't want to make themselves look bad. Though they are looked at as leaders, I think they would be better off sticking to what they are more familiar with instead of stating their opinion about some issue going on in the world. Especially when their opinion doesn't have much of an effect on anything, just like everyone else.

Athletes and politics

I think it is perfectly fine for athletes to take political stances, but its rare, and therefore a bigger issue when it happens, due in most part I believe to the amount of money in sports. Many athletes make a lot from sponsorships or endorsement deals from companies like Nike, Adidas, Hanes, Gatorade, etc.. I think athletes keep in mind that there is the chance that their endorsement deals might get pulled if they take a stance on a political issue. I think that if you were to take the money and sponsorship money out of sports, you would see more star athletes make political statements in some way.
On a similar note, one thing that came to my mind when I thought of this topic was the government's role in the steriod issue in baseball. While I don't think the players should've been using steriods, HGH, or any other performance-enhancing drug, I don't think the government should be getting involved. There are way more important issues that the government should be dealing with than baseball players taking steriods.

The problem with athletes complaining about who there owner is, is that these owners are there for the team. When money gets involved moat of these owners could probably put their political views aside and not get the teams accomplishments confused with his own personal beliefs. Everyone wants to win and when owners are hiring people for these teams or hiring athletes they are going to hire the athlete that is going to help them win and help them get there dollar. This is one of the instances where media should not be involved with what athletes and their owners are doing because it causes to much turmoil.

Steven Staggs

I think though that when you mix politics and professional sports, bad things can happen. Like with Rush Limbaugh trying to buy the Rams. I've heard a lot of rumors that he was taken out of consideration because the current owner was very much against his political views. I don't know if thats entirely true, but you can see where something like that could happen.

Athletes and Politics

I think it is usually a good thing when athletes make a political stand, if the athlete knows what they are talking about. When athletes just say things to say things and don't actually know the specifics of what they are talking about I think they are better off not saying anything. They have the ability to attract alot of attention and bring minor issues to the fore front in society. I don't think athletes should be afraid to speak their minds about politics. What Fujita and the players speaking out against Rush Limbaugh is a great example of how athletes can make people think about different issues. I also think that above all else athletes are still people, so the only difference between them and someone else speaking their mind is that athletes are doing so on a stage. With that in mind, I think that it is important that athletes do their research and know what they are talking about in regards to political and social issues, because so many people will listen to them. This is very evident with Cathy Freeman and the John Carlos and Tommie Smith. These instances were perfect examples of how powerful an athletes message can be, as well as how they can bring about change. That being said, athletes should be prepared for people to not always like what they are saying. They need to realize that no matter what their stance they will have people who will disagree with them, and could lose fans or even sponsorships if the issue is large enough. However, if the athlete feels strong enough about the issue then they should not be aligned with sponsors that will drop them for their beliefs.

Metcalf- Athletes in Politics

I think that it is very acceptable for athletes to makes comments about politics. After all we are given so many views of individuals from the media, don't try and damper the individuals actual views. Granted it is important for an athlete to know that what they say, or sometimes don't say, does have an impact on many people. I also agree that many times to interpretation or criticism of a political argument many times does depend on who is speaking. If the person is very respected it is likely that there opinion and view will be respected, where as less respected athletes may not bring the same respect. All together an athlete has a lot of responsibilities to themselves and the public, but further we as a public should recognize that if we are listening to a popular athlete, do they really know what they are talking about? Or rather, does the professional on TV know what there talking about too? it is our freedom of speech to speak our minds but we as individuals have the responsibility to educate at ourselves with political issues to form our own views, whether they match a popular athlete or TV host.

Athletes and Politics

I think athletes have every right to speak out about what they believe in. They are human beings like all the rest of us, so why shouldn't they be allowed to voice opinions? Yes, they are in the spotlight and people will obviously pay a lot more attention to their opinion than, say, mine for example, but we don't have to take to heart what our favorite athletes believe in. Movie stars and musicians speak out all the time as well, and if we don't like what they are saying we ignore it- but we often still watch their movies and listen to their music. If athletes take a public stance on controversial issues then they already know that it is going to cause people to talk, and it might take away some of their fan-base, but that has no impact on us (the viewers, fans). I actually think it's good that people who are idolized and looked up to take stances on issues because it has the potential to get more people in America involved in topics they might not otherwise look at (politics, for example).

Athletes and politics

I think athletes can say what they want about politics, but it can make fans have a negative opinion of them. So i don't think athletes should speak out because it is in there best interest not to. I think a professional athlete speaking out about politics is different than the average joe speaking out because the athlete is in the media all the time so everyone will know when they speak out. On the other hand if the average joe speaks out not a lot of people will hear it. It can be good for an athlete to speak out if they are supporting a good candidate or if they are opposing someone like Rush Limbaugh who has a really conservative opinion. I think it is a good idea for athletes to speak out against Limbaugh because i think he would just cause problems for the NFL and for the Rams and the Rams don't need anymore problems. The point i'm trying to make is that athletes have to be careful when they speak out because they can get themselves into trouble if they don't.

Athletes and politics

Athletes and Politics

Today's athletes I believe do not speak out on politics and such as much as they once had. When you look back in the past and see such figures such as Muhammad Ali speaking out on controversial issues it made big news for the media. So i think not only would it help each sports figure to get recognized it would become national news as in the case of the Giants players speaking against Rush Limbaugh. Sporting icons such as Tiger Woods get a bad rap for not ispeaking on issues that are close to them, but in all honestly why would they? The media loves to take their comments out of context and spin them around to look negative so why would they comment on controversial issues? So when we ask the question should athletes speak out more, I think the answer is yes, however, we need to be open-minded to their side and not to become prisoner of the moment and let the media turn their comments out of context

Athletes and Politics

I think that athletes have every right to speak out about politics. Athletes are people too and therefore they should be able to state their opinions. The fact that they are in the spotlight can be troublesome, but it is not fair that because they are known for what they do that they cannot be able to speak freely. I think that it is important, though, that atheletes remember that they are being looked at very closely and everything they say can, and most likely, will be published by the media which means that they need to pay close attention to how they might express their opinions. Just because athletes are looked at as figures in our society whom should be setting examples does not mean that they cannot be an American citizen as well. Everyone is allowed to have their opinions when it comes to politics and so should athletes.

I believe when any athlete makes a political stand I feel as they bring alot of attention to there self beacuse alot of people in the world look up to athletes and what they do or not. So therefore if a athlete was to take a side on something good or bad, in the public eye some people would say why this why that. Especially if most of the people are on the other side of the debate. Which would bring even more attention to a athlete and make something out of nothing real big because one of the top athletes in the game has a different opinion on something. But if it was your average Joe, people would look right pass what that person thinks. Which takes you back and tell you that athletes are treated different than a normal person and what they do, to people around the world.

I do have a problem with athletes/celebrities expressing their opinions about politics but only if they do it in a public fashion. I think if they express their feelings, especially in a negative way publically, they are abusing their privileges of having the spotlight and intentionally bringing the political party, and our country down. I do agree that they do have the freedom of speech and can state their opinion about whatever subject they choose to, but I do think that when they do it publically, they are being selfish and abusing their power. If they are going to bash politics I think they should do it on their own time. In addition, even if they are going to address the politics in a positive fashion, I do not think it is right for them to do it publically.

I dont see anything wrong with athletes addressing politics as long as they do it in the right fashion. They are americans just like everybody else so they have the right to say whats on there mind, and if that happens to politics, then they can. They do have to understand that millions of people are going to judge every word that comes out of there mouth, so they have to be extra careful, especially when talking about something as heated as politics. I think athletes have a powerful enough voice to address issues that maybe other people care about but are not heard becuase of they are in a position of less power. One thing i know for sure is that when professional athletes talk, people listen, especially over a controversial issue like politics.

Steven Staggs

I dont think athletes should publicly talk about their political views. They need to remember how many people listen to every word they say. They need to remember that they are athletes and not politicians. Many fans hang on every word that their icon says, so that may lead them to make a political descision soley based on something their favorite athlete said.

Athletes should be making political stands, especially the well known ones. I believe they are looked at as powerful people in our country and many people look up to them. They are normal people like anyone else in our country, but their lives are expressed more through the media then any other person. People grow up having their favorite sports team and player and by having that sports star express their feelings could help the young and old stand up for what they believe in. There may be times when an athlete shouldn't speak up because it is disrespecting someone that has higher importance than themselves, but for the most part athletes are looked at as leaders in this country so their voice should be heard.

I personally feel that athletes should not be involved with politics. I feel that is something that they don't belong in. Politicians have spent years gaining the knowledge that they have. To me a athlete being involved in politics any more than just saying who they support or why the support it is as out of place as a politician trying to play in the NBA. I feel that athletes should be able to express their feelings about any political issue just as any citizen can, but I don't think it is right when they use their power to undermine certain politicians or political situations.

I can see this in both ways as far as athletes speaking out against political figures and their political views. I think in one way it is good that they speak out because they wont allow people to basically walk all over them and let them be robots as far as speaking out. People need to have their own views in order to speak out. In another way i think they should just stay quiet. They are in the spotlight so much they cannot afford to screw up. Some of these athletes get in the spotlight and get nervous of questions and dont always say the right thing. Then the media turns everything back on them making them look like the bad one.

In my opinion athletes should use their power to speak out politically. Its an advantage they have earned by becoming successful in their sport. I don't always agree with them and sometimes it makes me not like that individual athlete, but really they are just like any other person and have the right to voice their opinions. The fact that they are an athlete and have more power should not affect them voicing an opinion on something they feel strongly about. Now at the same time I'm not saying that it cant hurt that athlete in his or her sport. But the athlete has to make the choice whether the issue is important enough for them to speak out and if it is they are probably willing to deal with the consequences.

I feel that it is in the athlete's best interest to not vocalize any political stance. It is not a matter of the athlete knowing what he/she is talking about but more or less the controversies that exist due to the opinion. This is exactly all it is, an opinion. I think that athletes can say what they want but it should be done in a critical and thought out way. For example, If I was a famous athlete and made a comment about a political figure than I would either be criticized or loved for this, from the sports fans. I am not famous but I do have my own opinion in which I can say whatever I choose to but who cares? I think the voice of athletes need to be respectful and well stated in order to keep the public content and happy. An athlete's fans take their actions, voice and stance very serious in which they need to choose their words carefully. I am not saying they can not say anything controversial but if so than do it and know that it may be detrimental to his/her career. Overall I do think that their opinions are watched and believed by our society which can describe the fact that my opinion is not as prized.

Athletes and Politics

Whenever my mom would see an athlete or actor publicly speak out on politics or other large social issues/controversies, she always had something to say about it, like "they don't know what they're talking about. They're going to let some stupid, uninformed athlete/actor speak our just because they're famous." Whenever I heard this is made me extremely agitated. It sounds corny, but famous people are people too. Granted they may use their professional appeal to gain more coverage on their viewpoints, but they care about issues just as much or just as less as the rest of Americans. Not every athlete is going to speak out, but I feel that if they are going to all the trouble to speak out about a topic, it is important to listen. It is clearly important to them.. let's face, no one is going to go on national television being uninformed with the intention of pissing people off or making a complete embarrassment of themselves. I think it's important to listen to these people when they speak out. They are trying to use their nationally and possibly world-known appeal to reach out to people to get involved or take a stand on certain issues; maybe even to simply generate some emotion or thought on certain issues. I agree that people shouldn't speak out on topics they know very little about, but if they are informed and approach the situation in a non-threatening way they should have all the right to speak out on issues that matter to them, no matter how small or large the issue may be.

I think it definitely depends on what athlete says what about politics. For example, if Terrell Owens spoke out about politics and what he thought about them, would people take him serious?? Probably not!!! Just because of the fact of the different problems he has had with the media. For other instance, if a well respected athlete like Albert Pujols spoke out about politics, I think people would definitely take in what he has to say because or his persona and how people perceive him.

I agree with alot of my classmates in the fact that I can definitely see why Native Americans felt disrepected. Especially, when you are brought up knowing these types of cultures, and they you see people making a mockery of it. It is very insulting!!! I most definitley respect the woman in the video who stood up for what she believed in even though it caused controversy in her life.

Athletes/Politics

When athletes make political stances I feel as though everyone pays more attention to it rather than when a regular politician or person does. Its funny that people probably can name more athletes than they can name politicians. It seems to me that athletes are more heard because their fame, fortune, and popularity helps elevate their message. So when they do make political stances we actually listen. I feel that the athletes who do make stances are very couragoeus considering that they have alot of things at risk when they speak out on politics. I feel it does matter who the athlete is because their "image" plays a big role on how people view their stances because either your going to agree or disagree. I feel it may be real important for athlete to take a stance when a serious issue is being overlooked so it really needs to be heard and brought forth to the light to solve it.

Politics are debated everyday in different contexts from class rooms to bars and everywhere in between. An athlete that expresses political viewpoints or a position on a controversy may not necessarily say anything different from what I may personal think, but I do believe that athletes have a lot more at stake when they decided to take a public position on an issue or make their opinions known because they can reach a larger audience. A good example of this is in the interview between Dave Zirin and Scott Fujita, Zirin asked why he endorsed the National Equality March and Fujita replied, "...For me, in my small platform as a professional football player, I understand that my time in the spotlight is probably limited." I definetely think that there are restraints and circumstances that keep some athletes from expressing their opinions publicly, such as an owner or coach that have opposing views since they influence the financial future athletes. However I think it is important for athletes to take a position on issue when it directly relates to them or their own principles, like Fujita taking a stand for gay rights in part because he was adopted as a child and wants any kid up for adoption to have a home regardless of the possible parent's sexual orientation, or the several NFL players who have made statements refusing to play for a team owned by Rush Limbaugh since he has said some serious and intended racist remarks even about players in the NFL.

Athletes and Politics

Throughout history we have had numerous athletes who have made political statements while participating in sport. There was Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali, Curt Flood, Tommie Smith and John Carlos in the early and second half of the twentieth century. However, we have also had athletes who do not want any part of politics. Some of us may remember Michael Jordan's famous "Republicans buy shoes too" quote. After the events of September 11th some athletes such as Carlos Delgado spoke out against the war. More recently, athletes such as Scott Fujita have come out in favor of gay marriage, and numerous athletes are speaking out against Rush Limbaugh becoming in owner in the NFL. I want to know what do we think of athletes that make political stands? Are our responses different depending on the athlete that does it? Should we embrace the fact that powerful people are making their feelings known? Is this any different from you or I taking a stand on an issue? When may it be important for athletes to do this? Are there times when it might not be in their best interest? Below I am going to post two links to articles, take a look at them to help your response. It is also fair game to comment directly about either of these articles.

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2009-10-06-460/index.html

http://sportsonmymind.com/2009/10/12/nfl-notes-demaurice-smith-takes-the-principled-stand-on-rush-limbaugh/

http://sportsonmymind.com/2009/10/09/rush-limbaugh-the-big-subliminal-shows-its-true-colors/

Metcalf- Indians

This is definitely a tough subject to get through because there are so many opposing interests at stake. For one you have the Indian's who's culture and race are being misrepresented and then you have the rest of Americans who feel they have some sort of ownership or custom with their mascot. I sincerely believe that mascots are used in honor and in a way to positively represent a thing, animal, etc. The problem is that the native Americans are saying they are not being correctly represented and universities and organizations are ignoring this complaint. I think it is very rational to compare this controversy to the idea of using African Americans and Caucasians as a mascot. These things would definitely not be approved by the public. Further, If they were mocking either of these cultures there would definitely be a removal of such a mascot. Say for instance someones mascot was African Americana's and the mascot cam out with baggy pants and shinny jewelry and a sideways hat and jumped around dancing like a rapper. I don't think all of the African American culture would be very happy about a representation of there culture like this. It's tough but I side with the Indians it is there culture and there feelings.

To me, I can see where the Native American activists may take offense to some of the sports teams that have Indian mascots.  Some more offensive than the others mascots than others.  The Atlanta Braves is a mascot that I would see as a little less offensive than the Redskins.  The Washington Redskins is one that I could see as very offensive.  I also think that Native Americans all around the country have different viewpoints on the issue.  Some indians take pride in the fact that sports teams are named after them.  While others are upset.  It is hard to please everyone.

Native American mascots

After class today i still feel that mascots of Native Americans are fine. Yeah it might offend them because they feel that they are being mocked. The mascots have nothing to do with American Indian culture or religion they are a mascot of a team. A mascot is a person or animal that is adopted by a team as a symbolic figure. Just because the symbol is an Indian doesn't mean were making fun of there heritage it has nothing to do with that. Another thing is that if i protested everything that offended me i would be protesting everyday and you don't see me doing that. Lifes tough they need to learn how to deal with it. Another thing is everyday David Letterman and other people that run night shows make fun of our presidents and make a mockery of them. But you don't see president Obama, Bush or Clinton protesting that Letterman should have to change his jokes because they offend them.

After more reflection, its easy for me to see how native Americans can so easily feel offended. I can only imagine if there was a team referening caucasians as a team name, and did some false religious practice that is common to many whites but is nothing to what it is meant for. I would view that as offensive and would want it changed. I understand that the team names are to reference the bravery etc of native americans, but I think that times might have changed.

jonathan gimm
After class today i was thinking about some of the comments that some people said in class. some things that i thought were interesting were that acting like a Native American is OK because we are not trying to make fun of them by acting like them we are trying to help the culture. i think that just because you are not making fun of them, and you are trying to help there culture doesn't mean that they feel like you are mocking them. it doesn't matter what you think, if they think that you are doing these things then i believe that we should stop them because we are hurting the Native American culture.

In Whose Honor?

Upon entering class today was still on the fence on the issue regarding mascots of Native Americans being racist. First, with professional sports teams such as the Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Redskins, and Blackhawks typically I do not associate the mascot with the team directly. For example checking the standings of the NFC East division in the NFL you would see the four teams being recognized by the cities they play in: New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Washington. But after discussion today I am leaning slightly toward the mascots being offensive and harmful to the Native American culture if they are misrepresented. We have kinda made the Native American mascots into our own understanding of their culture. What really hit me was if someone was to mock misrepresent my faith or my religion I would consider it extremely disrespectful and I would be hurt emotionally. So I can see where the Native Americans would consider this racism and want for these mascots to either be better represented or for them to not exist period.

I agree that this issue is not a very big one. When we are watching sports we are not thinking about how the Cleveland Indians are mocking Native American culture. We are consumed in the game and not the meaning behind the nickname. If anything, teams with Native American nicknames are at least given a positive view of Native Americans for being great warriors and honoring a rich tradition. If there were no Native American nicknames we would never here about Native Americans. The only thing we would talk about is there poverty and alcohol problems. Now would that be honoring Natives?

Different mascots, such as Chief Illiniwek, can be seen as disrespecting because the dances and costume the Chief wears is unauthentic. That makes sense for Native American people to get upset over that, so why don't they ask the school, and possibly show the school, how to dress and dance correctly. This way they represent and are respecting the different tribes in our country. Would this then make the Native Americans a little more satisfied and a little less upset over the situation, because if they get rid of the mascots, such as the Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs, this will make matters worse for these people. It will make many fans upset and who knows what the people of this country will do if that were to happen.

Is this really a big issue, that a mascot that represents different kinds of Native Americans is a problem? I understand how it's looked at as racial, but personally for how people look at these mascots I would be honored if I were them. I wouldn't mind if they made different mascots of causcasians. I just don't see the big deal of this issue. People are going way to in depth with it.

The point was brought up in class today about people not trying to disrespect a certain culture when they dress up in an indian suit. But what we dont understand that when we have teams that have mascots like the Chief at Illinois, it is disrespectful to the Native Americans who see the Chief as a huge honor and they show the upmost respect for the person whom is considered the Cheif. We unconsiously are disrespecting their culture when we have mascots like that.

After watching the video, it is now more clear to me how these mascots affect native americans. At first, I didn't get what all the fuss was about; it just seemed like a mascot. Now I realize how it affects them. I think it really helps to put things in perspective when you think about how these mascots represent people, unlike how a hawkeye is just a bird. The only thing I had somewhat of a problem with in the video had to do with the woman. It seemed to me that she was really more concerned about how it would affect her kids; I would be interested to see if she would take the same stance on this issue if she didn't have kids. At one point she said how her kids were "targets." I don't think that was the case; Illinois didn't have this mascot in order to go after her kids. However, they were kind of a victim of the situation as a whole.

After watching the rest of the video this morning I thought something interesting came up. When a few Native American people were talking about people dressed up as the Chief and cartoons of the Chief. I was a little surprised that they would almost prefer the cartoon logo as opposed to an actual person. I would feel if anything a logo such as the Cleveland Indians logo, would bring up more controversy because those can be tinkered with and really not represent what they looked like or were about. But seeing someone in a traditional outfit really upset that woman. If i were in those shoes i know that if i saw a drawing of my people in that way it may upset me a bit more than someone like the Chief at Illinois.

I do believe that teams that have Native American mascots or names are trying to honor their ferocity, and battle heroics. However, I agree with the video in that I believe that we don't completely grip, how these mascots affect or portray a small group of under-represented people. The Cleveland Indians mascot and depictions are no different from a racist cartoon from the 1940's that depicts an Asian man with large thick glasses and teeth that stick out, or when white actors used to paint their faces with black paint for entertainment during minstrel shows. There was a good point made in class today that we have seen civil rights movements that have improved the quality of life for many minorities, but I do believe that since there is such a small population of Native Americans compared to other minority groups it makes it difficult to bring these issues to the forefront of the media. I think that this issue has not been completely resolved because it is masked by the belief that these representations of Native Americans are intended to honor them and their warrior spirit. What's covered up is that these images were not created by Native Americans and they not only help perpetuate a false image of what it is to be a Native American, but they at times mock what is considered sacred in their lives.

I also understand why Native Americans get upset with teams using Native American mascots, chants and rituals. However, the Native American population is so small compared to other races in America which leads to them not having a huge say in decisions. I believe they did everything they could by trying to erase as much as they could. Most high school and college teams dropped their racist nicknames and mascots after understanding how racist it actually is. Professional teams however have to much money and power for them to change their nicknames. Sadly, I do not think that will ever change.

After seeing part of "In whose honor", I can more easily see why mascots like the Illini's was viewed as racist. Many fans viewed his dancing an act as a form of entertainment. They yelled and screamed "chief" as he did an unauthentic dance. I think that people's cultures and traditions are not other people's entertainment, and should be respected and aknowledged such as Florida States. There is no problem when a school treats the mascot such as FSU does.

I think that there isn't an issue if the mascots and traditions are treated respectfully. I think that logos such as Clevelands might pose an issue with red skin etc. But, I think that if these mascots are used as a mascot to show respect and honor to the people than it is ok. I think that if caucasians for example were known for their ferocity and courage, and they wanted to be used as a logo to represent that, than I think that it is ok as long as it is done honorably and tastefully.

I think the issue is that Native Americans are such a small minority group. There are few groups supporting the anti-mascot cause, and supporting native american groups in general. For largere minority groups there are organizations that support their advancement, such as the NAACP for African Americans. I'm not sure if there is a group like this for Native Americans but if there is its much less known. I feel that the issue has been overlooked to an extent because there are no large groups protesting it.

jonathan gimm
having a native American mascot for your school isn't a big deal to me. it starts becoming a problem when the native Americans start becoming offended about the the dancing, and the dancing of the mascot. the native Americans take lots of pride in there dancing, feathers, and war paint.

Jordan Garretson

I am somewhat torn on this issue. For the most part, I think if the team has the support of the group that they are representing (IE: Florida State — the Seminole tribe) approves of the use of their likeness, there should be no problem with it.
I take more issue with those teams that use the likeness of Native Americans in derogatory ways, such as the Redskins or the Cleveland Indians.
Think about the use of Redskins, would using the color of a skin to name a team be accpeted if it were describing any other group besides Native Americans? The Blackskins? The Whiteskins?
And then the issue with teams being called Indians is that the term is not even really correct. Of course, Cleveland Indians sounds a lot better than the Cleveland Native Americans.

At the same time I agree with what many people have said already about the names being a symbol of pride and honor. I don't think many if any teams choose a tribe name or something similar with disrespectful intent. Although I'm not actually Native American, I would feel honored if a team wanted to name itself after my people.

Again, like I already said, I think each name should be examined on a case-by-case basis. I don't think one can just say all sports names referencing Native Americans are good or all are bad.

I believe that having Indians or native Americans as a mascot for a team is fine. It’s an honor to have your image or culture as an organizations image. People who disagree need to look at it in a different way. They are not making fun of them by any means, it obvious they admire them; it’s their team’s image. So yes I do think by having them as a mascot is an honor. My hometown is named after an Indian and we too have an Indian as a mascot and because of that we know the history and culture.

One interesting question is if you are going to ban indian names from the NCAA, will you take it from high school teams too? Having played high school sports, and being called the chiefs, I have noticed that there are quite a few indian mascots just in my little corner of the state, let alone around the nation. Will these native americans push to have all of these mascots banned as well? If so, it could cause a lot of drama in high school sports across the nation.

Steven Staggs

I don't see anything wrong with having a native american mascot. I don't think I've ever seen to many mascot images that would be doing any harm to anyone. I could however see where the mascot dancing around and wearing war paint would become an issue. That being said I think that they way each school uses it's mascot should be looked at. Not totally getting rid of the mascot.

Native American Mascots

I am really torn about this subject- and the video in class today made me even more confused on where I stand on the subject. Charlene Teters gave me a different perspective on things- I had a hard time seeing where Native Americans were finding all of the offense in teams using them as mascots because I had always looked at it as a form of honor. Teams usually pick things to represent them that are tough, strong, and that can prevail in "battle" aka a game/match/whatever. But after watching the video today I guess I could sort of see why she took offense to the mascot dancing and parading around to entertain a crowd. At the same time- I found it really interesting and kind of cool that the school had talks to inform the students about the Native American culture, especially since they had been doing it long before Charlene started the protests. Someone brought up a good point in an earlier post about how his high school actually went and asked the group of Native Americans how they felt about the school using their name and they didn't really seem to mind at all. Maybe this is a good approach to figuring out if this is really a highly offensive issue to Native Americans today.

In reality, we probably have taken a lot of things away from the Native Americans. Who knows, if Colombus never would have reached here would caucasion people be the miniority in stead of the native americans? I do not think any of these mascots are offensive, but if it really is a big deal to them (which i am not convinced it is to all of them) then let them have it. We wouldnt want a team named after our ethnic group so why keep one named after them. One interesting point from the movie was the question why didnt the indian mascots fade out when the african american mascots did? It seems we were so worried about racial problems between whites and african americans that we over looked how bad we have treated the native americans.

Native American Mascots

I highly doubt that any of the mascots are being used in order to honor Native Americans. It's possible, but I don't think that it is really what is going on. Most of the fans of the different universities as well as pro teams that use Native Americans as mascots would probably say the same thing. I like what Florida State is doing, how they have their mascot trained by people from the Seminole tribe, this at least brings some authenticity to the mascot. The thing that I didn't understand today about the film was that Chief Illiniwik was a made up character. He wasn't a real Indian chief. So I can understand why many Illini fans did not understand why he was offensive to Native Americans. That being said, I can also understand why Native Americans would take offense to the situation because they probably thought that the Chief's dance was a joke and a horrible misrepresentation of their culture. Besides Dave Chapelle pretending to be a caucasion, I've never really experienced someone imitating my culture. And with regards to Dave Chapelle I thought it was it was funny and didn't really take offense to it. However, there weren't any religious implications involved as there are with the Native Americans. Also I know that the names aren't meant to trivilize Native American culture, and personally I don't think it does because I don't think any different about Native Americans after seeing Chief Illini's dance. I know enough to know that that isn't a true Native American dance. However, I'm sure there are people who think it was, in that case I can understand why Native Americans take offense. But I almost wonder if they would take offense to little kids playing with cowboy and indian toys? Or if they would take offense to people dressing up as indians for halloween?

In the documentary in whose honor i found it quite bothering in a sense. I grew up an illinois fan my whole life, attending all of the home football games. I remember as a young child asking my father if chief was going to dance today. I remembered him always saying yes and i would be excited. I would be excited because i know how symbolic this dance was to all of the fighting Illini country and i know that they never did any of it to make fun or humiliate anyone. Why would they be making fun of there own mascot? If that were the case I am pretty sure they would be making sure they dont make fun of themselves. No chief ever joked with the dance or messed it up in the slightest bit. As they said on the film the dance was authentic along with the dressing up, if anything it should be an honor to these Indians that are getting mad about this. I remember the day that they took the chief away from the university and it was one of the darkest days ever in that university.

This is definitely a tough subject to know what is right and what is wrong. Even after watching the video today i don't really feel like what the Illini do is really disrespectful to them. I mean Charlene taught her kids to respect the eagle feathers and respect that person i don't know why she feels like that person should not be respected. I know he earned it for a different reason but in reality its not even her tribe. Every tribe is different and some are completely different in the way they carry out their ceremonies. That's the biggest problem i have with this situation because she is not even from the same tribe.

In Whose Honor?

After viewing a brief portion of the documentary "In Whose Honor," I am torn on who I agree with about Native Americans being a Mascot for sports teams specifically the Illini. I see where Charlene Teters is coming from where the University of Illinois should not mock or disrespect the Native American culture, but from what I saw in the documentary the University has a good grasp on the traditions of the Native Americans. It is considered a prestigious honor in you are selected to be Chief Illini. I really don't see it as disrespectful to the Native American Culture if represents what the school stands for which is tradition. The only thing I can see that the University may need to address is that the Mascot not mock in any such way that depicts negative image of Native Americans.

People have a right to have a different view about certain mascots and what not but I feel that making teams change them won't solve anything. I feel that these names such as the Fighting Illini are good for our country and tribes because it shows the past and where these people lived and carried their lives. I personally don't understand what all the fuss is about because if there were not these teams out there I know that some people would be even more clueless about the tribes whereabouts and such. Having this actually gives them a name in todays day and age when they have been becoming the minority for many many years. I know that the University here has a policy about playing teams with tribal names, and the only one that we are really allowed to play is Illinois. I was told last year that the soccer team went down to play in a tournament in Florida and was unable to play a team because they had some name that was of an Indian background. I think that is dumb of the university to "discriminate" against playing those types of teams, but in the end it sounds like they are just trying to avoid a big hassle to me.

I agree with catos comment below that the indian people were very wrongly treated by europeans when they were exploring america. But I think that by using them as mascots it does honor them. It honors them be showing that they were part of our history and it is a way that they can still be remembered in todays society. I also think that it would be perfectly acceptable to have continued to call the Illinois teams the "fighting illini". I say this because what they are fighting for is to win the game. It is no different than notre dame being called the "fighting irish". I just think that the indian mascot controversy has been blown out of proportion. I think that they are often cleaver names, that are no different than an animal mascot. If we dont allow these indian names are we going to band animal names next because it offensive to animal protection agencies? I just feel that many people are looking for reasons to be offended instead of an actual circumanstance being offensive.

Mascots

I feel that naming the mascots as a part of honor is hyprocrisy. For one what would you be honoring since the Native Americans had their land and everything tooken away from them then were driven into so called "Reservations" that isolated them as a result of Europeans. Therefore Indians always tried to fight for their land thats how you have "Cowboys vs.Indians" because Indians were stereotyped as savages, dangerous, and everything below for fighting back. I feel thats also how you had the mascot at the University of Illinois the "Fighting Illini", what were they fighting for? Now is that a reason to honor them because they were fighting for what was their's in the first place?I think not. Native Americans are not a monolithic group because their population has severely decreased since Europeans came to America. For the dieases they brought Native Americans had no immunities to fight them off therefore they died besides fighting in wars against Europeans. And no the names of other racial and ethnic groups would not be used because it just isn't right if a team's mascot was the Mexicans, Asians, or Africans. It would be controversy to potray them.

Native Mascots

In my opinion, Native American symbols, war heros, chiefs, etc. should not be used as Mascots for sports teams. Granted some may argue that by being chosen for a mascot it would be in some way honorary to the tribe involved and they should be proud to have a symbol of power exemplified nationally, however this idea seems to be the quickest way to justify the use of sacred Native symbolism for a sports team. These symbols of Native culture are powerful, historic, and in some cases part of the religiosity of Native cultures; using these symbols are offensive even if they try not to be. What these Native symbols stand for is so much more than how they are represented. They are worthy of much more recognition and respect than how they are presented through commercial sport. Especially acknowledging what Native Peoples went through when their land, families, and complete rights were taken over, we should not have the liberty to use what they represent at our disposal. What Native symbols stand for it for Native peoples, not for us to use as we please. Their internal connections and history connected with these symbols is extremely powerful for them and should not be made as a mockery or be valued above the true meaning. When you see someone wearing an Indian's t-shirt, you are not going to think of what that symbol represents, but rather the team it belongs to. Using these symbols in a way other than to respect and honor the history involved is socially irresponsible and demeaning to the culture.

I also remember having this topic brought up during my senior year of High School. When I initially hear this argument I think that people are over-reacting and that the mascot is simply just a light-hearted symbol to represent the team/school/etc. I also never thought that any school or organization that used a Native American symbol as a mascot ever used it to mock it or disrespect the culture in any way. However, after reflecting on this topic, I still don't believe that anyone using a Native American symbol as a mascot is intentionally trying to disrespect their culture, BUT, I do not believe that any non-Native Americans can truly show the type of respect and loyalty to that mascot that a Native American would expect and practice in their lifestyle. Therefore, I do believe that if there is a way, schools should not use these symbols as their mascots, there are plenty of other ideas out there to use to signifiy their school.

I think that the use of Native American mascots is wrong, because it does not reflect the spirit of a sports team name. I don't think it's right for people to dress up in Native American gear, paint their faces, and mimic dance moves when they have no knowledge about the culture. I feel that some mascots misrepresent the team names. The main mascot being the "Redskins" because it is a derogatory depiction. The "redskins" are depicted as a caricature of a Native American with a huge goofy grin and I don't see how that's suppose to honor the Native American culture. However, I have no problem with certain sport team names such as the "Braves", "Warriors" or "Chiefs". I feel that these names symbolize strength and power. I feel that some Native American sports names should be kept but that their logo should be something simple and not deragatory.

There is two different points that i would like to talk about on this topic. The first issue i have is about the tribe or group of Indians being honored to have that school or team named after them. I went to a high school that was called the Uintah Utes and there was a big controversy on whether we should change our name or not. It came down to our school going to the Ute tribe and actually asking them and having them vote on whether they wanted us to change it or not. It ended up that almost all of them were happy about the name and didn't want it to change. So it didn't change that was just there feelings on the subject and i think that's a good way to handle it, if they care change it if they don't then leave it. The second problem is about dressing up and acting like the native tribes. I'm pretty sure that no one would ever dress up as any other ethnic group and act like another ethnic group and that poses a problem. But at the same time its the mascot and every team has people dressing up like there mascot, so its hard to blame them. In my opinion if the native Americans have a problem with it then it should be changed otherwise leave it alone.