Wufan wrote:glm38 wrote:I'm not going to run down the gargoyle BUT I don't get why Bradley is leaving their name as the Braves but changing the mascot to a gargoyles? I get that the former mascot isn't PC but the name "Braves " is? That makes no sense.
The PC crowd is so overwhelmed with rules that they can't even make logical ones now. The use of the term Brave, meaning courageous, is okay so long as you don't use the term when referring to a Native American. And while I'm not a fan of changing the name of a mascot for PC reasons, I'm actually quite surprised that the Washington Redskins are still accepted.
It's only a matter of time. The Cleveland Indians will be gone as well, and probably the Atlanta Braves.
As a Florida State alumni, we still have issues with our name, despite a full relationship with the Seminole Nation of Florida, and the tribe's input on iconography.
I understand the complaints sometimes, and I think the Redskins name is ridiculous, but at some point I think you have to wonder why the name Trojans isnt considered racist against Turkish Americans, or the Minnesota Vikings against Scandinavian Americans, etc. Why are some stereotypical images fine and some aren't?
There are some clearly negative representations of Native Americans being used. But that doesn't mean ALL stereotypical images of Native Americans should be considered negative. Any more than any other stereotypical historical image should be considered negative. The reaction on this issue borders on pushing shame of Native American history.