Susan states in her article The Christian Science Monitor, "It is the most degrading word that is used to refer to us in the English language. It is offensive because it is meant to be. It is mean and nasty". For, example Illinois University mascot chief illiniwek was a misappropriation of indigenous cultural figures and rituals. Although some might object that Mascots and logos are not meant to be offensive, but to entertain the audience and honor Native Americans, I reply that it mocks Native American tradition and culture. Most of these mascots perform at halftime during games and dance around, pretending to be doing sacred dances. The issue is important because we the people are not taking into consideration the harm we are doing to Native Americans, psychologically and emotionally. It is not enough that early settlers took their land, but now they make mascots to honor them, so they say. By making Native American mascots, they are not honoring them, they are mocking them. Mascots were made for entertainment to be ridiculed and heckled. If they wanted to honor them, they could have made statues or national landmarks for Native Americans. Some universities were allowed to keep their nicknames by getting permission from local tribes, such as Florida State's Seminoles and Utah's Utes. Jack Shakley's ideas about Indian mascots being changed are useful because they call attention to the important issue of ignorance and racism towards Native Americans. Shakley is right to argue that the Indian mascots for professional teams are degrading a mockery of the Native Americans, because some of the mascots are portrayed as drunks, savages, and hideous.
By focusing on changing Indian mascots, Shakley does not consider or think about the millions of alumni dollars colleges would lose if they change their mascots or logos. As for professional teams, they can change their mascot of logo and would not have to worry about losing money or funds.
