It didn't require a scientific paper to create the mascot but you seem to be arguing it requires a "good paper" that's been validated to rename it? You are demonstrating a status quo cognitive bias.
So if someone comes up with a paper that says the opposite (that using native American names) has a proven (by the a paid study) positive impact, since it's low stakes, we should go ahead and name teams after native American tribes?
I think we were talking about high school mascots not team names. Are those two scenarios equally low stakes?
In one you change the high school mascot from a native american cartoon to an animal or something. I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
In the other we change... what all the teams names? Is that a equivilent scenario?
To be honest I'm finding it hard to relate to someone would care enough about a high school mascot to even need a study at all. Low stakes B.S. But that's me.
Since this topic is probably of zero importance to anyone not native american who else is going to fund it, for that matter?
> I'm assuming native americans were not consulted with the creation of the mascot to begin with.
Seems like you are affirming the consequent and assuming it is harmful to native Americans.
You are ignoring the issue of the paper. If the decision is based on a scientific paper, but the paper is conflicted or unvalidated, that is harmful because of the misuse of the scientific paper.
If you want to change the mascot because of Native American’s preferences, that is a different matter.
If not it's kind of a catch 22 for the tribe, isn't it? Nobody wants to fund research on the topic, so when they fund research on it it's presumed invalid because of bias?
