Americans claim that Native Americans are portrayed incorrectly through these controversial mascots shading their historical reputation. To take a case in point, Cornell Brooks, an advocator of terminating Lord Jeff at Amherst college, argued, “. . . Our mascot was someone who represented such poor moral values; I really wasn't proud” (qtd. in Bidgood, “Amherst College Drops Mascot Seen As a Symbol of Oppression” par. 10). Lord Jeff continues to question what type of community it represents. Students at Amherst see Lord Jeff as a symbol of white oppression (Bidgood, “Amherst College Drops Mascot Seen As a Symbol of Oppression” par. 6). In addition, the Atlanta Braves Screaming Indian logo is racially offensive (“Point” par. 7). Some spectators believe that the logo is racist. To continue, the American Psychological Association called for an end to Indian mascots; they argued that Native American mascots damaged the self-esteem of Native American children and taught non-Native American children that culturally abusive behavior was acceptable (Armour par. 10). As a result, children assume it is acceptable to imitate an act that may be sacred to tribes. Opposition argues that Native American mascots are catalysts for racism and harassment; however, schools who have these mascots do not teach students to develop a racist persona. Schools who honor the Native Americans by using a Native American mascot do not change the way those students are taught about history. Stull acknowledges that schools now have to be aware of the controversial mascots while teaching history. Stull exclaims, “We wouldn't call them Savages and Redskins, but, at the same time, those are historical references, and we have now made them tabooed because of the political correctness” (qtd. in Stull and Leatherman). Stull is correct when stating that American citizens have made these names seem hateful. Likewise, impersonators of Chief Woohoo argue that this symbol of the University of Illinois accurately represents the University because of the historical ties to Native American history (Ryan par. 23). The Chief is a historical symbol portrayed by students at the University who embrace the traditions of the Native Americans. The symbol of the University does not reflect negatively on the University because in schools it is still taught as a historical presence. Stull continued his argument by adding, “Groups decide they've been offended. A mascot was created generations ago, and this generation didn't do that, we don't have to write the wrongs of the older generations” (qtd. in Stull and Leatherman). Stull correctly argues that this generation now has to fix an unintentional act of naming sports teams by American’s ancestors. In addition, Florida State’s name comes from a legitimate embrace of the historical presence of certain Native American groups (“Sports Team Name Changes” par. 15). Native American mascots do not change how Native Americans are taught in schools. Furthermore, Ivan Dozier, Chief portrayer, reported that the portrayers use the Chief as a teaching to spectators (Ryan par. 37). Altogether, Native American mascots will continue to be just that: a mascot. Although, there is more of an awareness of teaching about Native Americans, mascots do not alter who they are historically.