Proud To Be (Mascots),” produced by the National Congress of American Indians, convinces the audience of the importance and necessity of changing the mascot of the Washington Redskins to something not offensive or racist towards Native Americans or any other group. Throughout the video, rhetoric provides levels of techniques in language and imagery in order to persuade the audience. The intended audience, mainstream American football fans, and their relationship with the speaker establish what group of people the ad needs to convince for the mascot to change. The video’s use of ethos, pathos, and logos through one word descriptions and images serve as the most effective visual rhetoric to the argument. Music, diction, imagery, suspense, and …show more content…
The video plays on the injustices faced by Native Americans during the colonization of North America to strengthen the modern appeals made by the speaker. Towards the middle of the ad, the narrator says, “Struggling” as images of extreme poverty cuts to an image of a Native American sitting on a box with his head in his hands. Realizing the injustices of their situation, The imagery conveys a feeling of guilt within the audience. Americans took Native Americans land and put them on reservations to be “forgotten” (another one word description in the video). Through these images and language choice, the speaker makes an ethical appeal: many Native American in modern society already live in poverty and suffering, and having a mascot called the Redskins only adds insult and shame to their lives. After American colonists took what belongs to them, the narrator calls out to the audience to at least give Native Americans one small thing: the name of a mascot. Native Americans have sustained a longstanding sense of pride and dignity. Through an emotional appeal, the images and footage of children present hope for change. The ad presents the possibility that the Washington Redskins mascot can change, continuing this deep pride and
In Using Indian Names for Sports Teams Harm Native Americans, Ward Churchill discusses why using names like the Washington “Redskins,” Colorado “Savages,” or Kansas City “Chiefs,” are a racist practice and should be put to stop. The team’s mascots also use feathers, beads, spears, and “war paint” in an attempt to look like stereotypical Native Americans. Churchill says many American Indians have been against he uses of native names, gestures, and symbols. Churchill recognizes the rough historical relationship between natives and the non-natives. Certainly, colonization detrimentally effected many Natives, and the American Government historically has moved Natives out of their own land.
The author uses a personal anecdote to begin his argument: he “bought the Cleveland cap with the famous Chief Wahoo Logo on it” (520), which betrayed his Creek mother’s faith; as a result, his mother jerked the cap off his head and “threw it in the trash” (520), which left an indelible impression on him. Shakely’s personal experience is efficient to draw a vivid picture about “Indian Mascot” abuse for audiences. Based on his experience, he believes that possessing dignity and respect is the right to everybody, and it doesn’t apply to majority rules. Therefore, Shakely claims that college and professional teams should abandon Native American names and mascots because it is racial
The main point of this article, in my opinion, is summed up on page ninety four. “A foundation and critical challenge for the Emerging church will be teaching people that they are the church and that they do not simply attend or go to one.” When the focus is brought to the Church as a building there seems to be a bigger issue. WE become more worried about the structure of the church and the materialistic things that come with the make-up of a church instead of what is truly important. To help further understand this Kimball provides the reader with valuable information, “However, the word Church was used (in scriptures) primarily to describe the followers of Jesus.”
Since entering office, President Donald Trump has taken a hostile stance towards Iran, and now threatens to end the era of rapprochement that prevailed during the Obama Administration. This would be a significant mistake that would bode ill for both the United States and Iran. While detractors of President Obama’s policy towards Iran argue that it strengthens the oppressive regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the opposite is actually true. Friendly relations between the United States and Iran undermine the fear mongering rhetoric of Khamenei and his hardliner allies and strengthen the arguments of the reformist coalition in Iran. The success of this more moderate faction of Iranians serves United States’ interests in that it eliminates an
There are many factors that effect Native Americans such as treaty rights, health, education, and economic issues, a number of studies done by various government agencies, including the Department of Justice, have shown extremely troubling rates of violent crime inflicted on American Indian peoples, most by non-Natives, as well as a suicide incidence among American Indian children and young adults that is several times that of other ethnic groups or the general population. However, Native Americans representation through mascots and logos is an issue that effects the Native people in a more personal way. Native Americans sport team logos, mascots and nicknames are representing Native Americans in a disrespectful way which is effecting the way we perceive
School systems that show negative images of American Indians give of a negative impact on the self esteem of the American Indian students. This also disrespects the spiritual beliefs and values of the American Indian people. In the State of Oregon they announced that their public schools are not allowed to use Native Americans as mascots or sports teams names like “Indians”, “Chiefs”, “Braves”, and “Redskins” but not “Warriors because it’s imagery did not specifically mean Native Americans. The schools were expected to change the names
The American society should strive to obtain higher standards of respect for the majority as well as the minority communities. There are not many people who are aware about the controversy and issues that the use of reclaimed water at the Snowbowl has created. Yet this disrespect to Indigenous belief has a long path in American history and Native American people. Indians were stripped of their land in 1829 because of the Homestead Act, which granted white people the right to claim up to 160 acres of land as their own. Even as the Constitution states that “all men are created equal”, Native Americans have faced discrimination, oppression, and racism due to their culture and skin color.
Reynolds believes this will relay a message to children to avoid discussing cultural differences of Native Americans because of fear of offending them (659). She believes this is completely detrimental to the understanding and acceptance of cultural differences and acceptance of our differences in society. Reynolds argues that if the mascots are kept, it will invoke more discussion among children and therefore they will have a better understanding of cultural
The Native Americans are just trying to live their lives. They don’t need a mascot stereotyping them it something they are
Even today, movies and cartoons that depict Native Americans in any way are most often being portrayed in the same fashion as they have been for hundreds of years: through the eyes of the earliest white settlers. When Disney’s Pocahontas came out, the brutal song “Savages!” devastated Native American children.
Past leaders such as Andrew Jackson, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Marc Antony are evidence that society does not reward morality and good character in leadership. Society is drawn to leaders that have good rhetoric, propaganda, and charismatic personalities, and society supports them despite their immorality. Society is concerned about stability more than the morality of their leaders and will support immoral leaders in times of crisis to provide stability. In history there have been multiple leaders that have used rhetoric, propaganda and charismatic personalities to gain power, despite their morals.
Deloria pleads, “Not even Indians can relate themselves to this type of creature who, to the anthropologists, is the ‘real’ Indian […]” (Dennison, 8). It is easy to ignore how much these misconceptions limit the people subject to them. These harmful misconstructions are seen everyday, in settings like sports, particularly the football team the Washington Redskins. Finally we see a major figure, in this case, FedEx, publicly reject the identity. This is a step towards unlocking American Indian potential, which affects the United States in just as many ways.
We have since adopted the phrase “Native American,” as a more appropriate (and yet still all encompassing) term. However, another antiquated expression has recently gathered a lot of media attention. The National League Football team for the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area plays under the name “The Washington Redskins.”
In his oration to Governor Isaac I. Stevens Chief Seattle, a Native American leader addresses the governor's request to buy Indian lands and create reservations. Through his oration Seattle boldly presents his stance on the issue of Indian lands, representing his people as a whole. On account for his native people Chief Seattle's stands up for their land through the use of imagery, parallels, and rhetorical questions. Chief Seattle communicates his purpose by using bold imagery that directs the audience to the cause that Seattle is speaking of. He uses metaphors and similes comparing aspects of nature to the issue at hand.
February 7, 2010 or Super Bowl XLIV as we all remember was the first time the, “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” commercial was played on national television. I’m almost certain that everyone in the United States at one point of time has had this Old Spice commercial stuck on replay in their head. This commercial does an amazing job at grabbing whoever’s attention, whether or not you are a part of the targeted audience. However, with its comical approach, this commercial implies that by using this product a chain of events will happen that Old Spice cannot prove.