Recently, the use of controversial words has become a heavily debated topic, as seemingly truthful statements to some, cause insult to others. The Times article "Why 'Redskins' Is a Bad Word", by acclaimed linguist and professor John McWhorter, was published in 2015, around when the use of the word "Redskins" was being debated in Californian public schools through Bill AB-30 (2015). In the article, McWhorter aims to clarify the condemnation of the word "Redskins" (McWhorter,2015, para. 1), by suggesting the offence does not stem from the literal definition of such words, but instead the negative and often derogatory connotations the words have. McWhorter begins by introducing the recent discussions surrounding the use of the word "Redskins" (McWhorter,2015, para. 1). He informs readers of the emotions attached to controversial words in the examples and describes how words continue to evolve as time goes on. Alongside his reputation as a credible person, a quote from a distinguished professor, and anecdotal story, McWhorter provokes an emotional connection with the readers …show more content…
For example, his explanation that "home relief" changed to "welfare" because it gained negative connotations in the 1970 era (McWhorter,2015, para. 8) can be confirmed by historical facts. For example, the article "Why Do Americans Still Hate Welfare" by Schneiderman, in New York Times blog Economix, explains that historical events such as economic aid during The Great Depression lead people to associate the word with laziness. This increases McWhorter's logos and ethos, as the historical background of these words support his claims. However, the words that he used to describe the refusal of the Redskins owner to change the name of the sports team may have unintentionally decreased his logos and
Fighting the use of the word ‘redskins’” by Brian Cladoosby says how “[s]tudies show the use of American Indian-based names, mascots and logos in sports has a negative psychological effect on Native peoples” Cladoosby places a link to Dr. Michael A. Friedman research report which backs his case. In his study Dr. Friedman, a clinical psychologist says how Redskins is “uniquely destructive” because it “perpetuates the stereotypical and outdated caricature” and “promotes and justifies the use of a dictionary-defined racial slur, thus increasing risk for discriminatory”. With the rate of Native American suicide one of the highest in the nation the addition of their culture and history being stereotyped young Natives are facing discrimination and then being told that it’s okay because it’s for a sport. Cladoosby adds how that it creates a challenge to Natives who want to “maintain a foundation in their culture and language” meaning that ignoring a name that was once used when hunting their ancestors means that they are ignoring their culture. The name is not just racist and derogatory but promotes the an old-fashioned and stereotypical view of Native
America’s Team Will the real “America’s Team” please stand up? This term is widely used throughout the media when referring to the Dallas Cowboys. “America’s Team” was first coined some 40 years ago while introducing them for a feature film by the legendary sport writer Bob Ryan. In the following years, because of their success and mass media exposure they were a team that America as a nation could identify with ,so the name stuck. The Cowboys since those days has regressed into a very mediocre team who only looks for moral instead of actual Super Bowl victories.
In a generation focused on social justice and the elimination of prejudice from our society, there is still a use of offensive language and terminology in the area of professional sports. In “The Indian Wars” by S. L. Price, Price attempts to make the reader aware of sports teams that use derogatory terms as their team name and their mascot. He does this by highlighting football, and trying to determine whether Native-Americans are offended by team names in sports, or more specifically, the Redskins. Price’s essay is ineffective because although he raises good points, he doesn’t help the reader to form an opinion by adding historical context to the derogatory names used. He also uses inaccurate poll results to make assumptions about the feelings
The whole point of this essay is my way of showing the reader using Grunwald’s cites and examples like the personal experiences, Facts and Statistics, and the repetition Grunwald shows that the word welfare has another meaning, the real and true meaning. So the next time you rethink about should you apply for that benefit program or should you inform your friend or cousin about welfare. Do them or yourself a favor and just do it because after reading what I have to say welfare it will always pop up in the back of your head when a person talks about have a bad life or money problems I guarantee
Barbara Ehrenreich’s use of logos in order to gain the reader’s support and approval was prevalent throughout this section. She clearly outlines her credibility and aptitude in the introduction of her novel - she mentions her education as well as statistical facts about hourly wages in the United States and how they will relate to her experiment. She points out her “…PhD in biology, (which she) didn’t get by sitting at a desk and fiddling with numbers” and how “According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, in 1998 it took an hourly wage of $8.89 to afford a one-bedroom apartment…the odds against a typical welfare recipient’s landing a job at such a ‘living wage’ were about 97 to 1.”
The debate is divided into two sides. Those opposed to the use of Redskins and all Native American names in sports, and perceive the use of such terms and imagery as racist and derogatory towards Native Americans and those for keeping the name who cite the history of the team, its links to Native American players and coaches who were part of the team when it was create...
This fictional, satirical follow-up to to Mark Twain’s 1876 novel is just as popular, although for most it’s for different reasons. The amount of times that the “n-word” is used is between 160 and 213 [2]. Since the 1950s, black parents and some white sympathizers have called this book out as being racist. As for my opinion on this, I never got why this was bad. Sure, it may seem racist to us, but in the context of it’s time, there’s really nothing wrong. That was the controversy of it, as for the story itself, it’s a classic in it’s own right.
How would you feel if an author published a book that contained a word that was once used frequently but has now developed into one of the most derogatory and unfriendly things a person can say? Since 1884, when the book was first published, there has been much controversy regarding the use of the word “nigger” in the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain. Many people all over the world, predominantly the African-American population, feel that the word demoralizes the Blacks, and feel that the novel should be strongly censored from society. Some say that the constant use of the “n-word” forces the reader to conceive one of the main characters, Jim (Huck’s slave friend), as a buffoon, and it therefore embarrasses the African-American community through the use of stereotype. Although it may be hard for many people to read it without having a negative reaction, the censorship of this American classic would be preposterous. As one reads this novel, one can begin to notice that the main character, Huckleberry Finn, reached a turning point with his troublesome behavior and slowly but surely began to mature and settle down into adulthood. Mark Twain actually used the relationship of Jim and Huck to portray the moral values these characters come to learn and, therefore, his book should not in any way be censored or be kept away from the classrooms. This message is more powerful than the usage of the n-word in the novel.
Sports organizations that have ethnic team names and mascots have been a controversial hot topic for decades. Professional sports franchises like the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Washington Redskins have maintained significant presence and fan base in their respective leagues, but disputes over the perceived racial offensiveness of their names has surrounded them. Some Native American activist groups and political figures think ethnic team names and mascots are disrespectful to their culture and defame the historical legacy of their ancestors. They view the name “Redskins” as a racial slur, and the cartoonish-looking Chief Wahoo mascot for the Cleveland Indians as mockery rather than flattery. Despite the fact that sports franchises know their brand is offending ethnic groups, they have refused to change their team names. Native Americans have experienced psychological distress, lower self-esteem, and a lower sense of achievement because of the offensive and stereotypical names/logos of these teams ("Washington Redskins: Do Offensive Team Names Endanger Public Health?"). This begs the question, should sports teams with potentially offensive names and mascots be required to change their identities in order to be more racially sensitive and politically correct?
Privilege is thinking something is not a problem because it’s not a problem to someone personally. It’s difficult to see a situation for what it is when it’s not specifically affecting a person. In the article “Indian mascots — you’re out,” author Jack Shakely discusses that the cultural appropriation of Native American mascots in college and professional sports teams is treated like a minuscule matter, but removing the mascots would be “the right thing to do.” Shakely expounds his first experience of conflict with his background and supporting the Cleveland Indians. The article is an opinion piece from Los Angeles Times, published on August 25, 2011. Although it isn’t recent, it’s indubitably timely. The appropriation of Native American culture
The people that David Shipler interviewed are the type of people seen every day working at restaurants, Wal-Mart, and gas stations. They do not fit into the prejudice description of mooching welfare recipients. They are people on the edge of the poverty line that are affected by a multitude of issues that snowball into a lifetime of a constant debt and crisis. Shipler studies these working po...
Cowboys and Indians is the popular game played by many children played as a game of heroes and villains. Natives are villainized in American pop culture due to the history being told by educational institutions across the nation. There are not many positive roles popular in the media about Native Americans. Many roles are even played by white people. The costume representation is not accurate either. The disrespect towards them is especially seem on Halloween, when people dress as Natives in cute and sexy ways that they think represent their culture. War paint, beads, feathers and headdresses are ceremonial accessories that represent their culture, it not a fun costume to wear. Only if they are being criticized and ridiculed, like they have been in the past. Racism has also been a huge problem when it comes to using creative names for sports teams, like the Redskins for example. Redskin is a derogatory and offensive term towards Native Americans and many white people do not see it as wrong due to the privilege they inherited throughout history. The disrespect towards them has grown and today it seems that if Natives were not getting ridiculed, they are for the most part ignored. The concerns that King describes in his book explains how the past has wired Americans to believing everything they have once learned. White people
The next reason we’ll be looking at are the stereotypical images commonly seen in literature and mascots. Mainstream media such as “Dances with Wolves”, “The Lone Ranger”, and “The Last of The Mohicans” and mascots in professional sports teams like Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Chicago Blackhawks all include representations of Native Americans that for some, are offensive. With this in mind, ...
The company NewSouth Books has published the new Huckleberry Finn by replacing the word nigger with the word “slave”. This book is for the schools who have banned the original Huck Finn. “If you can have the discussion and you’re comfortable havin’ the discussion, have it” (Williams, 2). Instead of schools banning the book they should spend time discussing the word and societal value during the 1800’s. The word nigger is okay if it is used in a literary sense but other than that is shouldn’t be used. People shouldn’t be calling each other the N-word because it is calling each other slaves. There is no sense of reclaiming the word because it will always be derogatory. The N-word is very controversial and everyone has their own
The first point of the novel from which most controversy stems is the inclusion of the word “nigger”. The inclusion of the word in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is unnecessary and offensive. Initially, critics of the novel disliked Twain’s use of vernacular because it was “vulgar and unpleasant”, disturbing genteel white Americans, not because the word “nigger” was found to be offensive (Kaye 3). Fostering an uncomfortable atmosphere for black students, critics believe that primarily white educators allow the novel because they prefer Twain’s depiction of subservient blacks (Kaye 4). Due to the prolific use of the “n-word” throughout the novel, the NAACP believes the story causes damage to black students’ self-esteem (Powell 3). Critics argue Twain’s use of a...