ColonelTeamWasp15
Do you agree or disagree with this peer’s assessment of Estrada’s…
Do you agree or disagree with this peer’s assessment of Estrada’s argument? How would you improve this peer’s argument? How would you improve Estrada’s? How would you improve your own?
BY RICHARD ESTRADA
When I was a kid living in Baltimore in the late 1950s, there was only one professional sports
team worth following. Anyone who ever saw the movie Diner knows which one it was. Back when we
liked Ike, the Colts were the gods of the gridiron and Memorial Stadium was their Mount Olympus.
Ah, yes: The Colts. The Lions. Da Bears. Back when defensive tackle Big Daddy Lipscomb was
letting running backs know exactly what time it was, a young fan could easily forget that in a game
where men were men, the teams they played on were not invariably named after animals. Among
others, the Packers, the Steelers and the distant 49ers were cases in point. But in the roll call of pro
teams, one name in particular always discomfited me: the Washington Redskins. Still, however willing I
may have been to go along with the name as a kid, as an adult I have concluded that using an ethnic
group essentially as a sports mascot is wrong.
The Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs, along with baseball teams like the Atlanta Braves and
the Cleveland Indians, should find other names that avoid highlighting ethnicity.
By no means were such names originally meant to disparage Native Americans. The noble
symbols of the Redskins or college football’s Florida State Seminoles or the Illinois lllini are meant to be
strong and proud. Yet, ultimately, the practice of using a people as mascots is dehumanizing. It sets
them apart from the rest of society. It promotes the politics of racial aggrievement at a moment when
our storehouse is running over with it.
The World Series between the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves re-ignited the debate. In
the chill night air of October, tomahawk chops and war chants suddenly became far more familiar to
millions of fans, along with the ridiculous and offensive cartoon logo of Cleveland’s “Chief Wahoo.”
The defenders of team names that use variations on the Indian theme argue that tradition
should not be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. In truth, the nation’s No. 1 P.C. [politically
correct] school, Stanford University, helped matters some when it changed its team nickname from “the
Indians” to “the Cardinals.” To be sure, Stanford did the right thing, but the school’s status as P.C.
without peer tainted the decision for those who still need to do the right thing.
Another argument is that ethnic group leaders are too inclined to cry wolf in alleging racial
insensitivity. Often, this is the case. But no one should overlook genuine cases of political insensitivity in
an attempt to avoid accusations of hypersensitivity and political correctness.
The real world is different from the world of sports entertainment. I recently heard a father who
happened to be a Native American complain on the radio that his child was being pressured into
participating in celebrations of Braves baseball. At his kid’s school, certain days are set aside on which all
children are told to dress in Indian garb and celebrate with tomahawk chops and the like.
That father should be forgiven for not wanting his family to serve as somebody’s mascot. The
desire to avoid ridicule is legitimate and understandable. Nobody likes to be trivialized or deprived of
their dignity. This has nothing to do with political correctness and the provocations of militant leaders.
Against this backdrop, the decision by newspapers in Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland to ban
references to Native American nicknames is more reasonable than some might think.
What makes naming teams after ethnic groups, particularly minorities, reprehensible is that
politically impotent groups continue to be targeted, while politically powerful ones who bite back are
left alone. How long does anyone think the name “Washington Blackskins” would last? Or how about
“the New York Jews”?
With no fewer than 10 Latino ballplayers on the Cleveland Indian’s roster, the team could
change its name to “the Banditos.” The trouble is, they would be missing the point: Latinos would
correctly object to that stereotype, just as they rightly protested against Frito-Lay’s use of the “Frito-
Bandito” character years ago.
It seems to me that what Native Americans are saying is that what would be intolerable for
Jews, blacks, Latinos and others is no less offensive to them. Theirs is a request not only for dignified
treatment, but for fair treatment as well. For America to ignore the complaints of a numerically small
segment of the population because it is small is neither dignified nor fair.
PEERS ASSESSMENT:
Estrada’s thesis is that it is wrong to use an ethnic group as a sports mascot. His supporting points were: It is dehumanizing and promotes the politics of racial aggrievement. No one should over look genuine cases of political insensitivity in an attempt to avoid accusations of hypersensitivity and political correctness. Nobody like to be trivialized or deprived of their dignity. Politically impotent groups are targeted while powerful ones who bit back are left alone His acknowledgement of opposing views were: That they were not intended to disparage Native Americans. He argues that the practice is dehumanizing and sets them apart from society. The names are meant to be represented as strong and proud. It promotes racial aggrievement. The defenders of team names with an Indian theme argue that tradition should not be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Gives credit to the most politically correct school for making a stand. Ethnic group leaders are too inclined to cry wolf in alleging racial insensitivity. States that one must not overlook genuine cases of political insensitivity. Estrada is respectful of the opposing views while refuting the views with a well thought out argument. The beginning could have been tidied up a little better but he was following “The Classical Argument” layout by beginning with background and establishing his position on the matter. I think that he was very clear with his viewpoint and argued it sufficiently and respectfully. He did use some exaggerated words and names in order to get his point across, which was unnecessary and could be considered ad hominem.
