In “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” Richard Estrada argues that sports teams should not be allowed to continue using ethnic-based names and mascots. Estrada claims that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no matter how established or popular—should change their team names and mascots, which are degrading to Native Americans. He further suggests that the stereotypes accompanying these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and single out Native Americans, setting them aside from the rest of society. “Nobody likes to be trivialized or deprived of his or her dignity,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-based mascots enables—and even promotes—such trivialization. What makes matters worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s least politically powerful ethnic groups. He provides examples of other possible team names based on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our society. As a result, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated with simple human dignity, just like everyone else. I found Richard Estrada’s article, “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” unconvincing, and also a bit confusing. Estrada’s language seems inflated, exaggerated, and even contradictory. s evidence is entirely anecdotal, and as a result, we receive very few concrete facts to support his claims. In addition, Estrada’s credibility is unclear throughout the article. To begin with, Estrada uses many exaggerated and contradictory phrases. For instance, Estrada claims that using ethic sports teams names and mascots is “dehumanizing” to Native Americans (280). To “dehumanize” is to deprive someone of human qualities, yet Estrada never proves that this is actually what ethic sports names actually do. In fact, he completely contradicts this notion of “dehumanization” in the previous sentence, by discussing why these mascots were chosen in the first place. “The noble symbols of the Redskins or college football’s Florida Seminoles or the Illinois Illini are meant to be strong and proud” (280). Noble. Strong. Proud. These are all human qualities; indeed, they are qualities many people aspire to attain. So how can such symbols be dehumanizing? In addition, the title “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names” itself seems to contradict Estrada’s claims. By invoking the children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” Estrada seems to imply that mascots and team names don’t matter at all. I had to read the article several times before I finally grasped his intentions. Estrada is trying to be ironic. Although his title alludes to the children’s rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” Estrada is actually trying to prove the opposite: Words can hurt us, and deeply. While most people are probably familiar with the original children’s rhyme, I don’t believe that most readers will know that they should be reading Estrada’s title ironically. This is particularly true when we consider Estrada’s intended audience. This column was written for the , not for the classroom setting. How many people really critica
lly read their morning newspapers? How many people study such articles carefully, rather than skimming, and read them several times? Finally, Estrada’s credibility and investment in this issue are unclear throughout his article. Is Estrada Native American? He certainly doesn’t have to be to care about this issue, but either way, he should make it clearer he cares. If Estrada is Native American, does he presume to speak on behalf of all Native Americans? If Estrada is not Native American, how does he know any Native Americans are actually offended? (Other than the father who called the radio station, of course.) What Estrada thinks about this issue is clear. But what does he really about it? Before I read this article, I already believed that ethnic-based mascots be degrading. But Estrada does nothing to actually prove this degradation. s article includes exaggerated and contradictory language, but no concrete facts, and no clear evidence of the author’s credibility. In the end, sticks and stones may break my bones, but Estrada’s words cannot convince me. The first paragraph of this section defines the terms of the response and the student’s claims. In the example above, for instance, the student is focusing on exaggerated language, lack of evidence, and the author’s lack of credibility. The last paragraph of this section provides a sense of conclusion and restates the student’s claims/terms of response. Between the first paragraph and the last paragraph, however, what’s happening? The student is devoting at least one paragraph to each of his claims. For instance, paragraphs 2 and 3 offer examples and explanation to support the student’s claim that Estrada uses exaggerated, contradictory language. Paragraph 4 offers examples and explanation to support the student’s claim that the article lacks evidence. Paragraph 5 offers examples and explanation to support the student’s claim that Estrada’s lack credibility. As with the summary, I recommend you consider the materials in your chapter as a guide in crafting your critical response. In particular, the last five reading strategies in Chapter 12 offer a helpful guide to determining the grounds of your response. However, unlike the strong response in Comp I, in which you were allowed to reflect on your own views of the issue at hand, you may not do much of that in the paper. You want to talk about the successfulness of the writing, not your opinions or believes. While you may not just focus on your personal beliefs, you do have the following options in terms of the grounds of your response: *EVALUATING THE LOGIC OF THE ARGUMENT – This includes questions of “appropriateness,” “believability,” and “consistency/completeness,” as discussed on pages 594-596. *RECOGNIZING EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION – This includes questions relating to emotionally manipulative techniques such as overly emotional or tear-jerking language, exaggerated statistics, scary stories, doomsday-type imaginative scenarios, and other over-the-top emotionally-laden moves that the writer may be using to manipulative the reader. (See pages 596-597.) *JUDGING THE WRITER’S CREDIBILITY – This includes questions related to the writer’s “knowledge,” “fairness,” and use of “common ground,” as discussed on pages 597-598