KIN 209 Final EXAM - Grade: B+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Final in the form of an essay...

Description

In Whose Honor: American Indian Mascots in Sports California State Polytechnic University- Pomona Symone Booker

Gators, Knights, Cyclones, Redskins, what do all of these subjects have in common?

They’re all mascots for one team or another and each represent the perspective and presence of those teams. However, looking at this list once more one may notice that there is a difference between these mascots and that is that while most mascots symbolize an animal, a character, or a powerful element; redskin is a derogatory term used to describe someone of American Indian descent. In the film In Whose Honor: American Indian Mascots in Sports produced by Jay Rosenstein, the issue of having an American Indian Chief, known as Chief Illiniwek, as the school mascot for the University of Illinois. Rosenstein followed the story and struggle of Spokane Indian woman, Charlene Teters, a student from the University of Illinois and what she faced when trying to defend her culture’s honor. Teters, along with other American Indians, have made a voice for themselves and their culture and demand the same respect that is given to other cultures and traditions. Teters made the claim that American Indians should not be characterized as a mascot and supported her claim with strong premises. One of the premises used by Teters was the fact that she identified that what the University of Illinois, as well as other institutions, perceived an American Indian to be offensive. Chief Illiniwek, the mascot for the University of Illinois, wore an eagle feather headdress and danced what was to be a traditional spiritual dance that would have been performed by a Chief. This is offensive to someone like Teters because within her culture, eagle feathers are to be earned and the person wearing them is to be greatly respected. With that, her next premise is as quoted from a sign shown in the film “American Indians are humans not mascots.” The use of a Chief as a mascot suggests that it is a costume that one may put on to act the role of an American Indian, and can only be seen through that groups perception of who an American Indian is. This imitation has the power to lower the self- esteem of American Indians, as seen through the story Teters tells of her children “sinking in their seats” while watching

mascot Chief Illiniwek perform on the court at a university basketball game, for they feel that they are not being taken seriously by their community. Teters also noted that it is less honorable for any mascot to be wearing a real costume in comparison to having a caricature mascot where it is obvious that it’s a joke. However, changing each mascot from a real costume to a caricature would not solve the problem. For Teters made mention that other race caricatures have been removed from the media scene, yet the American Indian caricature is still displayed leaving Teters to feel as if team mascots are used as masks for racism. Perhaps the strongest premise used as support for her claim was her recognition of the fact that the University of Illinois was holding religious ceremonies at half times through the dancing ceremony performed by Chief Illiniwek. Which according to Teters, did not fairly represent an American Indian Chief’s ceremonial dance. In concluding her argument, Teters wanted to reach out to the viewing audience and try to get them to look at the situation from her perspective and to put themselves in her place. It was not until I watched this film that I realized that American Indian mascots are offensive to American Indians, and that they are not seen as honorable or respectful representations for their culture. I took a moment to put myself in Teters and other American Indian’s place and put my culture and religion as a form of entertainment and representation of a sporting team, and quickly identified to what they had to face. It doesn’t seem fair to continue to exclude the American Indian’s from their rights to respect and honor their culture when every other culture is able to do so. That team list could read Los Angeles Greasers, Houston Cotton Pickers, Miami Rednecks, and Boston Japs, but since it does not nor should the Washington Redskins (and other teams).

References

Rosenstein, J. (Filmmaker). (July 15, 1997). In Whose Honor: American Indian Mascots in Sports [Television Broadcast]. Arlington, VA: Public Broadcasting Service.

Promoting the Participation of Children With Disabilities in Sports, Recreation, and Physical Activities California State Polytechnic University- Pomona Symone Booker

In the article Promoting the Participation of Children With Disabilities in Sports, Recreation, and Physical Activities by Murphy, Carbone, and the Council on Children with Disabilities have made an argument as to why children with disabilities shall participate in sports, recreation, and in physical activity. Murphy et al. (2008) believe that physical activity, sports, and recreation will benefit the lives that children with disabilities, as it does in the lives of typical children. As recorded by J. H. Rimmer (2007) through Murphy et al. (2008), children

with disabilities have shown an increase in overall health and function resulting from regular physical activity, for it helps them to control the advancement of their diseases. Through the availability of the Special Olympics, children with disabilities in countries all around the are able to participate in sports to help improve their health. (Murphy et al., 2008) In supporting their claim, Murphy et al. (2008) used four supporting premises to verify why children with disabilities should participate in physical activity and how they are able to participate and the ways it benefits them. The first premise is the benefits that can stem from participating in sports, such as the formation of friendships, development of skills, expression of creativity, achievement of mental and physical health, and the establishment of self purpose in life. Murphy et al.’s (2008) main goal in having children with disabilities active is to help reverse impaired mobility and to improve overall well being, by creating forms of independence, allowing them to see their physical abilities, and having teamwork amongst other children with disabilities. The second premise is why participation should be considered despite the conditions of the children, for parents and pediatricians are able to fin carefully designed programs for children with disabilities so that they are able to be active and help reduce their condition. The third premise is the definition on how participation is determined and what barriers are contributing to the lack of participation for children with disabilities in sports and physical activity. The fourth premise is the right that these children with disabilities have to be active and involved in sports, recreation ,and physical activity. In looking at the eight standards of critical thinking, I found that this article written by Murphy et al. (2008) met a majority of the standards. This article has been consistent all the way through with it’s focus on providing reasons and opportunities for children with disabilities to be active. The relevance of this article followed suit for the subject matter did not contain any

unnecessary wording that did not support their claim. This article was accurate through the statistics that was provided, such as the number of children and adolescents that have a disability or chronic illness and the many barriers that prevent children from disabilities to participate in physical activities. Logical correctness was evident in this article for the reasoning behind each premise was clear and correctly represented the claim. This article had a sense of fairness and there was no strong evidence of any bias feelings towards this topic, as the article did not include any personal disclosure but rather facts and suggestions. The clarity of this article was clear and it was evident as to what message Murphy et al. (2008) wanted to send. The completeness of this article was not fully done, for although Murphy et al. (2008) gave solutions to opposed reasons as to why children with disabilities are not physically active, they did not mention of any opposing arguments to their claim. Precision is the only critical standard the I did not seen met by Murphy et al. (2008) in their article; they did include statistics as mentioned earlier but they were too general and did not have any supported evidence. Based upon my analysis of this article, I think that it holds a fair argument as to why children with disabilities should be active in physical activities and sports. I find Murphy et al.’s (2008) argument to be only fair due to the fact that they had a lack of studies and evidence used as support in their article.

References Murphy, N. A., Carbone, P. S., Council on Children with Disabilities.(2008). Promoting the Participation of Children With Disabilities in Sports, Recreation, and Physical Activities . Pediatrics, 121(5), 1057-1061....