So far, I think blogging is going very well. I have used similar sites before, so this isn't too confusing for me.
I like blogging because it gives me a chance to write down my thoughts, not only for others, but for myself as well. I'm pretty quiet in class, although I'm always thinking. Sometimes I want to say stuff but I'm either A. too shy or B. too tired. I am not a fan of 9:10 classes! So this way, I can blog my thoughts as soon as I get home.
The topics of my blog so far have been about the debates we had in class. I like writing about them when I get home because the thoughts are still fresh in my head. And I like writing, so arguing my point is fun.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Mascot Debate
Today in class, we watched a movie called In Whose Honor?. It was a documentary on the mascot debate. The story centered on a Native American woman named Charlene. Although she wanted to rid all sports of Native American mascots, her main focus was on Illinois and the Fighting Illini.
The movie did bring up a lot of good points. I can understand how it would be upsetting to see your culture portrayed inaccurately. I can understand how it might be awkward to watch people dress up as you for sporting events. And I can certainly understand how cartoons and caricatures are offensive.
But, this documentary was very biased. It only showed one side of the debate. I know for a fact that not all Native Americans think that mascots are offensive. Plus, half of the time, when people were talking to Charlene, they were drunk heading in to the game. I would have to say that alcohol probably had something to do with some of the things they said.
Although I can see how a Native American mascot might be offensive, I still am not completely convinced. For one, Charlene kept saying how offensive Cheif Illiniwek was. She said how the dance was a mockery and the costume he wore was a beautiful, authentic costume that should not have been worn by him. Let's talk about the costume first. If it had not been authentic, the student would have recieved criticism for that. Activists may have had a problem with how Native Americans were portrayed if the costume was fake and gaudy. So wasn't an authentic costume the best thing? And then there was the dance. I know that in Native American culture, dancing is a form of prayer. I am Catholic, and so I tried to turn this around. I thought to myself, 'What if before a sporting event, the mascot of my school performed a prayer we do in church?' But still, I could not see it as a negative thing. I think part of me thinks it's kind of cool that before a game, they would "pray". I don't think the dance had any offensive gestures; the Chief himself was completely serious. So in that way, it's hard for me to see objection.
I've always thought of most Native American mascots as a way to honor them. The mascot represents what the school wants to portray: strength, cunningness, intelligence. I am a huge Spartan fan. If they were to take away Sparty, I, too, would be devestated. What if he offended someone? What if the Irish didn't like Notre Dame's mascot, because Leperchauns aren't even a positive symbol?
I just feel like someone is always offended with something. So how far will it go?
The movie did bring up a lot of good points. I can understand how it would be upsetting to see your culture portrayed inaccurately. I can understand how it might be awkward to watch people dress up as you for sporting events. And I can certainly understand how cartoons and caricatures are offensive.
But, this documentary was very biased. It only showed one side of the debate. I know for a fact that not all Native Americans think that mascots are offensive. Plus, half of the time, when people were talking to Charlene, they were drunk heading in to the game. I would have to say that alcohol probably had something to do with some of the things they said.
Although I can see how a Native American mascot might be offensive, I still am not completely convinced. For one, Charlene kept saying how offensive Cheif Illiniwek was. She said how the dance was a mockery and the costume he wore was a beautiful, authentic costume that should not have been worn by him. Let's talk about the costume first. If it had not been authentic, the student would have recieved criticism for that. Activists may have had a problem with how Native Americans were portrayed if the costume was fake and gaudy. So wasn't an authentic costume the best thing? And then there was the dance. I know that in Native American culture, dancing is a form of prayer. I am Catholic, and so I tried to turn this around. I thought to myself, 'What if before a sporting event, the mascot of my school performed a prayer we do in church?' But still, I could not see it as a negative thing. I think part of me thinks it's kind of cool that before a game, they would "pray". I don't think the dance had any offensive gestures; the Chief himself was completely serious. So in that way, it's hard for me to see objection.
I've always thought of most Native American mascots as a way to honor them. The mascot represents what the school wants to portray: strength, cunningness, intelligence. I am a huge Spartan fan. If they were to take away Sparty, I, too, would be devestated. What if he offended someone? What if the Irish didn't like Notre Dame's mascot, because Leperchauns aren't even a positive symbol?
I just feel like someone is always offended with something. So how far will it go?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Insider vs Outsider--who should write?
When an author writes about something they know, readers get a first-hand glimpse into their world. Their stories become alive and contain bits of cultural aspects a reader wouldn't find in any other book. What makes the story so interesting is that it is believeable. Plus, the readers don't have to question the accuracy of what is written. In that respect, insider authors have an extremely large advantage.
On the other hand, though, outsider authors are not an entirely bad thing. For one, sometimes the group they write about is so quiet that they need a diplomat to help spread their message. Outsider authors help with that. For the most part, authors only write about unfamiliar subjects after enough research.
Personally, I think that any book is a good thing. Kids read less and less, so if they can find a couple books that interest them, whether they're written by an insider or outsider, it's a good thing. Schools, though, need to teach children enough about different cultures. That way, as children read, they can figure out "insiders" and "outsiders" all by themselves.
On the other hand, though, outsider authors are not an entirely bad thing. For one, sometimes the group they write about is so quiet that they need a diplomat to help spread their message. Outsider authors help with that. For the most part, authors only write about unfamiliar subjects after enough research.
Personally, I think that any book is a good thing. Kids read less and less, so if they can find a couple books that interest them, whether they're written by an insider or outsider, it's a good thing. Schools, though, need to teach children enough about different cultures. That way, as children read, they can figure out "insiders" and "outsiders" all by themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)