Time To Change With Time Essays - Cultural Appropriation

Time To Change With Time Time To Change With Time Change starts when someone sees the next step. ~William Drayton Native Americans are trying to take that next step. For the past 100 years Americans have stolen their sacred names and used them for mascots of high school, college, and professional sports teams. The National Education Association is one of the first to step to the plate by passing, Article I-41, which advises use of Prejudicial Terms and Symbols The National Education Association deplores prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, size, marital status, or economic status and rejects the use of names, symbols, caricatures, emblems, logos, and mascots that promote such prejudice. (92,94) By having these practices they believe the rights of Native Americans are protected. Native American Mascots in sports need to change to protect and uphold the rights that are granted to them from the constitution. If we started all over before any names were made and altered these names towards other races how would people react? Lets take the Cleveland Indians for example. What would happen if we had used the Jews, Blacks or Chinese as this political cartoon suggests. Every race involved would have been in an uproar when the caricature came out. They would feel that their constitutional rights were being ignored. But, when Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, runs about drunkenly at baseball games1 they feel that it is ok to disregards the Indian name, heritage, and ritual. Taking in the psychological considerations for the Native Americans dehumanization, as the word implies, is a psychological process that reduces a person or group to a sub-human level. One way in which this process is deployed is by suggesting the subject of the dehumanization is like an animal. Because animals of various types and Indians related mascots are those most frequently used, it can be observed that this practi ce places Native Peoples on a par with wild beasts.2 The people or person who decided to use the name the Indians was not thinking of the long-term controversy it was going to cause. As a group of professional mental health providers, we are in agreement that using images of American Indians as mascots?is damaging to the self-identity, self-concept and self-esteem of our people. These names might seem powerful and forceful but in the long run they have put a culture down and made the fell less of a person. Not only using the name of Indian is wrong but using Redskin is also degrading. The Washington Redskins have used the name redskins for the last 67 years, and maybe the sports fans have just been accustom to the word. Maybe they should just learn what the word means. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the word redskins in the following manner: American Indian, usually taken to be offensive. The word originated in the 1600's when bounty hunters exchanged the dead bodies of Native women, children and men for money. Since the bodies were too much trouble to transport, the bounty hunters started skinning their victims and exchanging the skins for money. Thus the term redskins were invented. The unified voice of American Indians has been effective. Most recently, a federal trademark panel ruled to revoke the Washington Redskins' federal trademark protection, because the trademark was considered disparaging to the American Indian people?3 When the Redskins have to change their name maybe they will think about the Yellowskins. Since most of the population is Caucasian why couldn't we have the name changed. If we have been using the Redskins, which degrade the American Indians, while we don't think so, why shouldn't we use the Washington Yellowskins? This change would not only cause uproar in society, but may even cause a major boycott. But why should this change of name cause a boycott? Because Americans only care about one person and that is themselves. Americans believe in protecting their own constitutional and or civil rights, not to help smaller minorities. Lame Deer hits the nail on the head when he states Desire killed that man, as desire has killed many before and after him. If this earth should ever be destroyed, it will be by desire, by lust of pleasure

Political Morality Essays - American Political Philosophy

Political Morality Essays - American Political Philosophy Political Morality topic: American History- Winthrop, Hutchinson Political Morality In Webster's dictionary, morality is defined as "principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics." The principles of morality have countless times evolved over the ages. In earlier times, death was an easy penalty for many crimes. These crimes today are considered minor and are penalized with a slap on the hand. Is this considered wrong? Who is the correct authority to consult on what is right or wrong? In today's society, two major factors concern how the way members of society act and behave. The first is our national government. Members of our government in positions of authority decide everything in our lives in the form of laws which determine our behavior. One of the most important documents written by our government is the Declaration of Independence. The monarchy was taking away power from the colonists and putting more demands on. In return, the colonists declared their freedom from their tyrant. In this document, it states, "All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The great men who wrote this down had a strong sense of morals. They believed that men were given rights by God that no one could take away. This is essential to the issue of morality because it determines the rights- that are agreed upon all- are wrong. This brings us to religion. Religion is a major contributor to how we think and act because it mirrors our beliefs in what we hold as right or wrong. An example of this is the native tribes of africa and South America where a number of tribes practice cannibalism. While this is considered a sin in most christian religions, the tribes have evolved into cannibalism as a way to survive in life and have no objections to their eating habits. The problem arises when the line between government and religion is crossed. While religion does not have to power to punish one physically, but rather soulfully of one has sinned. The government has the power to sentence punishment, yet should have no power concerning God. Many different religions have evolved all over the world and in the process, have people have been prosecuted in their faith. The first settlers in the new world came here to avoid prosecution from the powerful church/government of that time. Specifically, the Church of England headed by the king. Puritan leaders led their followers to a place where they could express their religion with no fear of other faiths. One such leader was John Winthrop. John Winthrop was a powerful Puritan governor in the colony of Massachusetts Bay. He believed that this was a calling from God for him to lead the new religious experiment-a covenant with God to built a model for mankind. "We shall be a city upon the hill." declared Winthrop. As governor Winthrop held considerable power. He distrusted the commoners and thought democracy was the "meanest and worst" forms of government. Anyone who brought trouble or had indifferent thought were severely punished to "save their soul." As one of his extensions of his powers he banished Roger Williams, a popular Salem minister with radical ideas and an unrestrained tongue, and Mistress Anne Hutchinson, A strong willed women who challenged the authority of the clergy by stating the truly saved need not bother to obey the laws of God or man. Several problems arise throughout this banishment. I am for a democratic society in which one can express his or her thoughts without the fear of prosecution. They did not have the luxury of this. The need for the expressment of ideas is essential for a growing environment. If no growth is made, then expansion of the community is halted to a standstill. The limit of new idea's must have a point, though. In recent news, the Unabomber has issued a ultimanium with his manuscript. In the past, such a request would have been rediculous. In his manuscript he expresses his view on the evils of technology. While a citizen is entitled to free speech and press, threatening murder is not such an option.