Assignment FourRead chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the foll.docx

Assignment Four
Read chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the following:
Chapter Six
Part one: Complete End of Chapter Questions 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
& 8 found on page 175-6
Part two: Complete Internet Exercise found on page 177
Part three: Read The article (found at the bottom of this
assignment— starting on page seven) and explain the
following:
A. To what degree is Indian Mascots an issue an American
society (sports and non sport entities)?
B. What is the viewpoint of the article in stating that Native
American mascots are not done in respect.
C. Explain why the author concludes the following statement:
The use of stereotypical images of Native Americans by
educational institutions has the potential to create a racially
hostile educational environment that may be intimidating to
Indian students.
D. Why is it okay according to the article to use the “Fighting
Irish” as a mascot and not the Washington Redskins?
E. Are organizations that utilize the Indian mascots being
“cultural competent” as defined by the book. Why or Why not.
Chapter Seven
Part one: Complete End of Chapter Questions 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 on

Part two: Complete End of Chapter Exercise on pages 211-213.
Part three: Complete part a and b below.
A. According to the Crime Report, Washington Post, etc. there
is a fact: A year after Michael Brown’s fatal shooting,
unarmed black men are seven times more likely
than whites to die by police gunfire. Is this true? Is this
accurate? Is this painting a negative picture of
Caucasian police officers, many of whom may not hold
biases? Please read the following article:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/05/americas-police-
problem-isnt-just-about-police- guns-violence/
This is not a referendum on the right of the constitution to
carry, but to give additional thought to what we see and hear
in the media. After reading, this article in two to four
paragraphs:
1. State four points that the article made regarding violence
against African Americans.
2. What connection did the article make to history? Do you
agree?
3. What does this purport about racism in America and the
connection between race, oppression, and poverty?
If the website above does not work, please go to:
http://theundefeated.com/features/a-black-police-officers-
perspective/ and read the first two police officers viewpoint.
And instead of answering 1-3 above, answer the following
questions.
1. What is the perspective of the Black officers when it comes
to violence against African Americans by the police as they are
both part of the police department and the Black community?
2. Does their viewpoint indicate that there may be unconscious

bias on the part of some White officers in regards to their view
of Blacks?
3. Why is it harmful to assume that all White police officers or
even many are against Blacks?
B. Watch the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMTv0rmBEKY now answer
the following questions:
a) What are all the various stereotypes of Blacks that are
presented?
b) Do you think these stereotypes are real?
c) How would people that hold them interact with Blacks in the
workplace, in the criminal justice field, in universities?
Chapter Eight
Part one: Complete End of Chapter Questions 3, 4, 5, 8 & 9 on
pages 238-239.
Part two: Complete Internet Exercise on pages 239
Part three: Part A: Make a chart where you list, Asian
American, Latino, Europeans, General Population. Then
go through the timeline below and put a checkmark next to each
group that illustrates when laws were created to
prevent that group from migration or equal opportunity
while in the U.S.
Part B: Now state what groups were targeted more as
it relates to unfavorable laws toward their
immigration.
Part C: Now answer the following questions:
1. Do you think this biased behavior created workplace
unfairness? (Why or Why not)

2. Do you think this bias can still exist today as it relates to
certain groups who migrate to the U.S. and people looking at
them as an Us vs. Them mindset? Would this mindset contribute
to workplace bias?
Timeline
Key Dates and Landmarks in United States Immigration History
1789
The Constitution of the United States of America takes effect,
succeeding the Articles of Confederation that had governed the
union of states since the conclusion of the Revolutionary War
(March 4, 1789).
1790
The Naturalization Act of 1790 establishes a uniform rule of
naturalization and a two-year residency requirement for aliens
who are "free white persons" of "good moral character" (March
26, 1790).
1798
Considered one of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the
Naturalization Act of 1798 permits Federalist President John
Adams to deport foreigners deemed to be dangerous and
increases the residency requirements to 14 years to prevent
immigrants, who predominantly voted for the Republican Party,
from becoming citizens (June 25, 1798).
1802
The Jefferson Administration revises the Naturalization Act of
1798 by reducing the residency requirement from 14 to five
years.

1808
Importation of slaves into the United States is officially banned,
though it continues illegally long after the ban.
1819
Congress passes an act requiring shipmasters to deliver a
manifest enumerating all aliens transported for immigration.
The Secretary of State is required to report annually to
Congress the number of immigrants admitted.
1821–1830
143,439 immigrants arrive
1831–1840
599,125 immigrants arrive
1840s
Crop failures in Germany, social turbulence triggered by the
rapid industrialization of European society, political unrest in
Europe, and the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1851) lead to a new
period of mass immigration to the United States.
1841–1850
1,713,251 immigrants arrive
1848
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ends the Mexican-American
War and extends citizenship to the approximately 80,000

Mexicans living in Texas, California, and the American
Southwest.
1848
Gold is discovered in the American River, near Sacramento,
California.
1849
The California gold rush spurs immigration from China and
extensive internal migration.
1850
For the first time, the United States Census surveys the
"nativity" of citizens (born inside or outside the US).
1851–1860
1854
The Know-Nothings, a nativist political party seeking to
increase restrictions on immigration, win significant victories in
Congress, a sign of popular dissatisfaction with growing
immigration from Catholic Ireland. Protestant Americans feared
that growing Catholic immigration would place American
society under control of the Pope.
1855
Castle Garden is established as New York's principal point of
entry.

1861–1870
1861
Outbreak of the American Civil War (April 12, 1861).
1862
The Homestead Act provides free plots of up to 160 acres of
western land to settlers who agree to develop and live on it for
at least five years, thereby spurring an influx of immigrants
from overpopulated countries in Europe seeking land of their
own.
1862
The "Anti-Coolie" Act discourages Chinese immigration to
California and institutes special taxes on employers who hire
Chinese workers.
1863
Riots against the draft in New York City involve many
immigrants opposed to compulsory military service (July 13–16,
1863).
1863
The Central Pacific hires Chinese laborers and the Union
Pacific hires Irish laborers to construct the first transcontinental
railroad, which would stretch from San Francisco to Omaha,
allowing continuous travel by rail from coast to coast.

1869
The First Transcontinental Railroad is completed when the
Central Pacific and Union Pacific lines meet at Promontory
Summit, Utah (May 10, 1869).
1870
The Naturalization Act of 1870 expands citizenship to both
whites and African-Americans, though Asians are still excluded.
1870
The Fifteenth Amendment is ratified, granting voting rights to
citizens, regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of
servitude."
1870
Jacob Riis, who later pioneered photojournalism and authored
How the Other Half Lives, emigrates from Denmark to the
United States.
1871–1880
1881–1890
1881–1885
1 million Germans arrive in the peak of German immigration
1881–1920

2 million Eastern European Jews immigrate to the United States
1882
The Chinese Exclusion Act restricts all Chinese immigration to
the United States for a period of ten years.
1882
The Immigration Act of 1882 levies a tax of 50 cents on all
immigrants landing at US ports and makes several categories of
immigrants ineligible for citizenship, including "lunatics" and
people likely to become public charges.
1885
The Alien Contract Labor Law prohibits any company or
individual from bringing foreigners into the United States under
contract to perform labor. The only exceptions are those
immigrants brought to perform domestic service and skilled
workmen needed to help establish a new trade or industry in the
US.
1886
The Statue of Liberty is dedicated in New York Harbor.
1886
Emma Goldman, Lithuanian-born feminist, immigrates to the
United States, where over the next 30 years she will become a
prominent American anarchist. During the First World War, in
1917, she is deported to Russia for conspiring to obstruct the
draft.

1889
Jane Addams and Ellen Gates Starr found Hull-House in
Chicago.
1890
The demographic trends in immigration to the United States
shift as immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe
substantially increases, while the relative proportion of
immigration from Northern and Western Europe begins to
decrease.
1891–1900
3,687,564 immigrants arrive.
1891
Congress makes "persons suffering from a loathsome or a
dangerous contagious disease," those convicted of a
"misdemeanor involving moral turpitude," and polygamists
ineligible for immigration. Congress also establishes the Office
of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury
Department.
1892
The Geary Act extends the Chinese Exclusion Act for ten more
years, and adds the requirement that all Chinese residents carry
permits, as well as excluding them from serving as witnesses in
court and from bail in habeus corpus proceedings.
1892
Ellis Island, the location at which more than 16 million
immigrants would be processed, opens in New York City.

1901–1910
1901
After President William McKinley is shot by a Polish anarchist
(September 6, 1901) and dies a week later (September 14,
1901), Congress enacts the Anarchist Exclusion Act, which
prohibits the entry into the US of people judged to be anarchists
and political extremists.
1902
The Chinese Exclusion Act is again renewed, with no ending
date.
1906
The Naturalization Act of 1906 standardizes naturalization
procedures, makes some knowledge of the English language a
requirement for citizenship, and establishes the Bureau of
Immigration and Naturalization in the Commerce Department to
oversee national immigration policy.
1907
The Expatriation Act declares that an American woman who
marries a foreign national loses her citizenship.
1907
Under an informal "Gentlemen's Agreement," the United States
agrees not to restrict Japanese immigration in exchange for
Japan's promise to voluntarily restrict Japanese emigration to

the United States by not issuing passports to Japanese laborers.
In return, the US promises to crack down on discrimination
against Japanese-Americans, most of whom live in California.
1907
The Dillingham Commission is established by Congress to
investigate the effects of immigration on the United States.
1911–1920
2 million Italians arrive in the peak of Italian immigration
1911–1920
1911
The Dillingham Commission, established in 1907, publishes a
42-volume report warning that the "new" immigration from
Southern and Eastern Europe threatens to subvert American
society. The Dillingham Commission's recommendations lay the
foundation for the Quota Acts of the 1920s.
1913
California's Alien Land Law prohibits "aliens ineligible for
citizenship" (Chinese and Japanese) from owning property in
the state, providing a model for similar anti-Asian laws in other
states.
1917
Congress enacts a literacy requirement for immigrants by
overriding President Woodrow Wilson's veto. The law requires

immigrants to be able to read 40 words in some language and
bans immigration from Asia, except for Japan and the
Philippines.
1917
The US enters the First World War.
1917
The Immigration Act of 1917 restricts immigration from Asia
by creating an "Asiatic Barred Zone."
1917
The Jones-Shafroth Act grants US citizenship to Puerto Ricans,
provided that they can be recruited by the US military.
1919
The First Red Scare leads to an outbreak of fear and violence
against people deemed to be political radicals and foreigners
considered to be susceptible to communist propaganda and more
likely to be involved in the Bolshevik Revolution.
1921–1930
4,107,209 immigrants arrive.
1921
The Emergency Quota Act restricts immigration from a given
country to 3% of the number of people from that country living
in the US in 1910.

1922
The Cable Act partially repeals the Expatriation Act, but
declares that an American woman who marries an Asian still
loses her citizenship.
1923
In the landmark case of United States v. Bhaghat Singh Thind,
the Supreme Court rules that Indians from the Asian
subcontinent cannot become US citizens.
1924
The Immigration Act of 1924 limits annual European
immigration to 2% of the number of people from that country
living in the United States in 1890. The Act greatly reduces
immigration from Southern and Eastern European nationalities
that had only small populations in the US in 1890.
1924
The Oriental Exclusion Act prohibits most immigration from
Asia, including foreign-born wives and the children of
American citizens of Chinese ancestry.
1924
The Border Patrol is created to combat smuggling and illegal
immigration.
1929
The National Origins Formula institutes a quota that caps
national immigration at 150,000 and completely bars Asian
immigration, though immigration from the Western Hemisphere
is still permitted.

1931–1940
532,431 immigrants arrive.
1933
To escape persecution by the Nazis, Albert Einstein, the
greatest theoretical physicist of the century, immigrates to the
United States from Germany.
1934
The Tydings-McDuffe Act grants the Philippines independence
from the United States on July 4, 1946, but strips Filipinos of
US citizenship and severely restricts Filipino immigration to the
United States.
1940
The Alien Registration Act requires the registration and
fingerprinting of all aliens in the United States over the age of
14.
Sources
Calavita, Kitty. US Immigration Law and the Control of Labor:
1820-1924. London, Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.
Digital History: Ethnic Voices.
LeMay, Michael and Robert Barkan Elliott, eds., US
Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues: A
Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Smith, Marian L. Overview of INS History to 1998.
ARTICLE (for Chapter six exercise)
Contact Information:

Dr. Chris Kraatz
Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Cavanaugh Hall, Rm 331
425 University Blvd
Indianapolis, IN 46202
[email protected]
http://www.iupui.edu/~philosop/ckraatz.htm
(317) 274-5344
Abstract: The Truth About American Indian Mascots
The truth about American Indian mascots is that they cannot be
morally justified. This is demonstrated by outlining the extent
of the “mascotizing” of Indians in American culture, and then
assessing the reliability of the various means at our disposal for
morally evaluating this practice. In the end, the argument is that
the only reliable avenue to ascertaining the truth about such
mascots is listening to what representative groups of Indians
have to say about them. Moreover, the opinions of such
representative groups regarding the mascots that depict them are
overwhelmingly condemnatory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Truth about American Indian Mascots
by Dr. Chris Kraatz
Schools that continue the use of Indian imagery and
references…have simply failed to listen to the Native groups,
religious leaders, and civil rights organizations that oppose
these symbols…[T]he use of the imagery and traditions, no
matter how popular, should end when they are offensive.
(United States Civil Rights Commission - April 13, 2001)
To “mascotize” a group of people is systematically to
attach depictions of that group to commercial products, ventures

or enterprises such that (1) the depicted group is defined by
nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, (2) the depictions are
designed by and profit only people outside the depicted group,
and (3) the depictions are considered disrespectful,
inappropriate, or stereotypic by a majority of persons within the
depicted group.
The “mascotizing” of a group is to be distinguished from
isolated individual cases of such depictions. For although
individual cases of depictions fitting the above description may
in fact be offensive or stereotypic, they do not systematically
reduce the status of a group from “persons” to “mascots.” The
infamous “Frito Bandito,” for example, had all of the above
three properties. But it does not follow that Mexican-Americans
have as a group been reduced to mascots. “Mascotizing” is a
systematic reduction of group status achieved through a
multitude of commercial enterprises. As this paper will argue,
although there are a variety of mascots in American culture
which depict different groups of people, American Indians are
the only group to have been “mascotized” in this systematic
fashion.
Due to their significant media coverage, sports teams are
the most visible users of Indian mascots. It is no surprise,
therefore, that most of the controversy surrounding Indian
mascots involves sports teams. Major league teams receive most
of the attention on this matter, but Indian mascots are not
limited to teams of professional status. According to the
National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media, there are
nearly 3,000 sports teams in the United States with mascots of
Indian theme. This figure includes professional teams, college
and university teams, high school and junior high school teams,
and elementary school teams. These figures do not include
“little league” teams for baseball, football, soccer, etc.
Despite the overwhelming multitude of sports team

mascots in the United States, sports represents only a portion of
the mascotizing of American Indians. There are significant
areas of interest outside the sports arenas where this curious
phenomenon can readily be observed, and discussion of the
mascot issue would lack important insights were these areas not
included. Automobile manufacturers, for example, often make
explicit use of Indian names, images and themes. A casual
perusing of the Kelley Blue Book can find at least ten recent
models which confirm this, and this number grows significantly
when motorcycles and recreational vehicles are included.
The task of enumerating the Indian names and images on
grocery store products would be daunting indeed. Products
including apple juice, margarine, beef jerky, chewing tobacco,
and bottled water are but a few examples of those bearing
Indian names and/or logos. There are alcoholic beverages with
such names or themes on their labels; Crazy Horse has a malt
liquor named after him (not to mention a stunning line of
women’s clothing by Liz Claiborne). The Indianapolis telephone
book has five different listings for “Cherokee” including a
construction firm, a concrete supplier, a home remodeling
company, a realtor, and a window manufacturer; “Indian” is
used to name a church, a youth league, a food service, a country
club and a golf shop; “Dakota” names a consulting group, an
engineering company, a golf course and a retail watch company
(the “Dakota Watch Company” is an inexplicable curiosity, as
the Dakota have no word in their language for “time”).
Sports teams are a flash point for the Indian mascot
controversy, but the central issue at stake extends into nearly
every corner of life in America. There seems to be no kind of
product or company that falls outside the scope of this
pervasive use of American Indian names, images and themes.
An attempt to list all the products, companies and teams which
use American Indian names, logos, etc. would itself more than
exhaust the limits of this paper. In light of the endlessness of

this phenomenon, one cannot help but ask: “Is this a good
thing?”
This question would perhaps be easier to answer if there
were other readily available examples of systematic use of
nationality, race, ethnicity or religious tradition in a way that is
similar to what we have been describing. But there are no other
circumstances or phenomena in American culture that could be
considered even roughly analogous to this overwhelming
commercial appropriation of Indians. Although it is often noted,
for example, that there are sports teams that use names or
images of other groups of people besides Indians, the way in
which sports teams use non-Indian group names is
fundamentally different from the way in which Indian names are
used. Team names such as “Cowboys,” “Patriots,” “Senators” or
“Cavaliers,” for example, do not constitute an analogous
mascotizing of anyone for the simple reason that even though
these names refer to groups of people, the group names are
generic and do not refer in any significant way to nationality,
race, ethnicity or religion. Names, however, such as
“Seminoles,” “Chiefs,” “Braves” or “Fighting Sioux” refer
explicitly to nationality, race, ethnicity and religion.
“Trojans,” “Spartans” and “Vikings” are popular sports
team names that pick out groups according to nationality, race
or ethnicity, but these are also fundamentally different from
Indian mascots. These names do not depict existing peoples and
cannot, therefore, affect the lives of those they depict (for better
or for worse) – neither can they be regarded as appropriate or
inappropriate by the groups in question. The Notre Dame
Fighting Irish and the Boston Celtics actually are examples of
sports teams whose names and images depict an existing racial
or ethnic group, but even these are significantly different from
the cases of Indian mascots. The Celtics play in a city with a
large Irish population, the Fighting Irish represent a university
established and largely populated by Irish people. Although it

may appear that these would constitute examples of mascotizing
analogous to that of American Indians, they do not for the
simple reason that they were thought up and instituted by the
very people (or group) that they depict. There is no such Indian
mascot that was similarly devised by Indian persons. Another
relevant difference between these cases is that what Irish people
say about the mascots that depict them is taken as decisive in
establishing the legitimacy of the mascots. The team names
“Celtics” and “Fighting Irish” tend to be quite popular among
persons of Irish heritage, and this popularity is taken as a
reliable indicator of the appropriateness of these names. But the
fact that Indian mascots tend to be grossly unpopular among
Indians is not taken as an indicator that there may be something
inappropriate about them – if it were, then there would be no
more Indian mascots. The only persons who defend the use of
American Indians as sports team mascots are those who profit
from the use of such images – coincidentally, there is no group
of American Indian affiliation that profits even from a single
mascot.
In searching for other instances of mascots that are similar in
relevant ways, we always come up short. American Indian
sports mascots are unique in that they have all of the following
properties: (1) they depict groups of people based on
nationality, race, ethnicity or religion, (2) they are designed
only by and make a profit solely for people outside the group
that they depict, and (3) they are considered disrespectful,
inappropriate, and stereotypic by a majority of persons within
the group that they depict. Even assuming that these points have
been overstated and that there actually are several (or even one
hundred) teams with non-Indian mascots that satisfy these same
criteria, we still have no basis for meaningful comparison or
analogy due to the sheer overwhelming number of teams with
Indian names, etc. It is not only the name use that we are trying
to address here, but also the pervasive scope of the
phenomenon. There are thousands of Indian-themed teams in the

United States, no similar situation exists for any other group.
This apparent uniqueness of the mascotizing of Indians can
also be observed in the other areas mentioned previously. There
are no automobiles named after other groups of people, Indians
are the only people named in any way at all on various means of
transportation.
The same is true concerning the labels on common grocery
store items, and at this point the disparity which is coming to
the fore becomes astonishing. The number of different items
that are commonly found on grocery store shelves must
certainly be huge, each requiring a name on the label. And yet,
despite this enormous demand for names and images to go on
product labels, the number of items one can find whose names
or images depict the nationality, race, ethnicity or religion of a
non-Indian group is almost nothing (with perhaps maple syrup,
pancake mix, and frozen waffles being the sole offenders).
Regardless of what they are attached to, American Indian
mascots (and product names) constitute a kind of cultural
singularity in the United States. The undeniably unique and
systematic character of this phenomenon is significant if for no
other reason than that it demonstrates conclusively that the
question of the Just or Unjust character of Indian mascots (and
product names) cannot be answered by appealing to similar
depictions of other groups – there are no other groups that are
mascotized in this systematic way. How then are we to find the
truth about American Indian mascots; their legitimacy or
illegitimacy, their showing of respect or disrespect, their
morality or immorality?
Owners of teams or products who are asked to explain
their choice of mascot, name or logo often do so by contending
that their choice is motivated by a desire to show respect to the
group they are depicting. Indians (so the argument often

proceeds) are a people of great courage and integrity, it is
therefore a show of respect and honor to name a baseball team
after them, or an SUV, or a line of clothing, or a malt liquor,
etc.
Assuming that respect and honor really were the true motives in
naming such a great variety of items and teams after American
Indians, we might encourage (or even expect) a more even
distribution of such use of group imagery and theme. After all,
respect ought not be demonstrated only for Indians – all peoples
deserve to be respected similarly. But a world in which groups
are respected by being mascotized would be absurd and even
comical. This is easily confirmed when we suppose even
isolated instances of similar treatment of other groups. One
never sees a “Jeep Grande Jew” on the highway, for example,
but one regularly sees “Jeep Grande Cherokees;” one cannot
drive a “Plymouth Holy Communion,” or camp in an “African-
American,” but one can drive a “Plymouth Sundance” and camp
in a “Winnebago;” neither can one purchase Martin Luther
King, Jr. malt liquor or Angel Gabriel wine (as one can Crazy
Horse malt liquor or Thunderbird wine); there are no
Blackskins, Yellowskins or Whiteskins playing football
anywhere, but there are Redskins. Tim Giago (Lakota), former
editor in chief of The Lakota Times and Indian Country Today
puts it this way: "Would you paint your face black, wear an afro
wig and prance around the football field trying to imitate your
perceptions of Black people? Of course not! That would be
insulting to Blacks, so why is it OK to do it to Indians?"
These outrageous examples of product names and team mascots
could not be established as respectful or appropriate by simply
noting that they were chosen by people with innocent motives.
If the motive of the owner of such a team or product were to be
taken seriously, then wouldn’t the motive of profit deserve
significant consideration? We would be wise to remember that
team mascots (as well as product names and logos) are

motivated principally by profit. Names are chosen to sell,
period. Appealing to the motives or attitudes of those who chose
these mascots or product names is not a helpful tool in
answering the question of the respect or disrespect, the morality
or immorality of such depictions. Respect as a motive is
untenable, profit as a motive creates suspicion. Motive tells us
something about the owners of these teams or products, but it
doesn’t tell us anything about the mascots or images they have
chosen.
Whence comes the truth about American Indian mascots?
The truth is not ascertainable by way of any comparison to other
similar phenomena. The motives of people endorsing these
images are irrelevant at best - profit oriented at worst. Are not
the only relevant voices left to listen to the voices of Indians
themselves? If so, then it follows that the truth about mascots
and other images can only be ascertained by way of consulting
the groups that are so depicted. Only the voices of the groups
depicted are to be considered as authoritative.
What do we hear about the mascot issue when we listen to
American Indians? So strong is the unanimity of representative
organizations in condemning the mascotizing of Indians that
once we become aware of it, nothing seems to count as an
informed opinion on this matter unless these voices be included.
Consider, for example, this statement from The Society of
Indian Psychologists of the Americas:
We are concerned that the continued use of Indian symbols and
mascots seriously compromises our ability to engage in ethical
professional practice…it establishes an unwelcome academic
environment for Indian (students, staff, and faculty) and
contributes to the miseducation of all members of the (campus)
community regarding the cultural practices and traditions of an
entire ethnic group.
(January 1999)

The National Congress of American Indians has this to add:
[T]he NCAI denounces the use of any American Indian name or
Artifice associated with Indian mascots; and calls upon all
reasonable individuals in decision making positions to
voluntarily change racist and dehumanizing mascots.
(Resolution MID-GB-93-58, June 1993)
Similar positions have also been expressed by The National
Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media, Kola, The
American Indian Movement, and The Institute of American
Indian Arts.
Whether or not someone is harmed by a practice can be very
informative as to whether or not that practice can be morally
justified. This idea does not necessarily bind us to a Utilitarian
approach to the problem. It seems that even the stiffest of
Kantians would have to acknowledge that the practice of
mascotizing treats rational beings as merely a means to an end.
But if it is further established that mascotizing is significantly
harmful to Indians, then the practice is certainly shown to be
unjustifiable in a more comprehensive way. Not only is it the
case that American Indians accrue no profits or benefits of any
kind from being mascotized, but it is also widely asserted that
there is great harm suffered as a result of this. The United
States Civil Right Commission has echoed this theme from the
claims of the above organizations in its 2001 statement:
The use of stereotypical images of Native Americans by
educational institutions has the potential to create a racially
hostile educational environment that may be intimidating to
Indian students. American Indians have the lowest high school
graduation rates. The perpetuation of harmful stereotypes may
exacerbate these problems.

It is important to note here that the reasons used to support
the claims of Native groups (that Indian mascots are harmful)
need not themselves be compelling to non-Indians. The is surely
an idea that many non-Indian Philosophers and academics will
find hard to swallow, but what Indian groups say about mascots
that depict them is compelling because it is said by Indians.
Many people do find the reasons in support of their claims to be
strongly supportive of the position that mascotizing is harmful,
but to debate this point would betray a misinformed treatment
of the subject. What we have established here is that native
groups occupy a privileged position with respect to providing a
moral assessment of mascots that depict them. They occupy this
privileged position not because they offer compelling reasons
for what they say, but rather because no other groups can
reasonably be understood as being similarly competent to render
such an opinion. There are no other groups in similar
circumstances with respect to being mascotized, and those who
benefit from or own Indian themed commodities can only be
taken as offering assessments motivated by profit. That leaves
Native groups as the sole voices of authority on this matter.
This short summary should serve to consolidate the points that
have hopefully been demonstrated. First, through a multitude of
commercial ventures, Indians have been mascotized in
American culture. Second, in estimating the moral status of this
mascotizing, the only reliable avenue for ascertaining any truth
is the consultation of representative groups of American
Indians. Third, an opinion informed by what such representative
groups of Indians have to say is unable to include any notion of
the justifiability of Indian mascots. Mascotizing reduces
persons to charicatures, it reduces intrinsic worth to financial
worth, it creates an environment of ignorance and intimidation.
The force of these arguments is expressed in a simple and direct
way by Barbara Munson (Oneida): "When someone says you are
hurting them by your action, if you persist - then the harm

becomes intentional."
[I am deeply indebted to American Indian Cultural
Supporthttp://www.aics.org/
for providing much of the information and references in this
paper.]
2

Assignment FourRead chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the foll.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assignment FourRead chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the foll.docx

Similar to Assignment FourRead chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the foll.docx (6)

More from rock73

More from rock73 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assignment FourRead chapters 6, 7 and 8 then complete the foll.docx