Mission Accomplished?

In this essay in Binghamton Writes, the topic of sexual assault in the military was discussed. The essay talks about how women are not being treated well in the army, or out of it. Women are being mistreated in the military, and then when they get out of it they begin to develop PTSD. The author discussed that not enough support is given to the soldiers when they get home, some is given, but it's not enough.

I can't believe that this essay was in this book. It starts off really well, but as it continues to go on it starts to lose its topic. The longer the essay goes on, the more unclear it gets. Also, this isn't an op-ed. It's just an editorial. This essay confuses me.

Article #10

Citation:
THE WASHINGTON, TIMES. "'Redskins' Isn't Only Offensive Name." Washington Times, The (DC) (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.

 Summary:
The President recently weighed in on the Redskins name change. People are starting to consider this name offensive... but are they overlooking something else? If the name Redskins is offensive, then the name of our 46th state must be changed. Oklahoma, is derived from two Choctaw Indian words meaning"red people". If the Redskins are offensive, then how isn't this?

This is a huge point being made. This really just shows that people like to pick their battles. If this soon turns into a debate over whether a states name would be changed, that would be huge. I think people shouldn't be hypocrites.

Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=7&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=4KB520131009020922000033

Article #9

Citation:
JESSE, WASHINGTON. "As Debate Over 'Redskins' Name Intensifies, Hard To Tell How Many Indians Think It's A Slur." Canadian Press, The (n.d.): Points of View Reference Center. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.

Summary:
Debate has been intensifying over whether or not the Redskins' name should be changed. More and more Native Americans have been weighing in on the name recently. Tommy Yazzie, superintendent of the Red Mesa school district on the Navajo Nation reservation weighed in, saying that his tribe has better things to worry about. The name of his school team? The Redskins. Other people say the name is respectful, but once other 'skins start calling people by their skins then it becomes racist. In 1932, Owner George Preston chose the name to honor Head Coach William Dietz, an Indian.

This article shed some more light on this debate for me. The fact that the name was created in honor of someone really changed how I look at it. The name was not picked with hate, but to honor someone and their heritage. People are just looking way too into the name.

Link:
http://web.ebscohost.com/pov/detail?vid=6&sid=9f223762-e63b-4a6f-ba5b-87d93f97f0b0%40sessionmgr115&hid=118&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#db=pwh&AN=MYO369276640613

My Topic Proposal

In recent discussions of the Redskins, a controversial issue has been whether the name should be changed. On one hand, some argue that there is much tradition in the name. From this perspective, the name is a compliment. On the other hand, however, others argue that it's extremely insulting. In the words of the Oneidans, one of the view's main proponents, the phrase is "a dictionary defined racial epithet." According to this view, the name should not be used. In sum, then, the issue is whether the Redskins can keep their name or have to change it.

My own view is that it should not be changed. Thought I concede that some may be insulted by it, I still maintain that we are trying to feel for those that we think should be insulted. For example, 9 out of 10 Native Americans are not insulted by it. Although some may object that its a racist term, I would reply that most are actually not insulted by the term. This issue is important because it deals with racism and political correctness

Rogerian Rhetoric

"Rogerian Rhetoric" by David Brent explains what you'd expect it would; Rogerian Rhetoric. Rogerian Rhetoric is a way to analyze another writer's writings. It's a much calmer way of writing an Op-Ed, it uses a way that I don't think many writers use these days. Most writers are very confrontational, but that's not what Rogerian Rhetoric is. 

.

 Brent uses four points to describe how to use Rogerian Rhetoric;

"1. An introduction to the problem and a demonstration that the opponent's position is understood.

2. A statement of the contexts in which the opponent's position may be valid.

3. A statement of the writer's position, including the contexts in which it is valid.

4. A statement of how the opponent's position would benefit if he were to adopt elements of the writer's position. If the writer can show that the positions complement each other, that each supplies what theother lacks, so much the better. (283)." 

These steps make you consider the authors points, and take the positives from it. It doesn't want you ripping someone's writings to shreds.  Rogerian Rhetoric wants you to consider the author's points, and really see where they were coming from.

Article #8

Citation:
"Tribe seeks to force NFL Redskins name change." CNN Wire 7 Oct. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.

Summary:
The Redskins owner has put in his two cents. The NFL commissioner has done the same. Now, the Oneida Indian Nation is weighing in. The Oenidans held a symposium in the nation's capital on Monday, October 7th. Representative Ray Halbritter made it clear that he and his group were clearly offended by the team's name. When asked why they are only going after the Redskins and not the Braves or Indians, he responded by saying that while some names are respectful, some are "a dictionary defined racial epithet." He believes that President Obama being the first President to speak against the name was a historic moment.The Oenidans seem to be in the minority of Native Americans offended by the name.


I believe that the Oenidans have a legitimate say in this case. However, I would like to know why they are offended, as compared to other Native American groups. Most do not take offense, but this takes serious offense from it. They have started radio campaigns against the team for each city the team plays in. I want to know what makes the word so strong for them, and why it isn't strong for others.


Link:
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|A345025682

Article #7

Citation:
Travis, Waldron. "How Much Would It Cost Dan Snyder To Rebrand The Redskins?" ThinkProgress RSS. N.p., 13 May 2013. Web. 16 Oct. 2013

Summary:
A main point in Snyder's refusal to change the Redskins' name is the potential cost of the rebrand. It is predicted that rebranding an NFL team could potentially cost between 10 and 20 million dollars. However, based on studies of college teams, this could quickly be turned into a profit. Teams that have changed their Native American connections have turned profits within 1-2 years after the name change. This is however, with winning seasons behind them and has only been done in college, not yet in a professional sport.

I don't know if I completely believe this study. It makes a lot of predictions (instead of using cold hard data) to come up with results. Also, changing a college football team is completely different from changing a professional team. I would not want to compare apples to oranges.

Link:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2013/05/13/1997471/how-much-would-it-cost-dan-snyder-to-rebrand-the-redskins/