20 April 2014
Critical Analysis of Not for Sport by Barbara Munson
In the blog Not for Sport by Barbara Munson, the argument is presented that teams should not use “Indian” mascots. Using a statement and response dialogue Munson argues against what she feels are “common misunderstandings on this issue” (Munson 1). Munson uses ethos, pathos and logos with weak results. Munson’s target audience are the general population and more specifically communities with current “Indian” mascots and leaders in those communities. Munson starts Not for Sport with a weak attempt at ethos. She is a mother supporting her daughter’s cause. The letter her daughter wrote to her principal on the issue lead their “family to activism on the state and national level” (Munson 1). Munson is referred to as a “Native American activist” (Munson 1). Munson speaks for all Native Americans when she says, “We experience it as no less than a mockery of our cultures” (Munson 1). Munson again assumes the opinions of Native Americans when saying “we don’t want them demeaned by being “honored” in a sports activity on a playing field” (Munson 2). Munson says, “Native people are saying” (Munson 1) but, she does not give us specific Native people. “Native American educators, parents and students are realizing that, while they may treat a depiction of an Indian person with great respect, such respect is not necessarily going to be accorded to their logo in the mainstream society” (Munson 2) is an attempt to show additional support. She would like us to think of her as a being trustworthy and having experience both as an activist and as a member of the Native American culture and receiving the support of both the Native American community and others. These qualities do not make her an expert and her supporting sources are not specified and are only generalized statements. Munson continues by blending pathos and logos, combining emotions with logic, to support...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document