Analysis Of Indian Mascots-You Re Out By Jack Shakley

The article “Indian Mascots-You’re Out” by Jack Shakley, was published in the Los Angeles Times in August 2011. The author argues the issues of sport teams having Native American names. The author wrote the article due to more and more Native Americans protesting at stadiums. This article can be divided into five sections. In the introduction, the author opens the article by giving us history on how he first encountered this topic in the early 1950s. He tells the readers, that his father gave him money to buy a baseball cap, but was also conflicted. He originally wanted a Yankees hat because of a fellow Oklahoma Mickey, Mantle came up as being touted as the rookie of the year. Since he is mixed with Muscogee/Creek, he felt misplaced to the

One type of fallacy that appears in the introduction is a bandwagon which is defined as “the urge people follow the same path everyone else is taking” (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters, 78). This occurs as bandwagon because, he says he felt conflicted, because he loved the Yankee’s and primarily wanted to get one of their hats, but he felt a misplaced loyalty to get a Cleveland Indians hat. Another type of fallacy that appears to be present in the article is Over Sentimental Appeal, which is defined as “tender emotions excessively to distract readers from facts” (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz and Walters, 77). The use of this appeal appears in the first section where he tells of how his mother reacted after seeing him come home with that hat on his head. She felt a sense of betrayal from him. “Jerked it off my head… I was only 10 years old, but the look of betrayal in my Creek mother’s eyes is seared in my memory

However the theses differ by stating her work is to aim for sporting teams that us Native Americans as mascots, while the first article discusses the issues about the Native Americans and sport teams. The Arthur uses various rhetorical appeals in comparison to Shakley’s article. Logos, alike in Shakley’s article is the dominant. In the introduction she uses both logos and pathos about her first encounter with the topic. It states that “she remembers a time where she walked inside a store with her grandfather in El Reno, Oklahoma. This experience was similar to the first article’s background story in the introduction. She says it was the early 1950s and the store keepers told the six year old she had to leave because she was a black redskin.” This is similar to Shakley’s article because he starts the article in a similar matter, giving a first time encounter with this. It appears to be pathos because she said she felt small, unsafe, and afraid because she was dark-skinned. Similar to Shakley’s article the rhetorical fallacy overly sentimental appears, due to the problem she faced at the store. We can compare this to the first article, because of the emotions described, but the