Promoting Honest Debate
“Many People” are Offended
Nothing like the liberal Massachusetts public school system to help get me out of my post-election malaise. It was just a matter of time before the soft curriculum would smell of feel-good liberalism and advocacy brain-washing.
I’m not saying that there have not been others prior, but these two events are events I became aware of (recently). I am not proud that I didn’t confront my kids’ teachers in either instance but my kids are outstanding students (one is “high honors”) and the last thing I need to do is change a teacher’s perception of my kids because of my pro-life and religious-tolerance-for-all beliefs.
So, just before the election, my 7th grader asked me why I was voting for Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama when it’s “Sen. Obama who wants American soldiers to stop being killed in Iraq.” I asked her where she heard such a nonsensical characterization of the candidate’s positions on the war and she told me “candidate profile sheets” that were passed out in class. I asked here how the “profiles” explained the candidate’s positions on abortion and she asked, “What’s abortion?” My daughter has two new cousins born October, 2008 at 31 weeks (2 lbs and 4 lbs); she now knows what abortion is and she now is better able to explain why she supported Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama.
Then, last week, my 5th grader brought home an issue of TIME for Kids, the magazine’s liberally extreme views not reserved just for adults. On a periodic basis, the teacher assigns an “article” from the magazine that the student is supposed to discuss with a care-giver. So, my daughter asks me to read a piece by Ms. Charlene Teters, a career Native American activist and a member of the Spokane Tribe (Washington state) whose mission in life is to end the use of all Native American imagery in sports and media.
The “article”, which is really an editorial, calls for the elimination of Native American Indians as mascots for sports teams. The title of the piece is, “Indians Deserve Respect”. The piece is accompanied by two pictures, one of Turner Field and the occupants doing the “tomahawk chop” and another of a white, male, Washington Redskin fan fresh from a tailgate in full Native American Indian stereotypical head dress and face paint.
Before I go any further, I am definitely not arguing in support of Native American imagery in sports and media. My complaints are limited to what I note below.
My primary objection is that any time 5th graders are asked to read an opinion piece, they should be asked to read two opinion pieces. Either they can handle the subject matter or they cannot. In this case, the school system chose to subject impressionable students to the manipulative writings of a propagandist and not expose them to an opposing view.
My secondary objections go directly to the construction of the editorial.
Again, the title of the editorial was, "Indians Deserve Respect". I, of course, have no problem with the title in a vacuum, though I think everyone deserves respect, but in an editorial devoted to mascots, it implies to any child who reads the editorial that supporting an Indian mascot is equivalent to having no respect for Indians. That, of course, is hogwash. After no more than five minutes of web research, I found the Seminole Tribe of Florida is actively supporting the Florida State Seminoles’ mascot, Chief Osceola. I hardly think the Seminole Tribe of Florida has no respect for itself but I wouldn’t know because the opposing view in support of Indian mascots was not presented.
Next, Ms. Teters continually confuses 'mascot' with 'team name' (in her editorial to children; how clever she?). Ms. Teters could not compose a 400 word essay to children without manipulative complaint creep. Chief Wahoo, who is not mentioned in the editorial, is the mascot of the Cleveland Indians and Chief Illiniwek, who was not mentioned in the editorial, was the mascot of the University of Illinois Fighting Illini. Ms. Teters mentions the Warrior(s), Brave(s), and Redskin(s) and I have no knowledge of, nor could I find, any mascot named Warrior, Brave or Redskin. Ms. Teters, of course, knows this but that did not prevent her from taking advantage of her captive, grade-school, audience.
Quickly, in my opinion, the image of Chief Wahoo is offensive but the image of Chief Osceola is not.
The Atlanta Braves, by the way, do not use the image of a Native American Indian. Their mascot is a person with a baseball for a head (Homer the Brave). Yet, in an editorial on mascots, Ms. Teters chose to include a picture of Atlanta Braves fans doing the "tomahawk chop" to exaggerate her mascot editorial. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced.
My daughter, sensing my displeasure with the dishonest editorial, tried to make Ms. Teters’ arguments to me. Quoting two different sentences, my daughter noted but “many people” are offended by certain Native American imagery. On the FoxNews (only because the better site, CNN, was down), I found 679,465 people voted for Ralph Nader for President on Nov. 4. I asked my daughter if 679,465 was “many people”. I then explained to her that Mr. Nader received just over ½ of 1% of the vote. Of course, Ms. Teters knows she’s disingenuous with her uses of the phrase “many people”. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced as my daughter was.
To wit, my daughter persisted, an antagonist is born!, “But it’s still offensive.”
We're Catholics but I would hope people of all religious faiths would understand my offense. To give my daughter an education in “it’s offensive” I showed her pictures of Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Chris Ofili's "Sensation". I then told her that the first piece of "art" was, in part, funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Needless to say, my daughter was offended. I told my daughter that I don’t recall an editorial by Ms. Teters condemning Serrano or Ofili’s art. I also told her that "many people” think I’m overly-sensitive to seeing my God in a glass of the "artist's" urine or seeing elephant dung strewn all over an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. People who do not understand and make jokes of “papal infallibility” do not recognize their own religious bigotry. Some bigotry is casually dismissed if recognized at all.
I drafted a rather lengthy email to my 5th graders teacher and I looked at it, looked at it some more, and finally deleted it. I’m not thrilled with what I did but I suspect it is now just a matter of days or weeks before I get my next chance to let a teacher know that I’m not pleased with the selective opinions that are being shared with my kids. Two plus two equals four and one person's opinion on Native American imagery is only that.
The use of Native American Indian imagery in sports and media is a controversial issue. Controversial issues should be honestly debated, especially if introduced in the classroom. The segment of the Massachusetts public school system that I’m exposed to is failing to promote honest debate. What a surprise.
“Many People” are Offended
Nothing like the liberal Massachusetts public school system to help get me out of my post-election malaise. It was just a matter of time before the soft curriculum would smell of feel-good liberalism and advocacy brain-washing.
I’m not saying that there have not been others prior, but these two events are events I became aware of (recently). I am not proud that I didn’t confront my kids’ teachers in either instance but my kids are outstanding students (one is “high honors”) and the last thing I need to do is change a teacher’s perception of my kids because of my pro-life and religious-tolerance-for-all beliefs.
So, just before the election, my 7th grader asked me why I was voting for Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama when it’s “Sen. Obama who wants American soldiers to stop being killed in Iraq.” I asked her where she heard such a nonsensical characterization of the candidate’s positions on the war and she told me “candidate profile sheets” that were passed out in class. I asked here how the “profiles” explained the candidate’s positions on abortion and she asked, “What’s abortion?” My daughter has two new cousins born October, 2008 at 31 weeks (2 lbs and 4 lbs); she now knows what abortion is and she now is better able to explain why she supported Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama.
Then, last week, my 5th grader brought home an issue of TIME for Kids, the magazine’s liberally extreme views not reserved just for adults. On a periodic basis, the teacher assigns an “article” from the magazine that the student is supposed to discuss with a care-giver. So, my daughter asks me to read a piece by Ms. Charlene Teters, a career Native American activist and a member of the Spokane Tribe (Washington state) whose mission in life is to end the use of all Native American imagery in sports and media.
The “article”, which is really an editorial, calls for the elimination of Native American Indians as mascots for sports teams. The title of the piece is, “Indians Deserve Respect”. The piece is accompanied by two pictures, one of Turner Field and the occupants doing the “tomahawk chop” and another of a white, male, Washington Redskin fan fresh from a tailgate in full Native American Indian stereotypical head dress and face paint.
Before I go any further, I am definitely not arguing in support of Native American imagery in sports and media. My complaints are limited to what I note below.
My primary objection is that any time 5th graders are asked to read an opinion piece, they should be asked to read two opinion pieces. Either they can handle the subject matter or they cannot. In this case, the school system chose to subject impressionable students to the manipulative writings of a propagandist and not expose them to an opposing view.
My secondary objections go directly to the construction of the editorial.
Again, the title of the editorial was, "Indians Deserve Respect". I, of course, have no problem with the title in a vacuum, though I think everyone deserves respect, but in an editorial devoted to mascots, it implies to any child who reads the editorial that supporting an Indian mascot is equivalent to having no respect for Indians. That, of course, is hogwash. After no more than five minutes of web research, I found the Seminole Tribe of Florida is actively supporting the Florida State Seminoles’ mascot, Chief Osceola. I hardly think the Seminole Tribe of Florida has no respect for itself but I wouldn’t know because the opposing view in support of Indian mascots was not presented.
Next, Ms. Teters continually confuses 'mascot' with 'team name' (in her editorial to children; how clever she?). Ms. Teters could not compose a 400 word essay to children without manipulative complaint creep. Chief Wahoo, who is not mentioned in the editorial, is the mascot of the Cleveland Indians and Chief Illiniwek, who was not mentioned in the editorial, was the mascot of the University of Illinois Fighting Illini. Ms. Teters mentions the Warrior(s), Brave(s), and Redskin(s) and I have no knowledge of, nor could I find, any mascot named Warrior, Brave or Redskin. Ms. Teters, of course, knows this but that did not prevent her from taking advantage of her captive, grade-school, audience.
Quickly, in my opinion, the image of Chief Wahoo is offensive but the image of Chief Osceola is not.
The Atlanta Braves, by the way, do not use the image of a Native American Indian. Their mascot is a person with a baseball for a head (Homer the Brave). Yet, in an editorial on mascots, Ms. Teters chose to include a picture of Atlanta Braves fans doing the "tomahawk chop" to exaggerate her mascot editorial. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced.
My daughter, sensing my displeasure with the dishonest editorial, tried to make Ms. Teters’ arguments to me. Quoting two different sentences, my daughter noted but “many people” are offended by certain Native American imagery. On the FoxNews (only because the better site, CNN, was down), I found 679,465 people voted for Ralph Nader for President on Nov. 4. I asked my daughter if 679,465 was “many people”. I then explained to her that Mr. Nader received just over ½ of 1% of the vote. Of course, Ms. Teters knows she’s disingenuous with her uses of the phrase “many people”. No doubt the grade-schoolers would be influenced as my daughter was.
To wit, my daughter persisted, an antagonist is born!, “But it’s still offensive.”
We're Catholics but I would hope people of all religious faiths would understand my offense. To give my daughter an education in “it’s offensive” I showed her pictures of Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Chris Ofili's "Sensation". I then told her that the first piece of "art" was, in part, funded by the National Endowment for the Arts. Needless to say, my daughter was offended. I told my daughter that I don’t recall an editorial by Ms. Teters condemning Serrano or Ofili’s art. I also told her that "many people” think I’m overly-sensitive to seeing my God in a glass of the "artist's" urine or seeing elephant dung strewn all over an image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. People who do not understand and make jokes of “papal infallibility” do not recognize their own religious bigotry. Some bigotry is casually dismissed if recognized at all.
I drafted a rather lengthy email to my 5th graders teacher and I looked at it, looked at it some more, and finally deleted it. I’m not thrilled with what I did but I suspect it is now just a matter of days or weeks before I get my next chance to let a teacher know that I’m not pleased with the selective opinions that are being shared with my kids. Two plus two equals four and one person's opinion on Native American imagery is only that.
The use of Native American Indian imagery in sports and media is a controversial issue. Controversial issues should be honestly debated, especially if introduced in the classroom. The segment of the Massachusetts public school system that I’m exposed to is failing to promote honest debate. What a surprise.
posted by Zack at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home