Rhetorical Analysis

Words: 998
Pages: 4

Native Americans have been through many hardships over many years. From colonial violence to the Trail of Tears and the interference by the white population, many terrible events have happened in U.S. history. However, even in the modern day, they face problems. A social issue about the term “Redskins” is one of such problems. The name for the Washington Redskins is heavily debated upon. In Christine M. Flowers’ article “Amid so much real trouble, who has time for the ‘Redskins’ crisis?”, Native Americans are marginalized due to the use of derogatory diction, microinvalidations, and oversimplification, to persuade readers that her opinion is justified. Flowers marginalizes Native Americans in her article “Amid so much real trouble, who has …show more content…
Flowers says “To my mind, just because a certain segment of the population is subjectively insulted by a particular phrase does not automatically mean that we throw away years of history to make them feel better about themselves.” Flowers is completely ignoring the concerns of those who have reasons why the name is offensive. She assumes that those who have a problem with the name are doing it to “feel better about themselves” and ignores the other possibilities of why they would have concerns. Flowers disregards that the term “Redskins” means many different things to many different people, and is taken as a racial slur to many. Later in the same paragraph, Flowers cites NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell “the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect.” While the intentions might be positive, the history of the term “Redskins” was heavily used in a negative context. Roots of the term were said to have originated from the procedure of being paid a bounty for killing Native Americans and showing the scalp as proof. Goodell's statement ignores the context and history of the phrase and may mislead readers as to what the term “Redskins”