I really liked the Carlisle vs Army article because it was interesting how the football game represented actual problems during that time. The other article had good examples and values, but I felt like it was way too long for the point it made.
I agree with clare in that the other article was long to say that Native Americans are mistreated, but i feel that it was so long because there are so many examples of discrimination.
I agree with what Clare! I thought that the Carlisle vs Army article was interesting because it showed how some people can hold on to the past so much that their anger builds up and it shows at the worste moments, such as in the football game when Warner said that they should finish what their ancestors started. As for the other article, I had no idea what was going on.
i agee with clare...i liked the carlisle vs army article because it focused on the unfairness in which the carlisle indian team played with... the army did not put up a clean and fair game
I liked the fighting whities article, because it showed how we as a society sometimes over react to certain racial isssues. To me its not a big deal, but to others i guess its more important.
they were both bland except for the carlisle one.I think it made you think about racism and how white people did something belittleing but groundbreaking???????
they were both bland except for the carlisle one.I think it made you think about racism and how white people did something belittleing but groundbreaking???????
Here is the question from the quiz that some of you were wondering about: Consider this quote, “Because the majority typically has more power – political, economic, social – than minorities, its members are not so likely to feel diminished by words of contempt.” Now discuss why much of the debate over the moniker “Fighting Whities” oversimplified the issues surrounding teams with Native American mascots.
i think it's mostly true, but if the minorities could feel less insecure and the majority could affirm that they don't intend any harm, then things wouldn't be so ridiculous.
i agree with jack and think that the carlisle vs. army article was good because it shows the reader real life racial issues that happened back then and are still happening today
14 comments:
I really liked the Carlisle vs Army article because it was interesting how the football game represented actual problems during that time. The other article had good examples and values, but I felt like it was way too long for the point it made.
I agree with clare in that the other article was long to say that Native Americans are mistreated, but i feel that it was so long because there are so many examples of discrimination.
I agree with what Clare! I thought that the Carlisle vs Army article was interesting because it showed how some people can hold on to the past so much that their anger builds up and it shows at the worste moments, such as in the football game when Warner said that they should finish what their ancestors started.
As for the other article, I had no idea what was going on.
The first one was excitiing and entertaining but annoying because of the cliff hanger. What was the follow up to the cliff hanger anyone?
carlisle wins the game. i liked the first one bc of the anticipation build up.
i agee with clare...i liked the carlisle vs army article because it focused on the unfairness in which the carlisle indian team played with... the army did not put up a clean and fair game
i thought both of the articles made you think about the two situations and made it more interesting to learn about
I liked the fighting whities article, because it showed how we as a society sometimes over react to certain racial isssues. To me its not a big deal, but to others i guess its more important.
they were both bland except for the carlisle one.I think it made you think about racism and how white people did something belittleing but groundbreaking???????
they were both bland except for the carlisle one.I think it made you think about racism and how white people did something belittleing but groundbreaking???????
Here is the question from the quiz that some of you were wondering about:
Consider this quote, “Because the majority typically has more power – political, economic, social – than minorities, its members are not so likely to feel diminished by words of contempt.” Now discuss why much of the debate over the moniker “Fighting Whities” oversimplified the issues surrounding teams with Native American mascots.
So was Eisenhower anti-native american.
i think it's mostly true, but if the minorities could feel less insecure and the majority could affirm that they don't intend any harm, then things wouldn't be so ridiculous.
i agree with jack and think that the carlisle vs. army article was good because it shows the reader real life racial issues that happened back then and are still happening today
Post a Comment