Blog

The following is an example of how one student summarized the article “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Remember: “Sticks and Stones” is the article that you will be reading and responding to.  However, this example does provide a good example of how to craft summaries in general.)  As you read this example, ask yourself what you notice about the summary—in terms of purpose, focus, tone, organization and formatting. In “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names,” Richard Estrada argues that sports teams should not be allowed to continue using ethnic-based names and mascots.  Estrada claims that teams such as the Braves, Indians, Seminoles, and Redskins—no matter how established or popular—should change their team names and mascots, which are degrading to Native Americans.  He further suggests that the stereotypes accompanying these mascots, such as “tomahawk chops and war chants,” dehumanize and single out Native Americans, setting them aside from the rest of society.  “Nobody likes to be trivialized or deprived of his or her dignity,” Estrada asserts, and yet allowing ethnic-based mascots enables—and even promotes—such trivialization.  What makes matters worse, according to Estrada, is that such mascots target one of our nation’s least politically powerful ethnic groups.  He provides examples of other possible team names based on other ethnic minorities (such as the “New York Jews”), which would never be tolerated in our society.  As a result, Estrada concludes that Native Americans should be treated with simple human dignity, just like everyone else. Perhaps first you noticed that the student writer’s opinion of “Sticks and Stones and Sport Team Names” is not included.  Rather, the student is trying to simply convey the main points of Estrada’s original article. Second, you may have realized that the first sentence is very important in the summary.  The first sentence must to three things clearly and concisely: Maybe next you observed that the original author was referred to in some way in every sentences. —these are all called “attributive tags.”  Attributive tags are designed to remind the reader that these are Estrada’s ideas (not yours), and thus give proper credit where credit is due.  Notice how the student writer in the example above has varied his attributive tags, using different ways to refer to the author (Estrada and he), and using different verbs to explain what Estrada was communicating.  The student writer also varied the placement of the attributive tag in several places.  (Often the attributive tag comes at the beginning of the sentence, but sometimes an attributive tag will fit into the middle or end of the sentence. You may have also noticed that the student writer who is summarizing Estrada’s work has used direct quotes very sparingly.  Any time he did use even a phrase of Estrada’s word-for-word, he put it in quotation marks to indicate this. Next, you may have observed how the last sentence of the summary really seems to wrap things up and provide a sense of conclusion. Finally, you probably noticed the word count, included at the end of the summary.  Sticking within 150-200 words is important in the summary, so I will want you to I recommend you use the concepts discussed in your reading from Chapter 12 as a sort of step-by-step guide to get you organized to write your summary. 1.) .  Read and re-read the essay “Children Need to Play, Not Compete,” and take notes.  Mark things in the text that you think are important, especially noting what seem to be the main points of the article.  Write questions you have in the margins, and note places where you are convinced or skeptical.  (This will also help you in the next unit when you’re trying to get ideas for your strong response.) 2.) .  Group your notes in a way that makes sense to you. 3.) .  This does not have to be a formal outline in any sense of the term.  But it can be a good idea to try to list or map the main points of the article, before you actually start drafting your summary. 4.) , restating the article’s main points in your own words. The following is an example of how one student responded to the article “Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names.”  (Again, remember: “Sticks and Stones” is the article that you will be reading and responding to.  However, this example does provide a good example of how to craft the strong response, in general.) As you read this example, ask yourself what you notice about the strong response—in terms of purpose, focus, tone, organization and formatting. I strongly disagree with Richard Estrada’s article, “Sticks and Stones and Sport Team Names.”  As a Native American myself, I have no real problem with the use of ethnic mascots.  In my opinion, this is the least of our problems.  Further, I feel Richard Estrada has no authority whatsoever in writing about this subject. First, allow me to d

iscuss my own Native American heritage.  I am only one-quarter Native American; my father is half.  My adopted brother, Reeve, is also half Native American.  In other words, our family has a strong sense of heritage when it comes to our respective tribes.  (My father’s side is Cherokee; my brother’s tribe is Cheyenne Arapaho.)  All three of us are registered with our tribes, and we still occasionally attend tribal events.  So I am sensitive—and actively engaged with—Native American issues. Unappealing mascots, however, are the least of our problems.  Most of the Native Americans I know have a sense of humor about the whole mascot issue.  They’re surprised people even bother to talk about it.  Who cares if a bunch of white people want to flap their arms in public and pretend they even know what a “tomahawk chop” is?  Who really cares what goes on at a football game?  Who really believes that a bunch of beer-drinking ball-following hicks are seriously capable of demeaning us? The answer is simple:  Not Native Americans.  At least not any of the Native Americans that I know. Our tribes face must bigger problems in the real world.  We have been pushed to the corners of this country, environments and economies unsuitable for sustaining our livelihoods.  We have sought solace wherever we could get it through generations—including in the bottle.  What does Richard Estrada have to say about this?  Nothing. Estrada would claim that mascots are a symbol of cultural appropriation—white society taking what it wants from Native American culture.  I agree that the appropriation of our culture is a problem.  However, once again, unappealing mascots are the least important aspect of this phenomenon.  How many white people own dream catchers, turquoise necklaces, trickster figures and the like?  How many of those people know anything about the traditions that are behind all of these “cute little trinkets”?  How many of those people know anything real about Native American heritage? But this, again, is a minor problem in reality.  The real problem we as Native Americans face is the appropriation of our voices.  How many Native Americans have been asked if they are offended by mascots?  How many articles on Native American issues are actually written by Native Americans?  The answer is practically none.  Instead, the Richard Estrada’s of the world are doing all of the talking.  Is Richard Estrada a Native American?  I highly doubt it. The first paragraph of this section defines the terms of the response and the student’s claims.  In the example above, for instance, the student is focusing on his own Native American heritage and how Estrada’s article challenges his beliefs and values. The last paragraph of this section provides a sense of conclusion and restates the student’s claims/terms of response. Between the first paragraph and the last paragraph, however, what’s happening?  The student is devoting at least one paragraph to each of his claims.  For instance, paragraph 2 describes the student’s own Native American heritage.  Paragraphs 3-6 offer examples of the kinds of “real problems” that the student believes Native Americans face.  Paragraph 7 offers examples and explanation to support the student’s claim that Estrada’s lack credibility. As with the summary, I recommend you consider the materials in your chapter as a guide in crafting your strong response.  In particular, the last five reading strategies in Chapter 12 offer a helpful guide to determining the grounds of your response. Ask yourself the following questions: 1.)  Do you want your response to focus on the patterns of opposition within the article, and the ways these challenge or support your values and beliefs?  In other words, do you want to reflect on the values and assumptions made by the author and how these compare/contrast with your own? 2.)  Do you want your response to focus on evaluating the logic of the argument?  In other words, do you want to critically analyze whether the reasoning and support offered in the article is believable and sufficient? 3.)  Do you want your response to focus on the issue of emotional manipulation?  In other words, do you want to discuss areas in the article where the author seems to be exaggerating or using other tools inappropriately to gain your sympathy or compliance to his/her point of view? 4.)  Do you want your response to focus on the credibility of the author?  In other words, do you want to consider whether the author seems appropriately knowledgeable and fairly considers other arguments or points of view? You may be able to focus your entire response on just one of the above issues.  Or you may decide to discuss two or three issues that seem related.  (For instance, in the sample strong response, the student chose to discuss his own beliefs—number 1 on this list and the author’s lack of credibility—number 4 on this list.)