I played lacrosse with and against kids that came from the reservation. Four of these players were all Americans and theoretically would have been able to attend the college of their choice to play lacrosse. None of them made it past community college, however, because they could not meet the minimum requirement on the SAT. Is the fact that they could not go to school because they had bad grades my fault as an American? Is it their fault for not working hard in middle school and high school? Or is it the choice of the parents who valued the maintenance of tradition above giving their children the best chance to assimilate into American culture and opportunity? I don’t know the answer but these are sides to the argument that I don’t think that people in class have an opportunity to see when all Sam shows is genocide, income levels, and other disparities.

I live 10 minutes from an Indian Reservation in upstate New York (Onondoga) and have seen first hand the discrepancies in income, education, and potential. On that reservation most native Americans choose to educate their children in the traditional ways of their ancestors up until the child would enter middle school and sometimes until high school. I completely accept this tradition and think it is valuable to native American culture, however, it is a choice. Upon entering middle school the kids that came from the reservation have a limited, if any, proficiency in the English language. They are extremely far behind in conventional education when they enter school and this follows them through high school.

I don’t mean to compare the land stealing and genocide of native Americans to the hard times of Irish immigrants but I do want to make the point that as horrible as those things were for the natives, I had absolutely nothing to do with it and should not be made to feel guilty or in some way responsible. That being said, I think Sam’s larger point is very valid. The genocide and land stealing that did occur has an effect on these people today whether we like it or not, but in my mind the solution to those people’s problems are not just the white man’s or all Americans in general. Native Americans need to step up to the plate also.

For 300 years the mistreatment of native Americans went on and as natives were treated more humanely in many instances white men justified their removal by saying that since the natives had no system of ownership then they had no “right” to the land and thus, could be kicked off. Hindsight being 20/20 this was all wrong and disturbing, but ultimately, had nothing to do with the generation that is sitting in Sam’s class. I personally had ancestors that were treated like slaves and I don’t hold any animosity toward Americans who came before my immigrant ancestors.

White man’s guilt. When Pilgrims came to this “New World” to seek freedom from religious persecution they did not expect (very naively) to have to encounter or deal with a native population. At that time, the natives were viewed as unequal based on the color of their skin, lack of clothing, and even the fact that they were not monotheistic. Therefore, the native population was treated as such, unequal. It is incredibly easy for us (400 years later) to look back at the original settlers and think “how could they do such a horrible thing? How could they treat other human beings so poorly?” The fact is, at that time the notion of equality was completely foreign to them, even though they had been the victims of persecution themselves.

I completely agree with the first part of this persons statement. I believe that gay people should receive the exact same rights in a civil union such as tax breaks etc. However, I do not think that those civil unions NEED to be called a marriage. I think that what it comes down to is a fight between Christians and Gay people, and it is a fight that does not need to happen. Both sides of the argument have valid points. Gay people want the same rights as everyone else and rightfully so, but in my opinion they view the word “marriage” as a right that is being denied to them. For Christians, marriage is a religious symbol of someone’s love and should be protected as love between a man and a woman. In my opinion, it shouldn’t matter what we call anything as long as we know what it means to us personally.
If Christians are so against letting gay people become married, then come up with a new term to call the sacrament. When two Christians get married in a church why not call their union a “church marriage?” Wouldn’t that solve the problem? Christians would then be married in the eyes of god and everyone would know it. Likewise, if gay people get a civil union and have all of the same rights as a straight married couple then why do they care about a label?
Personally I think that all gay couples should have the exact same rights as anyone else. But I also believe that the label of “marriage” is not a right and should be ordained by a minister. To go even further, I believe that the reason that marriage is so prevalent outside of the church for straight people is because it was common place for so long that the term stuck to any civil union between a man and a woman when in fact a marriage in the sense of religion is only valid in the eyes of God and must be ordained by a minister. So…gay people should not care about the term marriage as long as they get the same rights as conventionally married couples…Straight people who are fighting for the sanctity of marriage should fight that battle on all fronts and not just against gay people. If they want to call marriage what it truly is than anyone who gets married in a court must have the label civil union. I just see a lot of hypocrisy in the arguments made by the devout religious and don’t see the point of gay people fighting for semantics. Just live and let live.

Who cares? At the risk of sounding insensitive … too late. It isn’t that I don’t care about people, culture, or tradition, but I have a problem when people or professors so emphatically profess the truth that is evolution and then have empathy for the people who lose out. The way I see it, language is a way that people communicate and nothing more. Sure some may sound better than others, or may be easier to speak, understand, and learn, but in the end all language is meant to serve the same purpose. So the next question would be why did this particular ancient tribal language cease to exist? If the answer was because of some outside force (such as the genocide of an entire race of people) I would be much more sympathetic. However, this particular language from what I saw and read simply died off because it was of no more use to the people who inherited it. Isn’t that the exact same thing as humans not needing their appendix or wisdom teeth? At some point in history humans developed different needs for different body parts and those things adapted. For this particular tribe, it seems that the need for a language that allowed them to communicate to a more diverse group of people led their old language to fall by the wayside. What is so wrong with that?
I would say that nothing is wrong with that and the loss of a spoken language does not mean that the culture, values, and traditions of the people are any different. Sure some songs might sound different in other languages but the message and idea behind them will remain. Another example of a language that held enormous importance in the world but is no longer spoken by a group of people (aside from some traditional orthodox Christian faiths) is Latin. Latin is no longer spoken but it is still taught and valued by scholars and students alike. The reason for this is because Latin had an influence in nearly all other major languages spoken today. This shows that although Latin is not spoken it has survived and was adapted. Who is to say that the same does not go for this tribal language? Just because no one will likely speak the language as it existed for thousands of years does not mean that the language and traditions will not have a place in the future of this group of people. To think any differently would be to claim that language is culture and I think that culture is much much more than language.

I have not seen avatar yet but I plan on seeing it soon. The reason that I want to see it is twofold. I want to see the “most spectacular film ever created” and also want to compare and contrast it to Dances With Wolves which I have been told is the exact same movie. I would venture to guess that most students in this class haven’t seen Dances With Wolves as it is over three hours long, boring depending on your taste, and was made in the 90’s. That movie, though, really made me think about the white man’s guilt that some people feel but everyone should understand. At first the audience feels bad for the lone soldier in charge of taking care of a camp in the Midwest (Kevin Costner). We feel bad for him because he is away from his culture, he is isolated, he is in a new environment and the “Indians” are the enemy. As the movie goes on many Indians, who previously viewed Costner as a dangerous enemy realize that he is no harm and begin to warm up to him, and he in return tries to make contact with them. As time goes on Costner proves himself to be just like the other Indians. He is invited to tribal rituals and falls in love with a native American woman. Many members of the tribe are apprehensive about allowing this white man into their culture because of the atrocities that other white men have committed previously. It isn’t until Costner kills an enemy attacker (also a native American) that the tribe accepts him as one of their own. In the end of the movie Costner has grown into a native American himself and is given the name “Dances with Wolves” and he leads the Natives away from approaching American troops.
When reading the Brooks article about Avatar I could not help but to think that his synopsis is the exact same movie as Dances With Wolves with one major difference. James Cameron’s version takes place in another world. That simple fact dilutes the message that Dances With Wolves tried so hard to create. By removing the personal feelings Americans have with the mistreatment and disenfranchising of Native American populations and placing the story in a faraway place in a far away time Cameron, ignores the fact that this persecution happened only 125 years ago and continues to happen all over the world today. The beauty of Dances With Wolves though, is that we all want to relate to Costner’s character. We want to think that we would be the ones that would understand the Native American culture and understand their cultures and see the evil of “the White Man.” But in the end we are all still the white man (I am white speaking to white people) and we have to understand that as individuals we may see the discrimination and not agree with it but the perception of the rest of the world and minorities is that we are all the same. Ironic isn’t it?

In 1983 he was broadcasting a monday night football game and referred to a wide reciever as a monkey when he said "look at that little monkey dance" as the reciever did a spin move to evade a tackler. This player was a black man. Cosell was forced to retire the next year and his career as a broadcaster was basically over. Not to soften this seemingly racist comment, but Cosell had used the same terminology several times throughout his career to describe white players making similar plays on the field.
The reaction to Cosell's comments show how sensative the U.S. public is to race, and that was in 1983!!

The other thing that struck me was not just that the fans are involved but that coaches and some players actually get away with obvious racism. There have been instances in the U.S. where a coach or player or GM engaged in racist comments. One striking example of this is Howard Cosell. He became famous for broadcasting boxing matches in the 60's and 70's and later for broadcasting monday night football. He had a close personal relationship with Muhammed Ali who was the best boxer of all time and also happened to be black. Cosell had never been associated with racism and was actually one of the most respected broadcasters in professional sports.