A Rhetorical Review over the Functionality

A Rhetorical Review over the Functionality of Barbara E. Munson’s Article on the Use of ‘Indian’ Logos

In 1997, Barbara E. Munson issued an essay titled “Common Themes and Questions about the Use of ‘Indian’ Logos”. As one artist and chairman for Wisconsin Indian Education Association “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce, on multiple occasions, she had strongly denounced the use of Indian logos and names by athletic activities in American schools. In recent decades, this adoption has been an increasingly controversial issue evoking deep emotions among Indian and non-Indian people. While proponents of public schools are claiming they were borrowing the images and objects as a way of paying honors, the Indians diminish it as creation and promotion of stereotypes and racists among new generations. In the essay, the writer made a rather valid case in emphasizing that logos and nicknames used in school sports are harmful and should be removed. To support her points, she provided detailed analysis as well as forceful rebuttals concerning certain statements from the opposing side.

One brilliant job Munson does is her enormous capacity for arousing readers’ sympathetic emotions in the sphere of racial identity as well as cultural and religious significance. One typical instance appears when he attempts to expound on the insulting role played by schools’ sports teams. By expressing “If your team name were the Pollacks, Niggers, Gooks, Spics, Honkies or Krauts, and someone from the community found the name and symbols associated with it offensive and asked that it be changed; would you not change the name?”, he marvelously calls forth the national and personal dignity from every individual of different countries. The appeal to the most fundamental feelings of readers substantially allows them to put themselves in others’ shoes, therefore, adding to the pervasiveness of her rhetoric. Another ingeniously and heavily applied strategy he applies is his powerful logical sense. Through declaring “When someone says you are hurting them by your action, if you persist; then the harm becomes intentional”, he comes to arrive at readers’ reasoning ability and draw their moral value and common sense. This particular design tremendously helps achieve his purpose of proving the adoption of logos as guilty and harmful.

Munson’s language is grave and sincere through using explicitly and concretely defined words. One obvious example appears in the opening paragraph. When evaluating the impact that the misuse of logos and stereotypes could place on the Indian children, the writer claims that it could “separate, marginalize, confuse, intimidate and harm Native American children and create barriers to their learning throughout their school experience”. This progressive effect in terms of meanings of words, which are accurately used and organized, is remarkable in that it deepens readers’ understandings of the severity of the situation and the absolute necessity for prohibiting the practice. Other wording examples demonstrating the same level of formality are ubiquitous in the article.

The overall style of diction lays a solid basis for Munson’s tone of writing, which is full of sternness. This attitude undoubtedly helps construct a solemn atmosphere, where the readers are enabled to realize more profoundly the wrongness of borrowing names and logos from the Indian cultures and its adverse impacts to students. For example, when refuting the statement of ‘political correctness’, Munson explains that “using the term ‘political correctness’ to describe the attempts of concerned Native American parents, educators and leaders to remove stereotypes from the public schools trivializes a survival issue”. By lifting the matter from political value to a level concerning life and death, she successfully invokes a warning effect among readers and reinforces their attitude towards the destructive aspect of the logo issue.

The visible presentation of opposing arguments is unmistakably an intriguing element in this article. By arranging a set of disputing questions or countering opinions at the beginning of each paragraph, which are tightly followed up by thorough and lengthy analysis as well as intensely targeted refutations, the writer establishes herself a forbiddingly fearless image and an advantageous position. It produces immeasurable benefits which are contributive to leading readers into the context, encouraging them to analyze and judge using their thinking capabilities, and eventually persuading them.