Rhetorical analysis of Richard Estrada's article

¶ … Political Correctness on the Ball Field

In the article entitled "Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names," author Richard Estrada writes about the continued use of Native Americans as nicknames for American sports teams and how he feels this is culturally insensitive and that the practice should be banned. In making this case, he invokes feelings of nostalgia and pride in a region's sports team and how this is incongruous with mocking of an ethnic identity. Estrada utilizes the rhetorical devices of pathos, ethos, and logos while at the same timing intentionally or unintentionally employing fallacies in making his arguments regarding the harm of continuing the practice of naming teams after ethnic minorities.

Pathos, or emotional appeal, is utilized throughout the piece, but most obviously in Estrada's opening paragraph. He first uses nostalgic terms to create an image of childhood and then uses hyperbole to describe the ballplayers (Estrada). By invoking the period and the feelings he had in his youth, he puts the reader into the mind of their childhood and how they felt when watching their favorite team. Further, in comparing the team to Greek gods, he forces the reader to feel awe for the greatness of the team. From the outset, the reader is confronted with Estrada's emotions and is therefore subliminally called upon to respond with his or her own feelings.

Estrada uses ethos, or the assuming of authority is invested in the author, by first providing the reader with his own memories and then by stating how wrong it is to have names based on ethnic identities. He pulls the reader in and then illustrates his moral outrage. Several times he uses the word right to show his view about this issue. In addition, he uses other figures with authority to convince the reader, specifically citing Stanford University, one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the country. Stanford University changed its mascot from the Indians to the Cardinals and Estrada states that this is the "right" thing to do. He identifies that changing the mascot from one with ethnic identification to one that is free from such an association is the correct thing to do. Therefore, to disagree with his position is wrong and unethical. By being the one who sets the two options in direct comparison, he sets himself apart as a leader who cab show which side of the issue learned people will agree with.

In his appeal to the reader's sense of logic using logical arguments, logos, he tells a story of a Native American man who did not agree with the ethnic symbol of a major league baseball team, the Braves. His children were forced to celebrate in their school because of the community's heavy support of their local team. However, the child and the father were both upset because they felt the community was supporting a mockery of their ethnic identity. Estrada explains how anyone would feel if they were in this man's position. He writes, "Nobody likes to be trivialized or deprived of their dignity" (Estrada). Estrada asks that the reader use their sense of logic to understand how it would feel if they were put in the shoes of the Native American. If the reader would not like to be ridiculed, it is a logical assumption that it is unpleasant for the person who is. The rhetorical device employed forces the reader to use their own understanding of right and wrong regarding themselves and use it regarding the current situation.

In certain portions of his article, Estrada uses rhetorical fallacies which serve to undermine his point rather than promote it. Towards the end of the passage, he uses an appeal to probability by stating a team named for Latinos would cause an uproar (Estrada). While this may indeed happen, there is no evidence that other ethnic groups would be so opposing to having teams named after them. In a similar vein, Estrada employs hasty generalizations towards the end. He writes, "How long does anyone think the name 'Washington Blackskins' would last? Or how about 'the New York Jews'?" (Estrada). In this statement he assumes that these groups would be opposed to having teams named after them without providing any form of evidence that this is the case. In addition, he uses the most extreme form of ethnic identification to make his point which might serve to anger readers instead of pull them in. Yet another issue that is present in Estrada's essay is the rhetorical fallacy of either/or choices. He makes it clear that there are only two options regarding this case. Either teams will be forced to get rid of all ethnic names on sports teams or they will continue to be doing something that is ethically wrong. Finally, he has written an article with stacked evidence. The one comment he gave to the opposing side was dismissed without evidence and the rest of the piece was dedicated to pushing forth his agenda. As Estrada was heavily interested in the issue of immigration and social issues, it is logical that he would have a personal bias on this issue and therefore his authority is not guaranteed.