files attached are for Socc335 only, some of the reading to refer to Discussion 1 Anthropology 451 Discuss two reasons why many tribes and American Indian individuals are not in favor of self-identification as an American Indian. Do you agree with them? Why or why not? ***Reminder: You are required to submit your own response as well as respond to one other person’s post. Your post must be at least 250 words in length. Responses must be at least a few sentences and adequately show that you've thoughtfully considered what your classmate wrote. Full-credit posts are expected to fully address the given prompt and follow appropriate stylistic conventions for formal prose (i.e. complete sentences with proper spelling and grammar). Reply to Vincent : One reason why many tribes and American Indian individuals are not in favor of self-identification as American Indian is receiving the benefits meant for American Indian individuals. As an example, in 1992, the Detroit News discusses the misrepresentations of student identification on college applications. Students would identify as American Indian to gain entrance to the university, and, in turn, be eligible for scholarships that are meant for American Indian students. This means 'American Indian' students at the university are not all American Indian, so the distribution of scholarships and acceptance rate of true American Indians is lower than what is projected. A prime example of this is senator Elizabeth Warren, who is listed as Native American by Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She has publicly apologized for doing so, but an apology will not make up for her taking advantage of a marginalized group. Her receiving the benefits catered towards a marginalized American Indian group causes that group to be marginalized even further. Another reason why tribes and American Indian individuals are not in favor of self-identification as American Indian is cultural appropriation. To properly practice a certain culture, all aspects of said culture should be practiced. However, many self-identified American Indian individuals only practice certain aspects of American Indian culture, causing the 'undesirable' practices to be neglected. While representing a culture that has been oppressed for centuries has good intention, it can cause the destruction of that culture if it is not represented properly. An example of this is production of spiritual items. Commonly used spiritual items by American Indians are being advertised as authentic. However, the authenticity of the item is not what matters to the retailer. It is a means of monetizing the sacred spiritual practices of American Indian culture. According to many retailers, misrepresenting a culture is not nearly as high as a priority as making money out of it. This can be applied to the individual that self-identifies as American Indian: they may practice aspects that directly benefit themself, but if there is an aspect of American Indian culture that does not line up with their beliefs, then it will be discarded. Second discussion Soc335: Our readings this week elevate a few themes we have previously discussed. 1) What are the consequences for democracies when we don't have a genuinely free press based on informing the public (but rather profit based, corporate/ ad driven media conglomerates)? 2) Is it possible to have a more genuinely informative, unbiased, fact-driven media? Answer the following two questions: a) In your opinion, what are the TWO most significant barriers to a genuinely free press outlined in this week's readings? b) In the readings by Michael Parenti as well as Cavanaugh and Mander, the authors discuss the possibilities of creating a more democratic or alternative media. What are their solutions? What would it take to make them a reality in your opinion? Reply to Masaya: Two significant obstacles to a free press are emphasized in the readings. The first is corporate ownership, Parenti states that news outlets favor content aligned with owners' interests, narrowing the content given to the public. With a small number of corporations controlling most news channels, political and economic elites shape narratives to reflect their interests, often sidelining critical issues, such as the fossil fuel industry’s environmental impact, when they conflict with owners’ or advertisers’ priorities. Second, Cavanaugh and Mander highlight how media reliance on advertising pressures outlets to avoid content that may offend sponsors. This economic dependency often sidelines stories exposing systemic injustices or corporate wrongdoing, favoring consumer-friendly narratives instead. For instance, while discussing climate change, the media usually emphasizes individual efforts, such as cutting back on personal plastic use or driving, while downplaying the role of large polluters. By focusing selectively, partnerships with influential advertisers in sectors like manufacturing, automotive, and fossil fuels whose operations significantly worsen the environment are not put at risk. In order to overcome these challenges, Parenti recommends supporting independent, community-based media projects that foster genuine democratic discourse and prioritize local accountability over corporate interests. Similarly, Cavanaugh and Mander advocate for publicly funded media channels less dependent on advertising, allowing for coverage of public issues without corporate interference. Realizing these alternatives would require structural reforms, such as increased government support for independent media and policies limiting media monopolies. Additionally, cultivating media literacy among audiences can help the public recognize bias and support alternative media, contributing to a press that values transparency, accountability, and factual reporting over profit.
READ MORE >>
