make sure you answer all of the questions and look at the example my professor has written and make sure you do it correctly. Please respond based to the readings from Indian Blood: HIV and Colonial Trauma in San Francisco’s two-Spirit Community. Please discuss at least two chapters from the book. For example if you decide to focus on chapter 2 and 5 please write about chapter 2 and 5 under question 1, then under question 2, and under question 3 etc. You are allowed to write about more than 2 chapters if you'd like. Papers: All memos should discuss in a short and concise manner the major arguments, themes, and issues raised by the authors in the course as they relate to their own research and lived experiences. Memos should be 3-5 pages in length, and they should be typed and double-spaced with at least 6 citations from the readings to support your responses. Memos should also be written so that they thoughtfully and adequately address the following six questions: How do the authors construct his/her/their argument(s)? What is s/he/they arguing for and/or against? What is the goal or focus of the text? What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might these assumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? What are the implications of the reading's main point, theme, or argument? Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the author(s)? Why do you think the author(s) did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? How do the issues and themes raised relate to other readings, theories/concepts, discussions in the fields of Sociology and Native American Studies? How might the readings relate to contemporary events and issues going on right now in 2025? What did you agree and disagree with about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? How would you relate at least one theory, concept or idea from the reading to your own research? Papers should be double-spaced, typed and no larger than 12-point font. 3 Memos = 60% (20% each) (Due Dates: April 18th, May 9th, June 6th A Sample Memo is Included below for a different course as a guide for writing your papers this quarter Student Name Course Instructor Name Date Tomahawkin’ the Redskins: “Indian” Images in Sports and Commerce Jane Frazier (Morrison 337-346). How does the author construct his/ her argument? What is s/he arguing for and/or against? Frazier argues that the use of “Indian” images and names comes with several negative consequences for the Native community. Frazier discusses the Indian image in the United States as it exists across several realms. The perceived essence of the Indian has transitioned from what are considered negative qualities, such as savagery and wildness, to more positive attributes, like nobility and stoicism (Frazier 342). The problem lies there; the Indian is an image or concept, as opposed to a human being (Frazier 342). Frazier believes the use of Indian mascots in sports further “confines Indians to a history”, which itself has been incorrect (338). She refutes the argument by supporters of Indian mascots that there are other ethnic groups represented in sports mascots by pointing out that the great majority of the other groups no longer exist (Frazier 339). The “Fighting Irish” may be an exception, but they were named by people of Irish descent, while Native people had no say in the use of their image (Frazier 339). Frazier argues that by overemphasizing the Indian of the past, we are subsequently obscuring the present day Native community (341). Oftentimes, Indian images are used to market a product as being from “a world of the past and the masculine” (Frazier 342). Frazier believes that many people are able to justify the use of Indian names and images because of the now more positive stereotypes that they are intended to provoke (343). What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might theseassumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? Frazier believes that by the use of images that denote the Indian to an earlier era, we are in turn suggesting that Native Americans have “no place in contemporary society” (341). This cultivated image “resonates more powerfully with the public than American Indian realities” (Frazier 341). Therefore, we are more inclined to ignore any current issues impacting the living Native community (Frazier 341). If we are repeatedly presented with a certain image of a Native American, we may accept it as the truth (Frazier 345). We have little reason or motivation to seek out alternate information (Frazier 345). Frazier believes that for the Native community, this stereotype can become internalized and can lead to unknown ignorance (345). As we primarily have access to a Euro-American version of events, we cannot expect to ever know a true and complete history (345). Frazier wrote this essay in the late 1990s, and while the use of Native mascots has seen some reduction in recent years, we still have a team in the NFL called the Redskins. I believe that Frazier made these assumptions because all evidence suggests it to be true. These same kinds of stereotypical images continue to circulate. What are the implications of the readings’ main point, theme, or argument? Frazier suggests that people perpetuate these Indian images out of ignorance, as opposed to malice. I believe that she chose to do this as a way to get through to this population. Instead of being combative, she implies that it is contradictory to claim to support the Native community, while also supporting the use of Indian images in sports and commerce. She suggests that we are simply taking the easy route by accepting these images as the truth, as a similar image has been perpetuated in multiple mediums. Frazier implies that we will have to actively seek out correct information in order to reconstruct our mental image. We will also have to actively reject a false history that continues to circulate. In order to truly understand and support the Native population, we will have to make ourselves aware of any current problems within the community. She believes that this extends to both the non-Native and Native population within the United States, as we have all been repeatedly exposed to these ideas. Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the reading/author? What do you think the author did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? Frazier chose not to highlight the more offensive uses of the Indian image as they exist, most notably in sports. Instead, she primarily addressed the people who claim good or neutral intentions but still do not fully see the problem with the perpetuation of an Indian image. I believe that by doing so, she intended to get her message to those very people. Instead of highlighting the consequences that may come from overtly racist behavior by fans and rivals at sporting events, she makes the point that the existence alone of the mascot can have negative consequences. Frazier makes an example of Ted Turner; he has produced several films which, according to Frazier, “beautifully document the history and the culture of American Indians” from a Native perspective (344). He is also the owner of the Atlanta Braves, whose fans often perform the “tomahawk chop” (Frazier 344). Turner is an interesting subject as he is someone who has actively supported the Native community, while also actively contributing to the problem. Frazier believes that this contradictory viewpoint exists because of a “dual image we have assigned to Native peoples” (345). Even though we now are more likely to associate “the Indian” with stoicism or bravery, by naming a sports team after them we are inherently suggesting that they are a “fighting people” (Frazier 345). By leaving out the more aggressive actions, and people with more extreme opinions, Frazier was able to more effectively target an ignorant population that may have good intentions. This is the population that may be more receptive to information, and more open to change. However, it is important to keep in mind that there are many people who are comfortable expressing their more radical opinions on the matter.These actions are harmful, and certainly contribute to the problem at hand. How do the issues and themes raised relate to other readings, events, theories/concepts,discussions and disciplines? For example, how do some of the issues relate to your own primary major if it is not American Indian Studies/Sociology? It was interesting to compare Frazier’s essay on Native American mascots to “Masks in the New Millenium” by Winona LaDuke (Jolivette 61-73). LaDuke more aggressively calls the non-Native population out for their ignorance. She explains that she has spoken at many universities, and asked her audiences if they can name ten Indian nations (LaDuke 62). No one has been able to do so. LaDuke presents the issue with a sense of urgency, while Frazier presents it more as “food for thought”. She connects the Fighting Sioux to Ralph Engelstad, a confirmed Nazi sympathizer, and significant donor to the University of North Dakota (LaDuke 65). She also discusses several offensive actions taken by supporters of the Fighting Sioux name (La Duke 70). I believe that both of these takes are valuable. I believe that people need to be confronted with the hard facts; LaDuke has laid those out. But there is a chance that a reader may not see themselves in the more aggressive examples, and believe that they are not part of the problem. Frazier effectively appeals to a more ambiguous crowd. Sometimes harm is less visible. As a psychology major, I was reminded of stereotype threat. Even if the Native American population is exposed to an image that (allegedly) intends to honor their community, it can result in the conformation to perceived stereotypes. Perhaps if more people understood stereotype threat as a concept, they would understand that the existence of the images alone has consequences. What did you agree and disagree about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? Do the readings speak to your own personal lived experience or to that of people in your ethnic community? Frazier’s discusses how Hollywood has reinforced a stereotypical Indian, who is often killed by the white man out of necessity (341). A similar problem exists with representation in the black community. My dad, a black man, has always expressed his distaste for any movie about slavery. I initially did not entirely see where he was coming from, as slavery is an unfortunate reality of our country’s history that should not be forgotten. But I now understand the sentiment of not wanting to further cultivate the image of a black man as a slave. My dad also has a major problem with any movie that involves a white savior swooping in to save a seemingly helpless black man or woman (i.e. The Help, The Blind Side). Ultimately, there is a problem when a white person is telling a black or Native person’s story; unfortunately, our country’s history exists in this manner.I was not personally actively aware of the extent of Indian names in branding and marketing. We often hear about the mascot controversies, as they tend to be the most upfront in terms of being problematic. I am embarrassed to admit that I do not typically think twice about seeing a Pontiac or a Jeep Cherokee. Perhaps it is because these names are not necessarily paired with an Indian image, which forces one to more concretely confront their origins. I am now more aware of the full extent of the exploitation of the Indian image. Ultimately, I agree with Frazier. Eliminating these inappropriate uses of Indian names encourages the quest for further understanding towards the Native community as they exist today. Say Hau to Native American Barbie Kim Shuck (Jolivette 27-37) How does the author construct his/her argument? What is s/he arguing for and/or against? In her essay, Shuck more or less attempts to decode the existence and purpose behind Mattel’s Native American Barbie dolls. She looks to the dolls as a source of what characteristics are perceived to “signify Indian-ness” (Shuck 28). She admittedly tries to approach the situation with humor, as opposed to “indignation that is so much easier to feel in the face of this sort of use of (her) community’s image” (Shuck 36). She calls into question who Native American Barbie is for; some of the dolls do not come out of their outfits, and others have immovable“Hau” arms (Shuck 29). While most Barbies have an occupation or activity that they partake in, Native American Barbie’s activity appears to be “being part of a ‘proud Indian heritage’” (Shuck 31). She examines the commonalities between the several Native American Barbies that have come out over the years; the majority of the Barbies have braids, jewelry, leather, black hair, and clothing with fringe (Shuck 28). Each Native American Barbie’s box tells a different, but similar, historical tale (Shuck 30). They stress the importance of tradition and assure authenticity (Shuck 32). Shuck is confident that the Barbies are not intended to emulate the reality of the Native woman, but the stereotypical image that we are all too familiar with (Shuck 29). What are the assumptions underlying an author’s main arguments? How might these assumptions relate to the historical context in which the text was written? Shuck points out that Native American Barbie belongs to the “Dolls of the World “collection, which primarily refers to dolls who are “from” countries other than the United States (36). She assumes that by including Native American Barbie in this collection, it is implied that Native Americans are “external to the United States” (Shuck 36). She wonders how Native American culture is considered to be “alien” and “exotic” in the same land that it emerged from (Shuck 36). This furthers the erasure of Native American communities from the United States. She believes that it is this “otherworldly cachet” that sells these dolls; an accurate contemporary Native American Barbie would not sufficiently emulate the same desired mystique (Shuck 36). Native Americans are expected to have a magical connection to animals and nature (Shuck 34). The only way to gain access to this mysticism is through film, books, and “apparently the ownership of certain dolls” (Shuck 35). Shuck assumes this much because this follows a consistent pattern that we’ve seen in United States’ culture, in the early 2000s, and still today. Native American images are used to provoke nostalgia for a simpler time. People are willing to accept this version of the story because it allows them to leave the Native American in the past. What are the implications of the readings’ main point, theme, or argument? While Shuck does not explicitly condemn the Barbies, it is clear that she would prefer them to not exist. Shuck calls into question the function of Native American Barbie, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that she is not really intended for play like the majority of Barbies. Over the years, Native American Barbies have become increasingly more and more iconic (Shuck 36). They have become more and more difficult to play with; they are undress-able or contorted into an immovable position (Shuck 36). Shuck wants the reader to question what and who the dolls are for. They have little appeal to the average child, as being part of a “proud Indian heritage” is not an activity (Shuck 31). One could argue that it is important for there to be representation for all people, even when it comes to something as trivial as a Barbie doll. However, no child, or person for that matter, is going to see themselves in a Native American Barbie doll. The blatantly shotty research put into the text on the back of the box makes it clear that they are not intended to appeal to the Native community. Instead, they are for the collector; someone who accepts the Euro-American history of Native Americans that so many have willingly accepted to avoid discomfort. Shuck encourages the reader to acknowledge what these dolls truly are, and what they represent. Native American Barbie perpetuates the “Indian image” that continues to obscure the present-day Native community. Are there relevant points that are not covered adequately by the reading/author? Why do you think the author did not address those points, and why is it important to consider them? I would have liked to see a comparison between Native American Barbie and some other members of the “Dolls of the World” collection. Are the other dolls’ faux biographies just as wildly inaccurate? I wonder if Shuck has thought much about a potential solution to the Native American Barbie problem. I also would have liked to hear her take on the larger issue at hand. Does she also have a problem with the other dolls in the “Dolls of the World” collection? Is it ever okay for an entire culture or country to be boiled down to a particular subset of features and qualities? It is interesting to think about, because while representation is important, it seems strange that what these Barbies “do” is exist as a member of a particular culture. Perhaps the best solution would be to produce regular Barbies in a variety of different colors, shapes, and sizes without explicitly calling attention to their non-whiteness. I understand why Shuck focused solely on the Native Barbie, as it is a problematic issue that deserves exclusive attention. There are so many inaccurate Indian images circulating, that it is valuable to take a closer look at just one of them. Schuck chose to approach the situation with humor as opposed to anger. Instead of just pointing out all of the problems with Native American Barbie, she instead attempted to decode the thoughts of her creators. Perhaps if we can better understand the problem, we can more effectively come up with a solution. 5.How do the issues and themes raised related to other readings, events, theories/ concepts,discussions and disciplines? For example, how do some of the issues relate to your own primary major if it is not American Indian Studies? The existence of Native American Barbie is related to the use of Native American mascots, and the overall “Indian image” that continues to perpetuate. Even though there is nothing overtly negative or derogatory about Native American Barbie, there is harm that comes from producing another misinformed and iconographic Indian image. The marketing of Native American Barbie as “genuine” reminded me of the sentiment behind Indian impostor Asa Carter’s The Education of Little Tree (Morrison 313-331). Carter’s stories and characters were intended to provoke a sense of longing for a simpler time; they implied that a return to cultural primitivism would restore authenticity (Browder 327). One Native American Barbie doll in particular, named “Spirit of the Water”, intends to capitalize on this implied deeper connection to nature (Shuck 34). The text on the back of her box is significantly more poetic than that of previous years: “Beneath brilliant blue skies, a Native American woman dances, calling forth the great spirit” (Shuck 35). The doll is even referred to as “an exquisite tribute to Indian heritage” (Shuck 35). Browder believes that we look to this particular Indian image for what we as a culture have lost (327). What did you agree and disagree about the reading? What did you gain from the reading in terms of your own intellectual understanding of the topic being covered? Do the readings speak to your own personal lived experience, or to that of people in your ethnic community? Shuck’s investigation into the existence of Native American Barbies provided me with another example of the perpetuation of an inaccurate Indian image. Native American Barbie is literally stuck in the past, as it is sometimes not even possible to remove her “traditional” clothing. The chapter made me reflect on the importance of representation. On one hand (if we’re ignoring all of the other problems that exist with Barbie dolls), there should be a Native American Barbie. It is important for all children to feel included in popular culture. For kids this translates into seeing someone that looks like you. I was reminded of a story that my mom, a first-grade teacher, recently told me. She was reading a picture book to her class, when she flipped to a page that had a drawing of a young girl with dark skin. A student from Haiti immediately jumped out of her seat, ran to the front of the classroom, pointed to the book and exclaimed, “That’s me!” Her uncontrollable excitement certainly stemmed from the fact that she was not used to seeing pictures or drawings of children who looked like her. The existence of the Native American Barbies in their current state cannot be justified, as they are not intended to appeal to a Native American child. I agree with Shuck’s claims. Native American Barbies are not rooted in reality. The dolls are yet another historical Indian image that attempt to leave the Native American in the past.
READ MORE >>
