Several of times we approach a person’s perspective by judging off of our emotions instead of sitting back trying to understand the statement of the person. Carl R. Rogers states in the Rogerian argument, “It would simply mean that before presenting your own point of view, it would be necessary for you to really achieve the others speaker’s frame of reference- to understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarize them for him.” In order to truly understand from the opponent’s position you must try to understand where they are coming from. In “Is the College use of American Indian Mascot Racist?” by Jane Willy, Willy presents how many schools have been told to drop the Native American nicknames. One asks why? It is seen as
…show more content…
Jane Willy states “... a student impersonating Chief Osceola, dressed in Indian regalia and riding on a spotted horse… White people such as me though of this actions as not only a moment of pageantry and fun but also a tribute to the greatness of the Seminole people, past and present. I continue it to think of this way, but now i know that many other people have a different view.” It didn’t even cross Willy’s mind that certain people would think of this act as demeaningful. Jane Will states “Apparently the NCAA was responding to a report issued by the U.S Commision on Civil Rights, which in 2001 characterized American Indian nicknames and mascots at colleges as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful” and urged that they be eliminated (Wills A29). Persons who argue that the names are disrespectful and racist point out that no one today would call a team the Krauts or the Jewboys, or the Chinks or Jpans, or whatever (Pewewardy).” Jane Willy used the Rogerian argument to be able to respect the opposing view. The Rogerian Argument states “Real communication occurs, and this evaluative tendency is avoided, when we listen with understanding.” Willy’s view was questioned when he found out that several people view the Native American names as disrespectful and inappropriate. Willy had to sit back and understand why such nicknames could be seen as offensive.
Jane Willy states “... a student impersonating Chief Osceola, dressed in Indian regalia and riding on a spotted horse… White people such as me though of this actions as not only a moment of pageantry and fun but also a tribute to the greatness of the Seminole people, past and present. I continue it to think of this way, but now i know that many other people have a different view.” It didn’t even cross Willy’s mind that certain people would think of this act as demeaningful. Jane Will states “Apparently the NCAA was responding to a report issued by the U.S Commision on Civil Rights, which in 2001 characterized American Indian nicknames and mascots at colleges as “inappropriate” and “disrespectful” and urged that they be eliminated (Wills A29). Persons who argue that the names are disrespectful and racist point out that no one today would call a team the Krauts or the Jewboys, or the Chinks or Jpans, or whatever (Pewewardy).” Jane Willy used the Rogerian argument to be able to respect the opposing view. The Rogerian Argument states “Real communication occurs, and this evaluative tendency is avoided, when we listen with understanding.” Willy’s view was questioned when he found out that several people view the Native American names as disrespectful and inappropriate. Willy had to sit back and understand why such nicknames could be seen as offensive.