In the article “Indian Mascots- You’re Out!” on the LA Times, Jack Shakley, discusses the utilization of Native American mascots in games. The author portrays the utilization of Indian mascots throughout history of game. He discusses how it has annoyed a few individuals. The way games can utilize Indian mascots can be extremely segregating. He talks of how the mascots look moronic and does idiotic things before the fans. Shakley’s ethos is that he is Indian himself and his mother felt like Indian mascots weren't worthy (520). The way he utilizes emotion is by making you feel that Indian mascots are awful to have as mascots on the grounds that the ways they are depicted resemble fools. He creator utilizes logos to demonstrate that evolving the mascot of a group isn't shabby; Stanford lost a huge number of dollars when they …show more content…
Miller says that utilizing Indian names and mascots as a part of games is done out of admiration and honor, Jack Shakley trusts that all Indian references should be banned from games. Miller puts forth the defense that it is not morally wrong to name a games group after an Indian tribe. As most groups do it because of tribute to the tribe, it isn't ethically wrong to name a group after a tribe (2). In this announcement, it is anything but difficult to see that Miller is expressing that it's not morally terrible to name a group after an Indian tribe. To counter Miller's contention, Shakley demonstrates the opposite side of the issue by saying that the utilization of Indian names is ethically off-base. To have encountered so much actually he passes on his feeling in a way that isn't his own experience. He said “In 21st century America, to name a sports team after an Africa American, Asian or any other ethnic group is unthinkable. So why are Native American are still fair game?” (522). In this quote, Shakley raises other ethnic gatherings to get another point of view on the issue to show why these names are so morally