Resource Mobilization Theory

The world is not perfect for everyone. People come from different backgrounds and not everyone will be satisfied. There are a limited number of changes that can be made in a significant amount of time. This is because humans are creatures of habit, and they do not like to change what is already established, specifically social matters. The problem resides in that some of the social ideologies are incorrect and unfair to the ones being affected. It is ignorant to believe that keeping things the way they are is the right thing to do. Change allows progress and advancement of peoples, while convention just stagnates. If one has a grievance for a just cause, then they should speak out. The complication arises because there are usually few who can raise the resources necessary to get their change enacted. If they were to get the much needed resources, social change or at least progress is imminent.

The main way to attain success in a social movement under resource mobilization theory is to attain resources. Resources are things of monetary value, and or people with intrinsic value to the cause. The difficulty in attaining these resources monetary) is because the cause is likely lacking people to speak up. The majority of the targeted population for change does not care of their cause and the ones who are affected sometimes are too weak to mobilize. With a lack of people, monetary contributions are almost always in short supply. But if the cause’s leader is strong enough (charismatic), they will be able to draw people to their cause and let them speak of their grievances. With human capitol, there comes monetary capital, which is crucial to the objective.

With enough resources, people’s grievances will be heard. Resources allow supporters to take time away from their jobs and their everyday lives because the economic support can afford to feed and house them. Money cannot only feed and house them, but can give them access to lawyers and people of power. If enough people are impacted, the media will come to cover the story. Media coverage can be the ultimate goal because it is not just word-of-mouth anymore. With press comes millions of viewers and the more people affected, whether strongly or not, the more that will hear their cause and join in. What happens with resource mobilization theory is a positive feedback loop.

Resource mobilization theory is effective in its own right. Although it states you need substantial resources to mobilize one’s cause, if the cause if strong enough, that is going to be the least of one’s concerns. I think this theory is still effective today. It is evident in the recent documentary we watched in class, “Prom Night in Mississippi.” This film had hundreds of people with grievances against segregated proms. Their cause is strong because behind the prom, is hundreds of years of racial tensions that have the possibility of being calmed. The human capital had always been there, all is took was some monetary capital. Morgan Freeman offered to pay for their prom night, but more came along with him. The fact that it is a film means it is a type of media and more will be affected. With the contribution made by Freeman, the cause procured success. It was made apparent by the kids in little Charleston, Mississippi that if your cause is strong enough and you have the will to persevere, you will triumph.

Born into Racism?

Many sociologists and historians have researched and studied the origins of racism. There have also been prominent historical leaders that have contributed a large amount to the racist ideology. Josiah Strong, Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin are a few historical figures that come to mind when I personally think about racist influencers. It is commonly known that racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan attract white people who have experienced some sort of disadvantage that favored minorities. These people seek a way to get back at the group they believe wronged them. In reality, this reason is far from why those people are disadvantaged. Similarly, people who have been raised to think in a racist manner are much more likely to become racist themselves.

People who are racist are obviously very closed-minded. They do not like change and do not wish for equality among the races. However, a thought that interests me is to what extent does your upbringing, meaning your familial environment, have on your views of race? I am unaware of any evidence that racist beliefs can be genetic, so this thought centers entirely on the nurture portion of the nature-nurture argument. Some areas of the United States are considerably more racist than others, possibly due to historical events, government programs to help minorities that in some way negatively affected the dominant white society, or loss of jobs to globalization. Individuals born in areas predisposed to racist beliefs will obviously be more likely to be raised by racist parents. A child is extremely influential at a young age, and being subjected to racist ideas and words during this stage of their lives will almost certainly cause the individual to become racists themselves.

One can compare this idea, although the meanings of the two drastically different associations cannot be compared, to religion. A person born to two Christian parents is not very likely to convert to Judaism, unless due to marriage. This can go both ways. I am in no way saying Christianity is better than Judaism or Judaism is better than Christianity. Merely, I am asserting the point that what you are born into pre-determines what much of your life and thoughts will be like.

One important note here is that, as shown in the video entitled “Prom Night in Mississippi,” education most likely plays a role in whether one has racist beliefs or not. There were a few white citizens of Charleston, Mississippi who believed separation of the races was meant to exist. It could be reasonably ascertained that a few of these citizens also had a very low education level. If an individual does not receive a high level of education, they are less likely to challenge preconceived notions about topics such as race. They are also very unlikely to become aware of structural racism and the impact it has on minority groups. Personally, I believe that if a racist individual receives a post-secondary education of some sort, they are much more likely to rethink their previously held beliefs about race.

If more people become educated and develop the ability to challenge previously held beliefs, it is possible that racism would decrease directly as a result.

Arabs in America

Arabs in America

While reading the section in the text about the race and civil rights of Muslims in the United States pre- and post-September 11, 2001, I was surprised on how much terrorism by other types of religious-extremist groups there are that are not publicized. I think part of the reason that groups such the Jewish Defense League (JDL) don’t get as much attention in the press as Arab terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda is the nature of their terrorism. The JDL’s goal was to “eliminate perceived enemies of the Jewish people and Israel,” and they targeted specific groups of people who they view as threats. Mostly, the JDL targeted Muslims, and since the majority of the United States is not Muslim, most Americans did not see the JDL as a direct threat to their livelihood.

I think that another reason for groups such as the JDL not getting press coverage is because they are not seen a threat to all Americans, and because Americans do not see them as a threat, we passively sit by.

On the other hand, I think the vast majority of Americans have fear of Arabs is because terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda are willing to target any and all Americans, and they base this claim on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2009. On that day, thousands of people who had never voiced their hatred for Muslims, or for that matter even felt any sort of hatred for them, were attacked by surprise when they thought they were safe. I think that this nature of being attacked when a person least expects it makes people weary when they see Muslims in public. Additionally, since Al Qaeda is opposed to the American way of life in general, they target every American. Since Americans in general are the target of Al Qaeda, American pay more attention to (publicize more) the activities of groups that target them. If the JDL used the same tactics that Al Qaeda used, I would not be surprised if Americans felt the same way towards them as they do towards Muslims today. However, as the text states, there are many more factors to the racism towards Muslims.

While watching the episode of 30 Days, I could not help but notice how Dave seemed to be representative of how the American population views Muslims and their religion. While he is a practicing Christian, for the most part he did not know anything about the Muslim religion. Dave seemed shocked when he heard that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all branches of similar beliefs. I think part of the reason many people who do not practice Islam are unaware of its beliefs is because many Americans do not look it upon with favor.

Another part in the episode of 30 Days I thought was intriguing was when people were asked how they felt about a local mosque broadcasting its call to prayer over a loudspeaker so people on the street could hear it. People claimed this action violated their religious freedom, and the mosque received bomb threats. I think these people who have issue with this broadcasted call to prayer hold Islam to a double-standard: that is, the same people who are outraged by the Islam religion’s call to prayer think church bells, which is their call to prayer, are perfectly acceptable.

I think the main reason behind this negative attitude towards Arab Americans stems from lack of knowledge and education on their culture. The only knowledge most people have of Arabs and their Muslim religion comes from the media, which obviously puts a negative “spin” on their religion. Once people become more educated, they will understand that the beliefs they currently hold towards Arab Americans are based on misconceptions; which will lead to more a more positive attitude towards Arabs and their religion in America.

Native American Mascots

Native American Mascots

Mascots, no matter what they are of, are the most blatant form of stereotypes in society today. From the Redskins to the Trojans, and to the Fighting Irish, there are countless different types of schools and professional teams that use a stereotypical figure as their mascot. One of the most hotly debated topics in recent history has been the use of Native American mascots for schools and professional sports teams. As with any other debate, there are always two sides to the argument, with one side always losing, and one winning.

Many Native Americans are very upset because they think the images portrayed by mascots are unfair stereotypes linked to their people. Their resentment cannot be argued, because they are entitled to their own feelings. In the video In Whose Honor, one of the Native Americans who, after going to an Illinois basketball game and seeing chief Illiniwek perform at halftime said that, “If you grew up within the community where those things have meaning.. it would be a blow.” While I haven’t grown up in her community, I must take her word for it that it is indeed offensive to them.

However, there many more aspects to this debate. One of the most important aspects of the use of Native American mascots is intent. In the case of mascots, the intent is to use a figure that will unite a team’s fans and give them something to identify with. It seems counterintuitive that a team’s own fans would disrespect their mascot. People must also understand that there is a level of co-opting that goes on with a mascot. In many instances the image that a mascot is representing becomes separated from its original meaning.

In the video, they only interviewed Natives who were angered at this… Does the whole Native population share this sentimate? Probably not. When looking at any issue, one must not make the false assumption of group homogeneity – the idea that everyone in a group feels the same way as an individual.

A small group of natives may be offended, but then again, groups of people are offended by almost anything. Look at groups such as PETA – they raise concern but most likely, the way animals are treated before they are killed will probably not be changed because of money… here also, money is a big driving factor. If a University such as Florida State switched their mascot, many alumni will be pissed at this, and thus pull their funding from the school.

This controversy brings attention to the issue of Native Americans. The old saying that ‘any publicity is good publicity’ can apply to this situation. If there weren’t this controversy over the mascots, Native Americans would not be paid much attention to in the media. However, because of this controversy, people are being made aware of the Natives and their culture. People are now aware of the possible disrespect to the culture, and are careful not to have the intent of disrespect.

It is impossible to please everyone all the time. In the end, America is a free-market capitalist society, so whatever brings in the most money will always win out in the end. No matter what happens, one group of people will be left unsatisfied. In the future, when new sports teams come to be, it would be wise to not allow them to take on names that have anything to do with Native Americans, or for that matter, any other race of people. This would help prevent the current controversy from taking on a new form.

Intent and Perception of Mascots

Since the conception of modern sports, mascots have been employed. Mascots are a symbol that is supposed to distinguish a team and give the fans something to represent. They are used to bring the team luck and strength. The intent of a mascot is to help a team and portray a positive image, not hinder and or hurt it. Problems arise with mascots though when they represent or are associated with a sensitive issue. When mascots are chosen, they are almost always held in high esteem. They are not something to negatively affect a team’s interests and image. The way mascots should be perceived is by the intent and authenticity to the symbol it represents.

Many controversial mascots were chosen at times when the issue was not so sensitive, or was not seeing public light. Through time though, many atrocities and negative stereotypes have been correlated with the mascots because of historic events. The problem is that the mascot was chosen most likely with good intent, but because of past and current issues, they are protested and changed or eliminated. A strong example of this can be used from the class discussion of Jay Rosenstein’s “In Whose Honor.” In 1926, the University of Illinois needed a mascot, and the assistant band director chose a Native American chief. The chief represented was Chief Illiniwek of the Sioux. The expression Illiniwek meant “the complete human being - the strong, agile human body, and the indomitable human spirit.” The meaning of Illiniwek is a prime example of good intent. Also, not only being a picturesque symbol, the chief would do a “traditional” dance created by student who was an Eagle Scout that studied the Native American Culture. As time progressed, people started to remember the atrocities suffered by the Sioux Indians and that the use of a Native American image for a mascot is borderline unacceptable. The leader of the protest was a University of Illinois graduate student from Spokane, Washington named Charlene Teters. She stated that the mascot was not an authentic portrayal of an Indian chief and it was very offensive because of its mockery of sacred Native American culture. Many students and faculty at the University of Illinois believe that the Chief may not be as authentic as it could be, but it is a traditional symbol of the school and is held in the highest regard among fans. As aforementioned, the intent of the mascot was to represent and respect the Native American culture, not demean and parade it around.

The difficulty is that there are so many different kinds of people who come from different backgrounds; it is hard to satisfy them all and not cause problems. There are going to be sensitive issues and people surrounding every mascot. What complicates things more is people do not always see eye to eye. The thing that seems to matter most is what people perceive the mascot to symbolize, not the intent. So likewise, there are going to be many controversial mascots. What needs to be done, instead of eliminating an image (like the retirement of Chief Illiniwek), is a change of one. If a mascot is misrepresenting, then steps towards making it acceptable should be made. People do no need to get melodramatic, they need to look at the issue from both sides; they need to recognize the intent and not selfishly concern themselves with only their perception because looking at the intent aids in perception.

The Roles of Native American Mascots in Sports and Entertainment

Native American mascots and what they represent have been considered by many to be a white societal creation that destroys the tribe’s tradition and seeks to commercialize their spiritual beliefs. Like many controversial aspects involving a minority group being subjected to the harshness of the dominant society, people aware of the issues involved with using Native American mascots in sports and entertainment are forced to choose a side. The popular belief is that Native American-themed mascots, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Florida State Seminoles, and the University of Illinois Illini, are mostly a tradition of the organization, created decades ago when the issue of Native American mascots and what they represented was largely uncontested. Within the past few decades, this previously unchallenged viewpoint has come under fire from both Native American groups and by concerned non-native individuals.

In Charlene Teters’ film “In Whose Honor,” the effects of the dominant white society corrupting the meaning of Native American symbols for commercialization and entertainment are clearly shown. Teters was a graduate student at the University of Illinois in Champagne. The mascot of the University was at the time (1989) called Chief Illiniwek, named in regards to a fictional chief from the Native American tribe the Illini. The mascot, created in the 1920’s as a way to excite crowds at sporting events and increase school spirit, is a student dressed as a stereotypical Native American chief. The student wears a complete costume made of buckskin with a large headdress made of fake eagle feathers. The student dances around during halftime, performing a fake dance that is falsely believed by many to be an actual spiritual dance. Many supporters of the University of Illinois don’t consider Chief Illiniwek to be a mascot, but instead see him as part of the University’s heritage and tradition. Teter vehemently disagrees, and sees Chief Illiniwek as something that mimicked and trivialized what Native Americans have been taught to appreciate. In the film she was invited to attend a basketball game and brought her two young children. After watching the student portraying Chief Illiniwek perform a halftime dance, she said she sees the mascot as a symbolic display of control, that the dominant white race is showing her that they control the Native American race.

Many Native Americans feel like Teters did after seeing a mockery of their race, and they even say it is more of an insult because it is made to seem real and not a cartoon figure. They point out that black face and black caricatures have disappeared from the main stream, while Indian images have not. Brand names such as Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, Monitor Sugar Company and Sue Bee Honey use stereotypical images of Native Americans to market their products. These companies use these images on their labels because society has come to associate certain ideas and thoughts with certain images of Native Americans. Although most Native American groups condone the improper use of Native American-based mascots because they are usually represented in an inaccurate light, some Native American groups believe they have a place in sports and entertainment if they represent themselves. An example of this is the Oneida Indian Tribe of Green Bay, Wisconsin performing pow-wows at Green Bay Packer games. The tribe performs a tribal dance at half time of a game each year, showing individuals in attendance an accurate picture of Native American culture. However, the tribe’s intention may be more than just promoting Native American culture. The Oneida tribe owns and operates a large casino in the Green Bay area and is a large sponsor and maintains a strong presence at Green Bay Packer home games. Some may argue the performance is more of a promotional event to draw customers than an event to educate the dominant society about a little known group. Either way, the fact that the Oneida tribe represents itself is a step in the right direction for all Native American groups.