Stasis Theory – RCL Post #9

For our project, we will analyze the whole controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins and how it might be considered offensive to the Native American people. Before I get into stasis, there are two sides that are fighting over the issue.

1. Dan Snyder (Redskins Owner) and Washington Redskins Fans – Dan Snyder sent a letter out addressing this controversy saying he had “surveyed” and talked to many tribes of the Native American people, saying that the name provided them with great honor. Actually, the name of the football team was originally changed to Redskin in order to “honor” the football coach at the time who was a Native American Sioux.

2. Native American people– The term “Redskin” derives from bounties that were given to people that killed Native Americans. When they killed the Native Americans, they cut their scalps off, which exposed their skin making the top of their heads “red.” The argument does not seem as strong (at a first glance) on this side, because not all Native Americans found the word offensive at all. This weakens the strength of their argument to an extent because they are not together backing up their stand.

Now before I enter stasis, you may ask me, “What is stasis?” Stasis is where a rhetor takes a stand within an argument. When you look at the Redskins controversy in terms of stasis, you can conclude that each side of the argument (Dan Snyder vs. Native Americans) is trying to make a stand for their argument.

But what about when you cannot achieve stasis between the two parties? This is where both parties will have to “agree” in order to disagree to reach stasis. At this point where they are “halfway” we will look more in-depth to see each perspective of the argument.

So now, if I were to use stasis in order to create the framing questions for my project, I would try to enter the perspective of each side of this debate. I am looking forward to presenting my project!

Leave a Reply