This paper analyzes Richard Estrada's article "Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names," examining how Estrada employs the classical rhetorical appeals of pathos, ethos, and logos to argue that naming sports teams after Native Americans is culturally insensitive and should be discontinued. The paper identifies specific textual examples of each rhetorical device, including nostalgic emotional appeals, appeals to institutional authority, and logical empathy exercises. It also evaluates several rhetorical fallacies present in Estrada's argument—including appeals to probability, hasty generalizations, either/or framing, and stacked evidence—assessing how these weaknesses undermine his overall persuasive case.
In the article entitled "Sticks and Stones and Sports Team Names," author Richard Estrada writes about the continued use of Native Americans as nicknames for American sports teams and argues that this practice is culturally insensitive and should be banned. In making this case, he invokes feelings of nostalgia and regional pride in a sports team and contrasts these with the mockery of an ethnic identity. Estrada utilizes the rhetorical devices of pathos, ethos, and logos while, intentionally or unintentionally, also employing logical fallacies in making his arguments regarding the harm of continuing the practice of naming teams after ethnic minorities.
Pathos, or emotional appeal, is utilized throughout the piece, but most obviously in Estrada's opening paragraph. He first uses nostalgic terms to create an image of childhood and then uses hyperbole to describe the ballplayers (Estrada). By invoking memories of his youth and the feelings they carried, he draws the reader into their own childhood and the emotions they felt watching their favorite team. Further, by comparing the team to Greek gods, he prompts the reader to feel awe for the team's greatness. From the outset, the reader is confronted with Estrada's emotions and is therefore subtly called upon to respond with their own.
Estrada uses ethos — the appeal to the authority or credibility of the author — by first sharing his own memories and then asserting that it is wrong to name teams after ethnic identities. He draws the reader in and then illustrates his moral outrage, using the word right several times to frame his position on the issue. In addition, he cites figures and institutions with authority to strengthen his case, specifically referencing a major university — one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the country — that changed its mascot from the Indians to the Cardinals. Estrada presents this change as the "right" thing to do, positioning the renaming of ethnically identified mascots as the ethical choice. By setting the two options in direct comparison, he establishes himself as a guide distinguishing what learned, ethical people will choose. To disagree with his position, he implies, is both wrong and unethical.
"Logical empathy argument using Native American story"
"Hasty generalizations, either/or framing, stacked evidence"
Richard Estrada uses pathos, logos, and ethos to instill the idea that it is wrong to name teams after ethnic groups, but also employs rhetorical fallacies that muddy his writing and confuse the reader. Pathos invokes nostalgia, which is then contrasted with the moral outrage felt by Native American communities. Ethos frames these names as ethically wrong by appealing to authority and institutional examples. Finally, logos is used to show the reader how they would feel as a member of a marginalized population, making the abolition of such names appear logically sound. Estrada believes these names are inherently wrong and largely dismisses opposing perspectives. His clear intention is to convince readers that these names should be changed immediately.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.