The article "Race Based Rooting" argues that sports such as the Olympics allows individuals to secretly root for an athlete based on race. Yet taking a better look at the article , Kamiya, who claims that this type "racism" is benign, never brings in opposing views. Did he not find any opposing views? It would be hard not to. Kamiya writes on a topic which is in a gray area, and very difficult to address. He probably didn't want to get in very many details and fervent discussions on the topic- but just show that each and every race and country have different qualities pertaining to them, and this can influence the rooting of fans.
On the other hand, he probably felt that adding a naysayer would weaken and destroy his claim... Why? Reviewing his article, I find that Kamiya did not have many quotes from authority to back up and support his claim. Therefore he probably feared that opposing views might destroy his whole thesis.
An inclusion of a quote or more from those who disagree would have made his article more credible, it would have shown why he holds a different view, because Kamiya could have developed his defense and thesis, by pinpointing weaknesses or logical fallacies in the claims of his opposers and thus strengthening his own.
Yet Kamiya did make sure to mention several objections from readers. The main objections he addressed were that racism is practiced by whites mainly, and that you can never do race based rooting and not be racist. Kamiya almost jokingly pleaded his audience to give him a chance to speak his mind though he may sound like a racist. This technique makes readers loosen up a bit and put down their guard only enough to read to the end and see what Kamiya wants to say.
An example of a rational objection against Kamiya's thesis would be: "How can you prove that race based rooting is benign?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment