Emersonian Self-Reliant Man

The Emersonian self-reliant man is one who does not follow a creed or way of life. In other words, it is someone who thinks for themselves and doesn't conform to other people's beliefs. Consistency is big enemy of self-reliance. Being consistent means that the individual is re-stating what they have said in the past, "because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts."Emerson believes that the individual shouldn't rely on their memory to make a point; the present provides the best experience.s The Emersonian individual should have the ability to do what they want, similar to a child as Emerson puts it. A child is in its own world, not trying to please anyone or accomplish a certain long-term goal- they just exist and do what they please because they are not aware of any opposite force against them. 

Society is one of the opposers of self-reliance.  Society consists of everyone working together to make things for others - If one is a part of society, another is benefitting from that person's labor. To Emerson, in society, "The virtue in most request is conformity." Self-reliance revolves around not having to conform, so they are aversions to each other. A man can hold the same beliefs as the majority, but only if he came to those conclusions himself, without any driving outside force that convinced him. If he shares a belief with a majority just because many people believe that idea, he is not self-reliant. AN individual can hurt others. Emerson says that the self-reliant man shouldn't hurt others: "If you are not [noble], I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions." He's saying that hurting someone because they do not share the same beliefs, or because they said something that the person in question doesn't like, then calling yourself a self-reliant man and hurting them is completely hypocritical. A real self-reliant man would be glad that the person is thinking for his or her self and not agreeing with the self-reliant man.

native american debate response

I think that this mascot debate is kind of ridiculous. It’s sort of hard to solve an issue like this when both sides are being equally as silly. The NCAA is trying to ban all mascots and team names that contain anything involving Native Americans. This is already in itself a stretch; they are asking the teams to cross out their names from any previous achievments, and change their symbol and name. The teams shouldn’t have to cross out anything, but they also have to admit that some of the names are pretty racist. Not all of them, like the Braves, but the Redskins specifically catches my attention. That’s like having a team with a black guy as their mascot and calling them the Blackskins. It’s pretty blatantly racist.

Also, their doesn’t seem to be much word from the party in question: the Native Americans themselves. The Florida Seminole tribe seemed to be fine with it, but that’s all we’ve heard from. They don’t really get a say themselves, but they also don’t have an evident problem with the names. Right now it seems like the argument is probably a group of white dudes arguing with another group of white dudes about another race. I think they should actually get an opinion from the Native Americans to proceed.

Word Count: 218