By wading into the highly contentious issue of Native American nicknames and mascots for college sports teams on Friday, National Collegiate Athletic Association leaders achieved their stated aim of sending a clear message that they object to such imagery. But the NCAA also created a cacophony of confusion and put the association in the potentially uncomfortable position of judging when Native American references are “hostile” and “abusive” and when they’re not – questions that could take months, and possibly help from the courts, to resolve.
Four years after the NCAA began looking into the subject, its executive committee announced that beginning in February, it would limit participation in its own postseason championships for 18 colleges and universities with Native American mascots, nicknames or other imagery that the association deemed "hostile and abusive."
The NCAA said that (1) it would no longer let such institutions play host to its national tournaments; (2) colleges already scheduled to sponsor such events would have to eliminate any references to the Indian imagery from the arenas or stadiums; (3) such colleges could not bring mascots, cheerleaders or any other people or paraphernalia that feature Native American imagery to NCAA championships, beginning in 2008; and (4) athletes may not wear uniforms or other gear with "hostile and abusive" references at NCAA tournament events. (The NCAA’s actions don’t directly affect bowl games, which the association does not control, or anything that happens in the regular season.)
Prologue
explanation: introductory statement or passage
The union pacific railroad faced issues of spending far more money then what was produced in actually railroad tracks.
Hope this helps.
Answer:
The scene is similar in that they both took Winnie Foster away from her safety zone, displacing her from her own comfortable place.
But then again, the situations are different as Mae had no evil intention behind her decision to take Winnie. But the man, on the other hand, had far more sinister ideas in mind behind the 'offer' to 'rescue' Winnie from the Tucks.
Explanation:
Natalie Babbitt's children novel <em>Tuck Everlasting</em> tells the story of how a family came to be immortal from their accidental drinking of water from a stream in the forest. And it is this 'immortality' that led to the disastrous event which led to the loss of a good friend Winnie.
When the<em> "man in the yellow suit"</em> took Winnie against her will to return her back to her family, Mae/ Mother Tuck took her husband's shotgun. She fired and killed the man, for she knows that the man wanted nothing but evil intentions. When asked why she did what she did, she replied that <em>"he was taking the child against against her will"</em> which is also exactly what she did.
These two situations of Winnie being taken away against her will are similar in that the two adults took advantage of her, without asking for her approval. Winnie had no choice but do what she is told to do so.
But for Mae, she had no evil intention except reveal the truth about her family's immortality and also provide a chance for her family to have an interaction with a real, living <em>"natural child"</em>. But the man had wanted to 'trade' on the water, trying to get it t more deserving people. That is how different the two situations are.
