Since the use is primarily referring to a NFL team, but you are admitting that its use is done still today in derogatory terms.The vast majority of it's use in the modern day is not done in a derogatory fashion.
A piss poor excuse for it's continued use.At times in our history it's use was more derogatory than not, and in isolated instances today it still may be....but by and large it's use today is not in a derogatory fashion.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
[QUOTE=Zyphlin;1063421828]Research conducted by a Senior Linguist of the Smithsonian institute.
The earliest use of the word "Red Skin" in print was in July 22nd, 1815 newspaper quoting a native american chief stating "I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."
The earliest discovered reference to the word in history was from 1769, when a chief named Mosquito "And if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life."
The earliest public reference of the word used in English was in 1812 by James Madison and a number of tribal leaders who made statements such as "I know the manners of the whites and of the red skins" and "I am a red-skin, but what I say is the truth, and notwithstanding I came a long way, I am content, but wish to return from there."
I'm not advocating forcing the Redskins to change their name. But they do deserve all of the PR backlash and boycotts that result from keeping the name. They have to decide if being called the redskins instead of just the skins worth that.Every dictionary classifies it as a usually offensive term.But even your reliance on the dictionary, it still does not follow what you claimed which was that it IS a racial slur...not that it USUALLY is. And I'd argue that the dictionary is hardly correct, since the words is used FAR more in society as a reference to a football team than it is as a direct reference to native americans, let alone as a slur. However, a word's relation to a team isn't part of a dictionary definition typically....which is why the ethnic slur "yankee" doesn't make mention of a baseball team.
SOME native americans have been.
And they can all go suck a duck. Peter King and his MMQB no longer receives any clicks from me. They're more than happy to indulge in their protest...their protest proves nothing about the name other than their displeasure with it.
None of which changes that it was still conducted in accordance with the standards for scientifically conducting such a poll. The entire purpose of polling is to garner a sample that can then realistically be extrapolated to the samples group at large.As for numerical issues, the survey randomly interviewed 65,047 individuals. Of those, 768 self identified as Native Americans. In 2004 the average poll response rate was 25%. That puts their overall response rate at around 1:400.
I admit, it's an old poll. The data may have changed slightly. But once again I'll note it is the most recent FACTUAL EVIDENCE on this manner that I've seen. if you have something more recent please present it. Otherwise I'll go with scientifically conducted, FACTUAL, information over anecdotal evidenced based primarily over whose loudest and gets the most media attention (Which has been deridingly skewed)The poll is outdated, being more than a decade old.
I find this funny that you claim "native americans", stated in this broad fashion, have been complaining since the 60's...but then suddenly you're suggesting that native americans didn't have the knowledge to be introspective on the issueThe question wasn't given in a way which would promote any kind of introspection on the subject into a topic that had received essentially zero coverage.
Not all native americans are members of active tribes.The poll only required self identification, but did not follow up with any kind of follow-up questions to determine tribal membership or ancestry. There's a difference between being a self identified Native American and being an active member of a tribe.
Once again, native americans on reservations are not the only native americans. Secondly, that still provides for a significant sample on reservations that were able to answer a land line poll. Once again, do some research and take some classes on how polling is conducted....the entire purpose for scientific polling is an understanding that you can't reach every single person within a population.The poll relied on landlines. In 2005 only half of all Native Americans living on a reservation had access to a land line.
Which is why it's accurate to claim, at the very least, 90% of native americans are not bothered by the name.The phrasing of the question is confusing. It combines do you find offensive with doesn't it bother you.
And on and on you go...but I'll say again.
You find me something "more accurate" or "more recent" and I'll be happy to have it. If you don't, all you're doing is pissing and moaning with quibbles and casting stones because I'm actually going off something factually sound and you're going off pure and utter anecdotal. You say the poll has issues? I say your factual evidence as to the names offense or the belief of native americans that it should be changed to be nonexistent. I'll take some minor issues over nonexistent.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.