Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 335

Thread: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

  1. #311
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    Then pick any polling outfit you like. Gallup has many decades of effective work. I don't think one bad outing cancels that, but the point is not about them. The point is to get credible data.
    Without the Indians that might be difficult.

  2. #312
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Without the Indians that might be difficult.
    1. Redskins and a credible Indian organization cooperate to hire a law firm. 2. Law firm engages a polling company and a research company. 3. Research company vets the "Indianness" of poll participants. 4. Polling company designs questions, polls participants, tabulates results. 5. Law firm makes all methodology and data transparent to both sides.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #313
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    I really don't believe when the team was named Redskins there was any intent to insult Indians and I truly believe most Indians felt that way and still feel that way to..........The left is going overboard in their PC these days.
    Somehow I don't think Indians had much say when the team was named a racial slur by a white separatist back in the thirties.

  4. #314
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    1. Redskins and a credible Indian organization cooperate to hire a law firm. 2. Law firm engages a polling company and a research company. 3. Research company vets the "Indianness" of poll participants. 4. Polling company designs questions, polls participants, tabulates results. 5. Law firm makes all methodology and data transparent to both sides.
    Sounds expensive, who's going to pay for it?

  5. #315
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,867
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Sounds expensive, who's going to pay for it?
    Redskins and Indian organization should split the cost so neither side can claim the other bought the result.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  6. #316
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Baloney. Indians refer to themselves by their tribal names, Cree, Lakota, Cherokee, etc.
    Sorry, but you don’t get to claim things are “baloney” simply with a wave of the hand. The fact is that the earliest verifiable historical references to the word Redskin was by Native Americans referring to themselves as a collective in situations when there may’ve been multiple tribes (1). For example:

    Meskwaki Chief Black Thunder: “I turn to all red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me.’” (July, 1815)

    Tribal Chief Mosquito: “I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me, and if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life.” (1769)

    Little Osage chief Sans Oreilles: “I know the manners of the whites and of the red skins.” (Aug 1812)

    The Indian mentioned in the article said white sports fans would dismiss his opinion and now here you are, dismissing his opinion.
    First, my post wasn’t responding to an “article”, it responded to a post where you linked a Wikipedia page.

    Second, what opinion am I dismissing? His opinion that if offends him? I’m not dismissing that at all, I fully recognize some people ARE offended and they’re free to have that opinion. His opinion that it’s offensive to all native americans? If that's his opinion, I absolutely dismiss it. Him being a native American doesn’t magically give him the power to speak for all native americans nor does it give his opinion some sort of transcendental truth as it relates to anything other than himself.

    Third, your non-sequitur attack on me doesn’t discount my point regarding the weakness and ludicrous nature of your attempt to prove your claim that most native americans who don’t have a problem with it aren’t “real indians” by citing ONE EXAMPLE.

    Is it possible that Indians are actually uniting to lobby the government and the media to take them seriously?
    Not at all, especially the government. As it relates to the media, I expect in general for the media to have an objective and unbiased take on issues. I absolutely believe that native American groups are attempting to lobby the media. And I was pointing out how that lobby seems to have led to much of the media abandoning any form of unbiased journalism or effort to be objective. That was indeed pretty much the entire thesis of that paragraph; that many outlets in the media have been abjectly and unabashedly unbiased, at times with potential personal gain in doing so.

    The 2010 census was the first census to separately count American Indians/Alaskan Natives "alone" and Indians of mixed race. There were 5.2 million who self identified as Indian. But only 2.9 million people self identified as AI/AN 'alone' on the census........
    So there are 5.2 million Native Americans in the United States, just as the Navajo Times reports (2). This is the same number the Census Bureau acknowledges (3).

    Native Americans, in part because of their low population numbers, are more apt to intermarry with other races with a vast majority having married whites (4). How dare you, or anyone else, to suggest or imply that someone is not a “real indian” simply because they’re not of, or don’t identify as, pure blood. If your grandmother was white does that mean you’re not black? No. If your grandmother was white, does that mean you’re not native American? No. It is not your nor anyone elses place to suggest that because an individual recognizes both or multiple sides of their heritage that they aren't "real". Do you believe Barack Obama is not a "real black american" since he recognizes his racial heritage is mixed?

    It’s ASTONISHING that in this country right now we have people declaring that those who are BIOLOGICALLY male or female should be free to self-identify as another gender and should be treated as such by people and the governmnet…but that someone who biologically has native American ancestry is being told by some they’re not a “real indian” because they don’t claim themselves of pure blood, don’t join a federally recognized tribe (which isn’t the extent of all tribes in the US), or don’t live on a reservation.

    So which census figure is 'routinely' pointed to in terms of the native American population? The Federal Government only seems to recognize Indians who self identify as AI/AN 'alone' and are an actual member of a tribe.
    And the latter part is simply not true in a broad sense as you state it. The Federal Government recognizes those who self identify as “native americans” as “native americans” as it relates to their race. This is evidenced by the Census Bureau, a GOVERNMENT ENTITY, acknowledging there's 5.2 million native americans. Certain instances within the federal government have a higher standard than that, but the federal government does not recognize in a general sense “only” those who are a member of an actual tribe. Also, specifically in terms of the “amount” of “native American” one is, the government in those instances actually leave that up to individual tribes to determine what their membership requirements are.

    This reliance in some cases on recognition by federal tribes is something that actually has some within the native american community disagree with. Some believe it to be a continued control over native americans by the government. Others dislike it because they belong to a tribe that doesn't have federal recognition or has lost it, or because they don't desire to officially join a tribe but still identify themselves and their heritage as native american (5).

    The press release I saw showed how they conducted the survey, their method and the questions they asked. But because only about 10% of the Indian population have telephones, the data collectors went to pow wows, Indian reservations and Indian college campuses....
    No, not it didn’t. It was a press release, not a full survey. It does not have all of their methods.

    First, what is the margin of error of their poll? If this was a scientifically conducted poll then it absolutely should have a margin of error, and if this press release actually contained the survey and methodology in it’s entirety it would have it. So please, provide it to me because I’m not seeing it.

    Second, please provide for me specifics as to their methodlogy for choosing their “400 surveys” and for verifying them “as being the race or ethnic group they claimed”? Scientifically conducted polls have strict rules regarding the method of obtaining a sample

    Third, what were all the specific questions asked and the order in which they were asked.

    Scientifically conducted polls, such as the Annenberg one, have specific rules and methods that must be followed that help to establish the legitimacy of their method sand the quality of their work. Without the actual data and information regarding their ACTUAL SURVEY it’s impossible to truly and objectively evaluate the quality of their data and it’s unworthy of being viewed as anything more than anecdotal.

  7. #317
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    If only 10% of all Indians have a telephone then how did Annenberg conduct it's survey on Indians?

    The Annenberg Election poll was conducted randomly during a highly political election season and didn't verify the authenticity of the respondents claiming to be Indians. According to the census most Indians live on reservations or in rural Indian designated territory and don't have phones. So how did Annenberg make sure the respondents were really Indians and not just sports fans?
    First, you’re wrong about the fact that “most Indians live on reservations or in rural indian designated territory”. Only 22% of native americans are on such land (6). Even if you want to go with your highly insulting notion that only pure blood American Indians count, that’s still only 33%. Even with your preferred method of counting, 1/3rd of Native Americans is not “most” (7).

    Second, the link you provided from the FCC doesn’t back up your bogus 10% number. Even over two decades ago in 1990 46.6% of homes on reservations had telephones (8). In 2003, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had that number down to only 16% of reservation households without telephone service (9).

    So 84% of the 22% of native americans that live on reservations have a phone in their house hold. That’s hardly an incredulous number and is one that is taken into account with regards to the margin of error within the scientifically conducted Annenberg poll.

    Indeed, and how many Indians does the R-word owner, Snyder represent?
    Strawman, but given your flippant use of non-sequiturs and completely fraudulent information I shouldn’t be surprised. Your attack on Dan Snyder in no way changes or counters anything I stated in the quoted piece of text. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s dishonest to use a body that represents only 1/3rd of native americans in this country as the definitive source for declaring what 3/3rds of native americans believe (10).

    Really, so according to you Indians aren't allowed to organize or speak for other Indians unless they can prove they represent ALL Indians? Is that right? Or perhaps you would prefer all Indians were "invisible" especially the ones that are offended, so you wouldn't have to hear what they have to say at all?
    No, and that’s a ridiculously dishonest representation of my view but is fully what I’ve come to expect from someone whose arguments are based on entirely incorrect information and who seeks to deny people their race if they don’t fit your narrow criteria.

    Native Americans can absolutely organize to speak on behalf of themselves. However, if only 1/3rd of them band together to do so then they can only speak for that 1/3rd. They don’t get to speak for the other 2/3rd that aren’t represented by them.

    The Congress of the United States of America can speak on behalf of the United States of America because it represents all the people of the United States of America. The National Congress of Native Americans cannot speak on behalf of ALL Native Americans because they don’t represent ALL native americans, they represent a minority portion of native americans.

    Additionally, as I stated, there is a difference between claiming that the NCAI has a stance on things and a claim that such a stance suggests that all native americans within tribes represented by the NCAI also share that stance. This is as ridiculous as suggesting all americans agree with every stance congress takes. Here’s a perfect example of a native American indicating their disagreement with the NCAI in a general sense, highlighting my point…that just because the NCAI take a stance on something does not indicate that it’s universal agreement within it’s membership (11).

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    The only people whose opinion I care about on this are natives.

    Asking non-natives what they think about the term 'redskin' is like asking men what they think of the term 'chick' (in reference to women)...irrelevant.

  9. #319
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Somehow I don't think Indians had much say when the team was named a racial slur by a white separatist back in the thirties.
    Who hired a coach that, at the time, was believed at the time to be native american and was a teammate of Jim Thorpe on the Carlisle Indian Industrial School football team (his authenticity was later questioned, with varying opinions regarding it, though general concensus seems to be that he at least honestly believed himself to be of native american descent and that heritage was a continuing part of his life). Additionally, four players on the team were of native american descent. So while GPM's attrocious views and treatments of blacks is something worthy of scorn, it's unfair and unrealistic to simply stereotype him and assume his actions/views were similar towards native americans. Considering he actively recruited a well known coach who was thought to be native american and welcomed native americans on to the team, while actively working against integration of blacks into football, it's clear that his views on native americans were distinctly different then that of african americans.

  10. #320
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Poll: 71 percent say keep Redskin

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Sorry, but you don’t get to claim things are “baloney” simply with a wave of the hand. The fact is that the earliest verifiable historical references to the word Redskin was by Native Americans referring to themselves as a collective in situations when there may’ve been multiple tribes (1).....
    It's questionable whether the Indians actually called themselves redskins or were simply repeating what the English called them. Does the Redskins website mention that the name took on a derogatory racist overtone in the mid to late 1800s?

    "... The RedskinsFacts Web site thus artfully tries to skate past the change in how “redskins” was used and perceived. While the earliest references may have been benign, and Indian leaders at one point may have referred to themselves as “red,” “red men,” or “red-skins,” the phrase increasingly acquired unfavorable meanings by the late 19th century....
    Fact checking the new Web site, ‘RedskinsFacts.com’ - The Washington Post

    First, my post wasn’t responding to an “article”, it responded to a post where you linked a Wikipedia page. Second, what opinion am I dismissing? His opinion that if offends him? I’m not dismissing that at all, ....If that's his opinion, I absolutely dismiss it. ...
    Third, your non-sequitur attack on me doesn’t discount my point regarding the weakness and ludicrous nature of your attempt to prove your claim that most native americans who don’t have a problem with it aren’t “real indians” by citing ONE EXAMPLE.
    I cited one example because that's all Snyder cited and you didn't seem to have a problem swallowing that as representing all Indians.

    "This idea that the fight against the mascotting of Native people is something new and led by white folks is an oddly insular and navel-gazing way to understand the issue—and yet another way of cutting Native people out of the American discourse about things that matter to us. By reframing the issue this way, the Washington NFL team continues to make real, modern Native people to disappear, much as their mascot does. It’s a continuation of the extinguishment of the Native voice and the appropriation of our identity and lands. This constant denial of our existence that leads Native youth to feel disconnected from American society and exacerbates the burdens of poverty; Native youth have three times the suicide rate of their American peers of any ethnicity. It also leads to bad policy decisions by non-Native politicians and poor funding for the very real needs of our communities.”

    - Navajo/Yankton Dakota Sioux organizer Jackie Keeler who is one of the founders the organization Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry

    The Assassinating of Native American Voices by the Cowards Palin, Ditka and Snyder | The Nation


    So there are 5.2 million Native Americans in the United States, just as the Navajo Times reports (2). This is the same number the Census Bureau acknowledges (3).
    The Bureau of the Census counts anyone an Indian who declares himself or herself to be an Indian. As of 2010, the Census Bureau estimates there were more than 2.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives living in the United States.

    Facts About American Indians Today | FactMonster.com


    Native Americans, in part because of their low population numbers, are more apt to intermarry with other races with a vast majority having married whites (4). How dare you, or anyone else, to suggest or imply that someone is not a “real indian” simply because they’re not of, or don’t identify as, pure blood. .....(edit for space)....It’s ASTONISHING that in this country right now we have people declaring that those who are BIOLOGICALLY male or female should be free to self-identify as another gender and should be treated as such by people and the governmnet…but that someone who biologically has native American ancestry is being told by some they’re not a “real indian” because they don’t claim themselves of pure blood, don’t join a federally recognized tribe (which isn’t the extent of all tribes in the US), or don’t live on a reservation.

    How dare I? How dare you resort to such fallacious tactics.

    "Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
    Logical fallacies, cognitive bias, disformation, sophism, etc.

    "...No single federal or tribal criterion establishes a person's identity as an Indian. Tribal membership is determined by the enrollment criteria of the tribe from which Indian blood may be derived, and this varies with each tribe. Generally, if linkage to an identified tribal member is far removed, one would not qualify for membership.

    To be eligible for Bureau of Indian Affairs services, an Indian must (1) be a member of a tribe recognized by the federal government, (2) be of one-half or more Indian blood of tribes indigenous to the United States; or (3) must, for some purposes, be of one-fourth or more Indian ancestry. By legislative and administrative decision, the Aleuts, Eskimos and Indians of Alaska are eligible for BIA services. Most of the BIA's services and programs, however, are limited to Indians living on or near Indian reservations...."
    Facts About American Indians Today | FactMonster.com



    This reliance in some cases on recognition by federal tribes is something that actually has some within the native american community disagree with. Some believe it to be a continued control over native americans by the government. Others dislike it because they belong to a tribe that doesn't have federal recognition or has lost it, or because they don't desire to officially join a tribe but still identify themselves and their heritage as native american (5).
    That is something for the Indians and the Feds to work out....which they seem to be doing....
    Facts About American Indians Today | Infoplease.com


    No, not it didn’t. It was a press release, not a full survey. It does not have all of their methods. First, what is the margin of error of their poll? ...edit.... Scientifically conducted polls have strict rules regarding the method of obtaining a sample....
    Third, what were all the specific questions asked and the order in which they were asked...edit for space....
    I asked you first. How did Annenberg conduct it's poll?

    11 Reasons to Ignore the 10-Year-Old Annenberg Survey About the Washington Football Team’s Offensive Name

Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •