• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Local New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name

Higgins86;1065881299 It could be your mate who is 1/8 Cherokee.[/QUOTE said:
There is an old joke on the rez.
Q. What do you have when you have 100 Cherokees in one room?
A. One full blooded Cherokee.

Not to dis anyone who have Cherokee ancestry. Am 1/8 Chicksaw myself from the Oklahoma Chickasaw nation.

Am not offended by the name at all but they might as well change it now. At some point in the future generations may not appreciate it, who knows.

Financially it could be a boost if every fan had to buy the new jerseys. I think that is the exact reasons some hockey teams annually change their jerseys.
Click to expand...
 
That probably asked elizabeth warren. Those types of "native americans" i don't care about.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's called a "statistical sample" and 25,000 out of 20 million is a pretty accurate sample size... :roll:

What difference does it make if they live on or off the reservation???
Click to expand...

Clearly, Indians who live on the res are more Indiany and stuff. :rolleyes:
 
Higgins86 said:
But yet you're White, redskins fan and you're doing exactly the same. Your dictating what people are allowed to be offended by and you use selective polls to support your argument.
Click to expand...

You're free to he offended about it. But it's asinine and laughable to expect anyone or any team to act on a name that isn't found as offensive by the vast majority of the people who the word supposedly is harmful and racist against, but bothers a bunch of guilty white people.

I don't view it as an offensive word towards native Americans, because native Americans by and large don't consider it an offensive word toward them. Unlike you, my ego isn't so large and my disdain for them so great that I act like I know better as to what should really be offensive towards them.

The study done by Annenberg was torn apart and eventually the company itself came out and admitted that the Data was probably not an accurate reflection of Native attitudes .
Click to expand...

First, the ****ty attempts for it to be "torn apart" have themselves been ripped to shreds as ridiculous. And one of the few legitimate ones, it's age, has been made null in void seeing how 10+ years later the numbers have see,influence not changed. Second, please link to the companies statements about its poll that claim as you state.

But hey I'm sure this poll is accurate because you guys are such experts on data collections and statistics.
Click to expand...

News flash, this wasn't "you guys". The team didn't conduct this. A news paper, who employed some of the biggest anti-name activists like Mike wise and who's editorial board largely stopped using the name, commissioned the poll. This wasn't some biased group going out and conducting a push poll clearly aimed at getting a specific answer that suits their agenda. Sorry to burst your bubble. Go on continuing to sit on your high horse and exert your superiority as you inform all those mindless natives what is truly offensive to themselves.
 
Crosscheck said:
There is an old joke on the rez.
Q. What do you have when you have 100 Cherokees in one room?
A. One full blooded Cherokee.

Not to dis anyone who have Cherokee ancestry. Am 1/8 Chicksaw myself from the Oklahoma Chickasaw nation.

Am not offended by the name at all but they might as well change it now. At some point in the future generations may not appreciate it, who knows.

Financially it could be a boost if every fan had to buy the new jerseys. I think that is the exact reasons some hockey teams annually change their jerseys.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it in no way guarantees buying of new jerseys, and the Redskins fan base is already one that's most likely to buy new ones for new players anyways. An analysis was done a few years back and the redskins and packers were two of the fan bases that had their most significant ties to the team based in the teams history and heritage. Changing a major part of that history and heritage....and doing it due to outside pressure to relent in the name of political correctness of not wanting to offend and harm a minority group that they themselves aren't actually significantly bothered by it...would likely be a great way to turn away a large portion of a fan bases that has had little to hold onto for the past 25 years EXCEPT it's history.
 
99percenter said:
That probably asked elizabeth warren. Those types of "native americans" i don't care about.
Click to expand...

Even if that's your feeling, the numbers change little...if at all...from the overall totals when you break it down to those on reservations or those that belong to a tribe. The link to the poll actually breaks these things down.
 
Highly regarded public University Miami of Ohio used for years-the name REDSKINS for its athletic teams Miami University is named after the Miami tribe and its history is that of honoring that tribe. Until a few leftwing PC activists started whining about it and even though most of the tribe didn't have issues, Miami changed its name to REDHAWKS

now here is the issue. Schools don't tend to name their athletic teams with terms that are going to cause derision or insults. That's why you see teams named after fierce animals (the Detroit Lions, the Cincinnati Bengals):eek:groups that have a history of bravery or gallantry (The USC Trojans, the MSU Spartans, or the Golden State Warriors). You don't see pro or major college teams picking names that create visions of timidity or failure such as the "wimps" the "Geeks" the "Fairies" or the door mice.

SO when we look at a school or pro team that uses the name REDSKINS it was not intended to insult Native Americans but rather to impose prestige onto the athletic teams the same way the Warriors or The "Fighting Irish" or the Musketeers (Xavier University in Ohio) or Bulldogs (Yale and Ga) did
 
Good article on this by a columnist at the WaPo that had made it partially his crusade of the past few years to get the name changed (note, the same paper who commissioned and printed this poll). Here's the money quote for me that sums up an argument I've long been making

Still, non-Indian critics like me can’t ignore the poll results or pretend they make no difference. Those who have opposed the team name include more than a quarter of Washington-area residents, along with President Obama, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and 50 Democratic U.S. senators. Many of us thought we were defending a group that needed support. But it feels presumptuous for us to say we know Indians’ interests better than they do. We can’t argue that 9 out of 10 Indians somehow just don’t realize they’re being insulted. Some Indians told The Post that they actively support the name, because its use means Native Americans haven’t been forgotten.
Click to expand...

He also points out he will continue to not buy merchandise or use the name because he still finds it offensive and he'd rather not offend those within that 9% (though, that may very well offend the small portion that actually indicate they have pride and enjoyment due to the name). And you know what...there's nothing wrong with that. I've got no issue with someone on a personal level going "This is offensive TO ME and thus I will take actions for MYSELF.".

What my issue has been all this time has been people who go "This is offensive to native Americans and intrinsically a slur and horrible unacceptable word, and thus I will demand or work towards coercing/forcing/pressuring someone else (the team) to take actions on behalf of said native americans"

The one thing the author notes that the poll conductors did routinely find as being offensive to a sizable portion of the poll sample was the donning of headdresses and other such things by non-natives; something I've long understood to be widely viewed as distasteful by a large portion of that population and something I've generally not been a fan of (it's why I'm actually happy the team doesn't have a "mascot" of some kind that's dressed in that fashion). Thankfully, such actions have been on the decline in the past few decades, with the notable exception being Chief Zee.
 
Polling data, if done correctly, doesn't need to contact millions of people. It hasn't been that way for ages, guys.

Is the term in potentially bad taste? Sure.

Is it worth getting all bugged up about? My instinct is no, but I defer to the Native American community, who may be for or against the changes. This poll overwhelmingly suggests "no," as well, but other polls may find differently over time. That's part of polling data too.

If it becomes unpalatable to Native Americans and there's substantial pushback on the existence of the name, change the name. If it's seen as just fine or not a big deal, don't change it.

Big whoop. It's the name of a sports team, it's not a government program.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

“Supporters have continually asserted that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name based upon a single national poll done by Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004,[8] although it has been repeatedly discredited by public opinion professionals, now including the company that collected the data.”


Couple of other relevant links about that survey below.
https://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-...the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...d-poll-snyder-cites-defend-his-redskns-152739


Also to address you claim that it would hurt the team financially. Hasn’t the Red Skins seen like a 40% drop in merchandise sales over the past few years? Yes I know the team blame the performance on the field but many marketing experts think that it’s directly linked to the name debate which has heated up in the past few years.
 
Higgins86 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

“Supporters have continually asserted that a majority of Native Americans are not offended by the name based upon a single national poll done by Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004,[8] although it has been repeatedly discredited by public opinion professionals, now including the company that collected the data.”
Click to expand...

Well if Wikipedia says it it must be true! Nevermind the fact that the link in question in no way shows that the company that collected the data have suggested it is discredited.

As to your other "relevant links", I've already shown the flaws in their logic elsewhere. Not to mention, yet again, one of their primary complaints was that it was too old....and yet now 10+ years later the numbers remain largely the same.

Also to address you claim that it would hurt the team financially. Hasn’t the Red Skins seen like a 40% drop in merchandise sales over the past few years? Yes I know the team blame the performance on the field but many marketing experts think that it’s directly linked to the name debate which has heated up in the past few years.
Click to expand...

If I ask for a source I'd put dollars to donuts you're going to quote articles from 2014. Those numbers work great for people with an agenda and who either don't know, or realize their readers may be ignorant of, the realities involved.

One of the largest factors in merchandising sales for teams are Jersey's, typically of star plays. In 2012, the Washington Redskins traded multiple picks and drafted a Heisman winning quarterback by the name of Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in the draft. He would go on to have the #1 selling jersey in the NFL that year. Indeed, he would have the #1 selling single fiscal year in league history. This has to major impacts as it relates to merchandising totals. First, to causes it to spike, as there is a MASSIVE influx of new purchases. Second, because of how many of his jersey's were sold in that single year, it created a large saturation of individuals with said Jersey.

Now, here's the flip side to that rocketing surge. The Redskins traded away their 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014 in order to obtain Robert Griffin. On top of that, they were hit with a massive salary cap penalty which kept them from significantly going out and being able to purchase high priced free agents. So the team lacked new "stars" in 2013 and most of the 2014 off season for fans to flow out to stores and purchase jersey's of. This is going to cause a natural regression in the merchandising totals, especially when comparing it to the artificially high set from 2012.

Combine this fan disgust at Snyder for quite some time here in Washington that has NOTHING to do with the name. Note, this was a fanbase that once created a "fan card" mail-in campaign as a means of trying to send a message to the owner that they were unhappy with how he was meddling with things. And the 2013 into 2014 season, the sports talk in the DC area was against largely around the notion of Dan Snyder meddling in operations again, this time relating to RG3.

Now, is it possible that there was some damage done by the VERY small minority of the team fans (Because those are what would matter here; people who aren't fans of the team wouldn't randomly be buying redskins merchandise if not for this) that actually have an issue with the name? Sure. Is it likely that it was the primary reason, or even a significant reason, for a fourty percent decrease? HIGHLY unlikely and based on nothing but hopeful wishing of those who are ignorantly still clinging to this crusade.
 
Zyphlin said:
Well if Wikipedia says it it must be true! Nevermind the fact that the link in question in no way shows that the company that collected the data have suggested it is discredited.

As to your other "relevant links", I've already shown the flaws in their logic elsewhere. Not to mention, yet again, one of their primary complaints was that it was too old....and yet now 10+ years later the numbers remain largely the same.



If I ask for a source I'd put dollars to donuts you're going to quote articles from 2014. Those numbers work great for people with an agenda and who either don't know, or realize their readers may be ignorant of, the realities involved.

One of the largest factors in merchandising sales for teams are Jersey's, typically of star plays. In 2012, the Washington Redskins traded multiple picks and drafted a Heisman winning quarterback by the name of Robert Griffin III with the #2 pick in the draft. He would go on to have the #1 selling jersey in the NFL that year. Indeed, he would have the #1 selling single fiscal year in league history. This has to major impacts as it relates to merchandising totals. First, to causes it to spike, as there is a MASSIVE influx of new purchases. Second, because of how many of his jersey's were sold in that single year, it created a large saturation of individuals with said Jersey.

Now, here's the flip side to that rocketing surge. The Redskins traded away their 1st round picks in 2013 and 2014 in order to obtain Robert Griffin. On top of that, they were hit with a massive salary cap penalty which kept them from significantly going out and being able to purchase high priced free agents. So the team lacked new "stars" in 2013 and most of the 2014 off season for fans to flow out to stores and purchase jersey's of. This is going to cause a natural regression in the merchandising totals, especially when comparing it to the artificially high set from 2012.

Combine this fan disgust at Snyder for quite some time here in Washington that has NOTHING to do with the name. Note, this was a fanbase that once created a "fan card" mail-in campaign as a means of trying to send a message to the owner that they were unhappy with how he was meddling with things. And the 2013 into 2014 season, the sports talk in the DC area was against largely around the notion of Dan Snyder meddling in operations again, this time relating to RG3.

Now, is it possible that there was some damage done by the VERY small minority of the team fans (Because those are what would matter here; people who aren't fans of the team wouldn't randomly be buying redskins merchandise if not for this) that actually have an issue with the name? Sure. Is it likely that it was the primary reason, or even a significant reason, for a fourty percent decrease? HIGHLY unlikely and based on nothing but hopeful wishing of those who are ignorantly still clinging to this crusade.
Click to expand...

I still disagree with you on the polls but I concede the point about merchandise sales, you make some good points.
 
This controversy needs to die.

If a large proportion of Native Americans were offended by it, it might be reasonable to change the name. As a Jew, I'd certainly be pissed if everyone was cool with a team called "The Massachusets K***s" (In contrast, while being white, I would probably just laugh if someone had a team called "The Massachusetts Crackers")

But if we're only talk about 10% of the relevant population being offended? Meh. Sounds about what I'd expect. At least 10% of human beings are offended by everything.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
Of course they don't. They never did. Liberals like to tell people what they should be upset about, and insist they be upset about it whether they are or not.
These are the issues that serve to distract from the really hard ones that they can't, or are afraid to, confront.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
You are criticizing liberals for telling other people what they think, by telling liberals what they think?
Click to expand...

Erod said:
Liberals don't wander off the reservation, unlike some Native Americans apparently.
Click to expand...

Um. Ok.

If that was directed at me, you should know that I actually don't care in the least about the name. I was just remarking on the "do as I say, not as I do" nature of the attack on liberals you used the OP for...
 
Higgins86 said:
I still disagree with you on the polls but I concede the point about merchandise sales, you make some good points.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And I'll definitely say the name drama had at least something to do with it. I participate on the busiest Redskins forum on the internet. Even there, there were handful of fans who indicated they were no longer purchasing merchandise due to a desire to not support the name. But even amongst that segment of the fandom, they were a tiny minority, and at times offset by some who specifically indicated they were going out purchasing additional merchandise in SPITE of the name controversy. So I've seen tangible evidence that yes, they have lost some merchandise sales because of the name.

But a 40% drop of is HUGE to attribute to something that even the broadest estimates, across all groups (not just Redskins fans), doesn't even approach approach that number of support. When I googled and found out that most of the sources was from 2014, it really solidified the likely reasoning to me.

If anything, it's a stunning example of the colossal cult like boom of RG3's arrival and his sensational rookie year, and then the mire that followed.
 
Higgins86 said:
There are an estimated 10-20 million native Americans that live in the US and this poll only asked 25k. Also how many of the people they asked lived on a reservation?
Click to expand...

I think there is a huge difference between understanding that the native americans were robbed, cheated and killed by the government in Washington, and the name of a football team.

If anything, the name is rather a compliment, it seems to me.
 
Zyphlin said:
Good article on this by a columnist at the WaPo that had made it partially his crusade of the past few years to get the name changed (note, the same paper who commissioned and printed this poll). Here's the money quote for me that sums up an argument I've long been making



He also points out he will continue to not buy merchandise or use the name because he still finds it offensive and he'd rather not offend those within that 9% (though, that may very well offend the small portion that actually indicate they have pride and enjoyment due to the name). And you know what...there's nothing wrong with that. I've got no issue with someone on a personal level going "This is offensive TO ME and thus I will take actions for MYSELF.".

What my issue has been all this time has been people who go "This is offensive to native Americans and intrinsically a slur and horrible unacceptable word, and thus I will demand or work towards coercing/forcing/pressuring someone else (the team) to take actions on behalf of said native americans"

The one thing the author notes that the poll conductors did routinely find as being offensive to a sizable portion of the poll sample was the donning of headdresses and other such things by non-natives; something I've long understood to be widely viewed as distasteful by a large portion of that population and something I've generally not been a fan of (it's why I'm actually happy the team doesn't have a "mascot" of some kind that's dressed in that fashion). Thankfully, such actions have been on the decline in the past few decades, with the notable exception being Chief Zee.
Click to expand...

My like button stopped working a few months ago.. So, thanks for posting the link to the article. I found it interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom