HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Poll finds large majority...

Thu May 19, 2016, 03:04 PM

Poll finds large majority of Native Americans are OK with “Redskins”

NBC SPORTS

A poll of Native Americans found that the vast majority do not object to the Washington NFL team’s name.

The Washington Post commissioned a poll with a randomly selected national sample of 504 Native American adults. That poll asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?”

The result was a strong argument for Dan Snyder’s case that his team does not need to change its name: A whopping 90 percent answered that the name doesn’t bother them. Only 9 percent called the name offensive, with 1 percent having no opinion.

Another question in the poll found that 73 percent of Native Americans do not think the term “Redskin” is disrespectful. That included 75 percent of Native Americans who are members of tribes, and 71 percent who are not members of tribes.

52 replies, 3044 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Poll finds large majority of Native Americans are OK with “Redskins” (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 OP
jaysunb May 2016 #1
Alex4Martinez May 2016 #2
Vogon_Glory May 2016 #3
pintobean May 2016 #4
Captain Stern May 2016 #5
ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #14
leftofcool May 2016 #27
ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #28
Shandris May 2016 #6
linuxman May 2016 #7
davidn3600 May 2016 #8
pintobean May 2016 #9
Mendocino May 2016 #13
eShirl May 2016 #29
Puha Ekapi May 2016 #10
Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #49
2naSalit May 2016 #51
Person 2713 May 2016 #52
Mendocino May 2016 #11
Mike__M May 2016 #17
Mendocino May 2016 #24
Nye Bevan May 2016 #12
WillowTree May 2016 #16
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #30
WillowTree May 2016 #31
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #35
WillowTree May 2016 #36
KamaAina May 2016 #37
madinmaryland May 2016 #40
KamaAina May 2016 #42
madinmaryland May 2016 #43
snooper2 May 2016 #33
madinmaryland May 2016 #41
surrealAmerican May 2016 #15
Mike__M May 2016 #20
ericson00 May 2016 #18
BlueStater May 2016 #19
Albertoo May 2016 #21
kwassa May 2016 #22
Albertoo May 2016 #23
kwassa May 2016 #25
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #48
LanternWaste May 2016 #26
Albertoo May 2016 #44
Bayard May 2016 #32
tenderfoot May 2016 #34
Throd May 2016 #38
Giggity May 2016 #39
bigwillq May 2016 #45
Algernon Moncrieff May 2016 #47
ismnotwasm May 2016 #46
branford May 2016 #50

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 03:06 PM

1. I'm not surprised. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 03:12 PM

2. Not surprised.

In my experience, hanging out with natives, immigrants, all types of less well represented, it's members of the dominant culture who decide that the poor little people are offended.

I know, it's kind of silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 03:18 PM

3. This White Guy Has To Say He Has No Opinion

This white guy had to say that he found this issue perplexing and that he has no opinion. If the majority of Native Americans aren't bothered, he ain't bothered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 06:38 PM

4. Oh, my.

 

That's not going to sit well with some people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 06:47 PM

5. Not surpising at all, but it doesn't matter.

Native Americans probably don't really understand that they should be offended. Luckily, they have us white people to stand up for them, and set things right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Captain Stern (Reply #5)

Thu May 19, 2016, 08:11 PM

14. Apparently it's only bleeding-heart liberal, pasty white, activist busybodies who are...

 

the ones offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChisolmTrailDem (Reply #14)

Fri May 20, 2016, 09:46 AM

27. I straddle the fence on this one.

As a registered tribal member, I think it is offensive but not intended to be racist. Most tribal Elders don't care as they are more concerned about issues like food, clothing, shelter, education for the tribe. The team probably should change the name but since I am about 99% positive this won't happen, I just deal with it. I don't think about the term being used when I am trying to figure out a way to pay for firewood to heat one of my Elder's homes. Priorities I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #27)

Fri May 20, 2016, 09:48 AM

28. Priorities indeed, leftofcool. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 06:50 PM

6. And absolutely no one who knew Native Americans personally is surprised.

 

I'm so sick of dialectic games.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:09 PM

7. No shit.

 

It's usually some person claiming 1/128th Cherokee (why is it ALWAYS Cherokee? ) who wants to be offended on someone else's behalf.

Virtue signaling at its finest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:15 PM

8. The political correctness trolls won't like this

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #8)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:32 PM

9. Canine of the stream

 

came to mind.

Maybe we need a purity poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #8)

Thu May 19, 2016, 08:02 PM

13. So if someone doesn't care for the term,

they are a political correctness troll?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mendocino (Reply #13)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:00 AM

29. isn't it great how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:41 PM

10. Bullshit

A previous poll had a similar result. However, the people polled were simply those who "self identified" as Native, rather than actual real legitimate natives who are members of actual, real tribes. Here on my rez during tribal elections we also held a referendum on the matter last fall and 98% were opposed to the use of the term "Redskin". I see similar sentiment in every real native community that I visit, and I get around a LOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #10)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:40 PM

49. I'm sticking with your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #10)

Sun May 22, 2016, 09:55 PM

51. K&R!!!

Polls can be easily skewed by the actual questions asked and the persons actually responding to those questions. You can get whatever answers you want from polls by way of these tactics. I know that my friends on the rezes I am familiar with are very offended by the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #10)

Sun May 22, 2016, 11:58 PM

52. Don't you like how WAPO said they took a poll so then " most " don't mind ...what BUllshit

So many here can't wait to swallow it too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:43 PM

11. Exactly how did WAPO

determine who was "Native American" for the purposes of this survey?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mendocino (Reply #11)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:43 PM

17. According to their method

They could have included anyone on the Wannabee rolls, as well as the Gramma-was-a-Cherokee-Princess clan.

All survey respondents identified themselves as Native Americans, American Indians or Alaska Natives when asked, “Do you consider yourself white, black or African American, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, mixed race or some other race?”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-the-washington-post-conducted-the-survey-on-the-redskins-name/2016/05/19/98c0a4ae-1b8c-11e6-9c81-4be1c14fb8c8_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mike__M (Reply #17)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:27 AM

24. WAPO was at a time, respected.

Now not very much. Jeff Bezos is the owner, ask Amazon workers what kind of boss he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 07:50 PM

12. Why use a name that 9% of Native Americans find offensive,

when they could easily choose a name that 0% find offensive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #12)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:07 PM

16. Because no matter what they call themselves.......

.......these days someone is going to decide it's offensive.

Unless it's something really blatant and demeaning, I've started not to give a damn anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #16)

Fri May 20, 2016, 10:06 AM

30. The term "Redskin" isn't "really blatant and demeaning"?

Would you ever call a Native American "redskin" to their face?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #30)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:20 AM

31. I don't use euphemisms to refer to people.

Last edited Fri May 20, 2016, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)

But I do think that a percentage of the populace that may even be approaching a majority has become too........you'll excuse the expression.......thin skinned about just about everything. People are looking for reasons to be offended/insulted/outraged anymore.

How often right here on DU do we see thread headings asking "Should I be offended by _____?"? Hint: If you have to ask, the answer is "NO".

Just yesterday there was the ridiculous story about how African Americans feel intimidated when they go to national parks. "Why?" you ask. Because there are usually many trees there. And what's the problem with trees? They remind them of lynchings. Really. People have to be actively, stubbornly looking for something to be miserable about for their minds to go anywhere near such a conclusion. I'd be surprised if one half of one percent of all people of color in this country have the time or inclination to look that hard to find a reason to be offended by TREES. But there it is, put out there as fact by a few malcontents who apparently ran out of anything legitimate to gripe about.

Truth is, there is no moral or constitutional right bestowed upon anyone to never be offended by anything. If I went around getting all offended by everything that I see or hear that I find offensive, I'd be pretty unhappy most of the time and I just don't choose to live that way. And I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who do.

There are words that can only be used to be demeaning and offensive. Most of us know what those are. But.......and I'm saying this as nothing more than my own personal opinion.......sports teams like to choose names to portray themselves as tough and fierce and intrepid to their opponents. (Which doesn't explain the Miami Dolphins, of course. And what the heck is up with Browns?? Ah, but I digress.) I don't see those as demeaning qualities. I don't think that names like Rams or Bears or Jaguars or Falcons were chosen to demean rams or bears or jaguars or falcons. Same goes for cowboys, buccaneers or 49ers. And I don't see the term "Redskins", when used in this context, to be demeaning toward Native Americans.

And apparently neither do a lot of Native Americans.

YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #31)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:42 PM

35. I don't buy that canard.

People aren't "getting thin skinned". In many cases, this stuff has been pissing people off for decades. They've just stopped being quiet about it.

As for this:

Truth is, there is no moral or constitutional right bestowed upon anyone to never be offended by anything. If I went around getting all offended by everything that I see or hear that I find offensive, I'd be pretty unhappy most of the time and I just don't choose to live that way. And I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who do.


No, there isn't. And neither does the Constitution protect you from criticism or prohibit anyone from registering their offense. So I couldn't think of a more neutral argument you could have made there.

There are words that can only be used to be demeaning and offensive. Most of us know what those are. But.......and I'm saying this as nothing more than my own personal opinion.......sports teams like to choose names to portray themselves as tough and fierce and intrepid to their opponents. (Which doesn't explain the Miami Dolphins, of course. And what the heck is up with Browns?? Ah, but I digress.) I don't see those as demeaning qualities. I don't think that names like Rams or Bears or Jaguars or Falcons were chosen to demean rams or bears or jaguars or ravens. Same goes for cowboys, buccaneers or 49ers. And I don't see the term "Redskins", when used in this context, to be demeaning toward Native Americans.


Well, you don't see them as demeaning. Is no one else is allowed to have a different opinion, or would you just prefer that they keep it to themselves?


And apparently neither do a lot of Native Americans.


Pro Tip: A lot of people "self-identify" as Native Americans, but most are not. Of those that are, many are of only partial Native American descent and are completely removed from the realities of being a Native American in the United States. Take my father-in-law. He's part Algonquin, so he'll happily claim he's Native American despite the fact the totality of his life experience has been that of a white American. Of course he's not going to give a shit what you call the Washington team. It doesn't affect him one iota because he's never been on the receiving end of white racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #35)

Fri May 20, 2016, 01:49 PM

36. Is no one else is allowed to have a different opinion.......?"

I specifically said that I understand that I was only expressing my personal opinion which, by the way, is just as valid as anyone else's. "YMMV" was my way of acknowledging that mine is not the only POV to be considered.

And when you get into people "self-identifying" as being Native American and that not making them Native American...........oh, let's not go there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #16)

Fri May 20, 2016, 02:28 PM

37. I vote for the Potatoes.

 



Of course, people in Idaho might get their fee-fees hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #37)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:19 PM

40. Why not just call them the Ore-Ida's and put that logo on their helmet!!

Heh! Snyder would even make more money off it!! Just like NASCAR!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madinmaryland (Reply #40)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:29 PM

42. You must be thinking of the NBA.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #42)

Fri May 20, 2016, 07:59 PM

43. I see you are now ....

trumad's sockpuppet!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #12)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:27 AM

33. I call them the Washington Redscabs, peel them back and watch them bleed!

 



Or just the Cocksoakers, I'm sure people would find both of those offensive LOL...



GO COWBOYS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #33)

Fri May 20, 2016, 04:20 PM

41. Heh! As another Cowboy's fan, I call them the Deadskins!!



HOW ABOUT THEM COWBOYS!!1!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 08:39 PM

15. If only one tribe finds it offensive ...

... does that mean we should ignore them?

9% isn't "nobody".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #15)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:48 PM

20. As one commentator put it

(sorry I lost the link):

If you have a dinner party with ten guests, and one goes home in tears, was the party a success?


But I call bullshit on any poll that finds 90% agreement on anything like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:47 PM

18. thank god! Fact is that this kind of issue feeds Trumpism

 

that its white uber-progs making the deal out of this, as "cultural appropriation" was cooked up by nutty profs.

We dont need another red/blue divide issue. Keep the Washington Redskins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:47 PM

19. Being "okay" with it doesn't make the name not racist. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStater (Reply #19)

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:58 PM

21. Words are not racist, human intent is

 

What is there inherently racist about naming the hue of the skin? The fact the word was used at the time of the colonization of North America -with all its violence- doesn't make the term racist. Some people have too much time on their hands and want to read too much in words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #21)

Thu May 19, 2016, 11:32 PM

22. That's the strangest thing I've heard all week.

Words are most definitely racist because of the meaning attributed to them.

The fact the word was used at the time of the colonization of North America -with all its violence- doesn't make the term racist.


The fact that the word was used, along with that violence, in a pejorative sense to identify non-whites as lesser beings makes it most certainly racist. It was racist then, and it is racist now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #22)

Fri May 20, 2016, 12:22 AM

23. Well, i can give you one example, the N word

 

To have made the word N a racist word is just an odd result of history. It originated from Spaniards who still have the word negro to say black. Does it mean all Spaniards and Latinos are racist? Obviously not.

That's why I think most of us spend too much time on words when we should focus on intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #23)

Fri May 20, 2016, 09:16 AM

25. History is history, odd or not.

The N-word is also derived from negro, but written and pronounced differently, which makes it is a different word, so your comparison is not apt.

It is about common usage of a word, and the meanings attached to it, not about intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kwassa (Reply #25)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:18 PM

48. A whole different, much more complex, discussion

If it's used in hip-hop lyrics, it's OK -- depending on who you ask -- depending on who is doing the saying -- depending on whether you actually pronounce the "er" at the end ---etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Albertoo (Reply #23)

Fri May 20, 2016, 09:20 AM

26. A rational mind can rather easily spend time on both.

"That's why I think most of us spend too much time on words when we should focus on intent..."

A rational mind can rather easily spend time on both. Pretending to have an objective measure of which is given more priority by the individual mind is a most extraordinary claim, hence you'll provide the specific evidence which leads you to believes such?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #26)

Sat May 21, 2016, 08:05 PM

44. All I was trying to say was

 

that it has been a general and strange practice to ban words based on the fact they were used at times where the political system was bad, and it was therefore concluded the words themselves had become tainted. It always struck me a an example of irrational 'magical' thinking. I would be ready to chang emy opinion if proven wrong, but I don't see how logic would support the banning of words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:23 AM

32. Native American Friends

I had several friends and neighbors of the Mono tribe when I lived in CA. They were somewhat amused and perplexed by the term, "Native American". "We've always been indians". I've also met a few people who thought the term, "Native American", meant you were born in the U.S.

My parents were both from SC. I remember my grandparents use of the "n word", because that's all they'd ever heard as simple and poor country folk. It wasn't meant as an insult, just a statement of fact in their eyes. This is in direct contrast to the doctor I used to date, originally from Ohio, who used the term viciously. We used to have huge fights about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Fri May 20, 2016, 11:31 AM

34. Nice. That must mean most Irish-Americans are OK with being called 'Micks'.

It must be so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #34)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:27 PM

38. Doesn't bother this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #34)

Fri May 20, 2016, 03:36 PM

39. Most are OK with it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #34)

Sat May 21, 2016, 08:41 PM

45. Most of my Irish friends calls themselves Micks

 

They say it with pride!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tenderfoot (Reply #34)

Sun May 22, 2016, 04:16 PM

47. They are fine with "The Fighting Irish"

In fact, they embrace that title. I grant that Notre Dame is no more Irish than corned beef and cabbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Sat May 21, 2016, 08:57 PM

46. Well. Tell these guys.

Yes. As with all conversations about language, there are a wide variety of opinions. It is true some Native people do not find the word offensive. However, thousands of Native people are offended and hurt by the continued use of the word. More than 100 Native American organizations across the United States have spoken out in opposition to the use of the R-Word mascot of the Washington D.C. NFL team including the National Congress of the American Indian and the United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc. Several tribal governments and organizations have passed resolutions condemning the use of the R-Word by the NFL including the Hoh Indian Tribe, Penobscot Nation, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the Poarch Band of Creek Indian.



http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ChangeTheMascotFactSheet2016.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread