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

[philosslayer]

Source: Washington Post

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

[Major Nikon]

1. I have a few questions about how they conducted the poll

44% of the respondents claimed to be a member of a Native American tribe, yet the BLS reports there's only 2 million tribe members, which is far less than 1% of the population.

[cstanleytech]

3. If it was truly a random poll and if they didnt cherry pick the people polled

from one neighborhood and or area then whats the matter with the results exactly?

[Major Nikon]

7. What you describe isn't a truly random poll

I have no idea how they selected people to poll, but I can't imagine how it could be truly random or the least bit representative of what it claims to represent.

[cstanleytech]

10. I didnt describe how they conducted it rather I am asking whats wrong with the numbers

assuming they didnt cherry pick from a select region that they knew would give them the answer they preferred.

[Major Nikon]

12. How is is possible to select any region where 44% of the population is a tribe member?

Let alone any that you could cherry pick an expected response.

Here is what they report:

This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone December 16, 2015 to April 12, 2016, among a random national sample of 504 Native American adults. Interviews were conducted by live interviewers reached on conventional and cellular phones. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 5.5 percentage points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS of Media, Pa.

Since they don't report their methodology, it's anyone's guess as to how they got that 504 number, but it doesn't seem to be in any way random.

Edit:
In this article they provide details of their methodology, which as suspected is not exactly random:
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

[cstanleytech]

15. Ok, I only had 3 hours of sleep last night so explain to me whats wrong with them doing 504 of them?

Is it that its not a large enough sample to really conduct an accurate poll?

[Major Nikon]

17. First of all how they went about identification is very telling

They claim to have selected the 504 from people who identified first as Native American, yet the majority of those people also claim to NOT be tribe members(that alone is telling, but I won't address that). If you take the 44% out of the 504 that did make such a claim, that leaves you with about 222 people. In order to get 222 randomly selected actual tribe members out of .006 of the population, you'd need to poll 37,000 people and I just don't believe they did. So something in their numbers just doesn't add up.

[cstanleytech]

18. Is that 44% from this link

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?tid=a_inl
or is there another link where it mentions 44% ?

[elljay]

30. Plus

I have met many, many people over the years who claim to be part Native American (and it is always Cherokee). I can't say whether they really are, or whether having one Native American great-great-great grandparent makes one Native American (the particular tribe would have to make that call). It wouldn't surprise me, however, if some of these self-identified respondents didn't fit into the "part Cherokee" group. I would question the validity of a response from someone who is not part of a tribe, does not follow any native practices, but who had some alleged distant ancestor...

[Gormy Cuss]

58. It took 5 months to identify 504 respondents.

That's an average of 7500 screeners per month (in this case, asking the race/ethnicity question.) For large survey operations that's well within range of average contacts.

The methodology report details several steps taken to have responses from self-identified individuals across categories such as enrollment and geographic location and the weighting of results. Nothing unusual about this approach for rare populations. That said, it's unfortunate and poor form that they called the survey done when the response n was too low to support crosstabs by enrollment status.

And repeating the very bad, leading question used by Annenberg was a major mistake. A more nuanced approach may have had very different results.

[MadDAsHell]

20. "Method." Methodology is the study of methods. :) nt

[Major Nikon]

28. ...

Examples of methodology in a sentence
He blamed the failure of their research on poor methodology.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology

[ThoughtCriminal]

22. In many of the rural areas of Arizona that have large Native American Populations

It is very difficult to get a cellular signal. Can't speak for other parts of the country, but it is a factor that makes random sampling by dell phone difficult for this population.

[-none]

51. Land lines work just fine in those areas.

So does the electricity.

[ThoughtCriminal]

65. Actually, no.

I've worked in those areas. Land line service is sadly unreliable and often has extreme static that makes normal conversation impossible.

[Enrique]

31. the poll was of Native American adults

the 44% is apparently a subset of that sample

[Jackie Wilson Said]

76. It is total bullshit. They didnt confirm they were talking to AI

[blm]

2. No surprise this is posted.

No surprise I think this poll is utter horsesh!t.

[iandhr]

4. Did the poll go something like this?

[7962]

5. I never really thought it mattered much to most

The few I know (4), are Redskin fans! But i'm sure there are some who ARE offended

[Recursion]

6. It should be changed if for no other reason than to end the fiction of a Redskins/Cowboys rivalry

First off, the NFC East needs to be reshuffled, and Dallas needs to be out of it and somewhere else (I'd prefer to switch Carolina out of NFC South and into NFC East, replacing them with Dallas).

The Boston Braves (as the Redskins were originally called -- well, actually the Newark Tornados if you want to go way back) changed their names to the Boston Redskins when they moved from Braves Field (now the unused football field on Boston University's west campus) to Fenway. To do a marketing tie in with the Red Sox they chose the name "Redskins" (as a bonus, they could keep their logo). It's a name that reflects a marketing deal that hasn't been relevant for 80 years at this point; it predates the formation of the Dallas Cowboys by a quarter century.

Just change the damn name. We need an offensive line much more than we need an offensive mascot.

[C Moon]

8. I never knew until a few years ago that Dallas was in the Eastern Division.

That's ridiculous. I think they could shuffle things around like you say, so it makes more sense. Otherwise, they may as well do away with east/west/north/south altogether and name them something else.

Sorry to go off topic....I agree with changing the name Redskins.

[Recursion]

9. It was a payoff to then-Redskins owner (and vicious racist) George Preston Marshall

Ironically, he was the most vocal opponent of the league expansion that led to the Cowboys/Redskins rivalry, which is the most lucrative "rivalry" in professional sports (despite the Cowboys averaging 9-7 and the Redskins averaging 4-12 over the past two decades). To buy him off, a friend of his from Dallas agreed to open a team in the NFL East (at the time; this was before the NFL/AFL merger) in Dallas, call it the Cowboys, and gin up a conference rivalry (Washington was the odd man out with NFL East focusing on Philly/NYC).

But, yeah: Philly, NYC, DC, Charlotte makes a lot more sense than Philly, NYC, DC, Dallas, as a conference.

[C Moon]

13. Ah. I see. Thank you!

[brett_jv]

80. Not what the Wiki says on this subject ...

"Prior to the formation of the Dallas Cowboys, there had not been an NFL team south of Washington, D.C. since the Dallas Texans folded in 1952. Oilman Clint Murchison Jr. had been trying to get an NFL expansion team in Dallas (as was Lamar Hunt – who ended up with an AFL franchise), but George Preston Marshall, owner of the Washington Redskins, had a monopoly in the South.

Murchison had tried to purchase the Washington Redskins from Marshall in 1958. An agreement was struck, but as the deal was about to be finalized, Marshall called for a change in terms. This infuriated Murchison and he called off the deal. Marshall then opposed any franchise for Murchison in Dallas. Since NFL expansion needed unanimous approval from team owners at that time, Marshall's position would prevent Murchison from joining the league.

Marshall had a falling out with the Redskins band leader Barnee Breeskin. Breeskin had written the music to the Redskins fight song "Hail to the Redskins" and Marshall's wife had penned the lyrics. Breeskin owned the rights to the song and was aware of Murchison's plight to get an NFL franchise. Angry with Marshall, Breeskin approached Murchison's attorney to sell him the rights to the song before the expansion vote in 1959. Murchison purchased "Hail to the Redskins" for $2,500. Before the vote to award franchises in 1959, Murchison revealed to Marshall that he owned the song and Marshall could not play it during games. After a few Marshall expletives, Murchison gave the rights to "Hail to the Redskins" to Marshall for his vote, the lone one against Murchison getting a franchise at that time, and a rivalry was born."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Cowboys

[Sunlei]

11. Redskins. Grotesque in every sense of the word.

Those redskins were ripped from native heads, ripping apart families, tribes, the very essence of our tribal cultures.

Redskins. Grotesque in every sense of the word.

[Mendocino]

14. Look at the name of the sheriff:

Lynch King

[ileus]

16. As a Skins fan I'm offended at this poll.

If only I had a safe place to hide.

[MadDAsHell]

19. Interesting but not shocking. We as Americans love taking personal offense to words/phrases/etc...

that don't even personally offend the person/group they were directed at.

If Native Americans are offended, we should get behind their cause. If they're not, why make this a priority over stopping endless wars, solving world hunger, addressing climate change, etc.?

One theory I have is that so-called "progressives" today gravitate towards these issues to avoid the hard work of addressing more global, world-impacting issues like those above. As came up in a thread a few weeks ago, past advocates for social/economic justice were hosed, beaten senseless and even murdered for huge issues like equal pay, safe working conditions, and ending war.

Today's self-labeled "social/economic justice advocates" pat themselves on the back and consider themselves hard-working "activists" for having the right Facebook profile photo or getting you to stop using a mean word. Yeah, real active there...

[shrike]

66. Glad I'm not the only one with that theory. n/t

[Iggo]

21. 9 of 10 Native Americans not offended by racist name.

It's still a racist name.

[dhill926]

24. yes...

[-none]

52. Not if the people targeted think it is not.

They are the ones that get to decide. You know like being branded "Liberal" by some conservative. Same thing. Yeah, it really is.

[marble falls]

23. Don't know what to make of it. The name embarrasses me. And I'm white.

[Xithras]

25. Generally true.

My wife is Osage, as are my kids. I have yet to meet anyone in her family that even remotely cared about the issue. Most Native Americans will tell you that they have far bigger concerns than whether or not a sports team uses an insulting name. My mother-in-law, a longtime activist who participated in the occupation of Alcatraz, once called it a "typical white distraction". She said that white people occupy themselves with stupid shit like this so we don't have to confront the real issues. It makes white people feel like they're doing "something" to help the Native Americans, without actually requiring them to do anything of substance.

Don't get me wrong, there certainly ARE some Native Americans who really do care about the issue, but most have bigger fish to fry.

[shrike]

68. I've talked to Native Americans who don't even mind being called Indians

Because, as you've said, they've got bigger fish to fry.

[Akicita]

26. Why is brown, white, and black ok to describe people but red is not?

I don't even know if yellow is ok to refer to Asians or not. So I don't use it. Why the discrepancy?

A co-worker with some Japanese blood once became very upset because she overheard someone say the word Jap. I asked her why she felt that was so offensive. After all, it is just short for Japanese. Like Turks, Brits, Aussies, Swiss, Scots, Finns, etc. She couldn't answer except that it just was.

[Mike__M]

33. Brown, white, black and yellow people

don't have the federal government issuing a certificate to to validate their degree of color, either.

Yet.

[Akicita]

37. What does that have anything to do with how we people refer to each other?

[Mike__M]

42. It's just another facet of the discrepancy

Intended to illustrate that sauce-for-the-goose-is-sauce-for-the-gander generalizations don't apply across the ethnic spectrum in this country.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Why not respect her feelings and not try to argue about it with her? It's personal,

and you are making things more repulsive by trying to make her defend her feelings which are real.

People who disrespect Japanese people do refer to them as "Japs" which is tacky, trashy, disrespectful, and stupid as ####. I never heard anyone use it who wasn't a full-blown asshole.

[Akicita]

46. I didn't argue with her at all. I was just trying to understand why she was upset and asked her why

she felt that Jap was derogatory. When she said it just is, I accepted it and that was the end of it.

[Gormy Cuss]

59. If you seriously do not know why "Jap" is offensive

please spend the weekend brushing up on WWII attitudes in the U.S.

[Akicita]

61. That was a long time ago. The British people, dare I say Brits, were our hated enemies in two wars.

They even burned our capital. The Turkish people, dare I say Turks, were our enemy in WWI. They, including Japan, are all now our friends and allies. What's the diff? Oops! Sorry. I meant to say difference. Don't want to offend anybody.

[Judi Lynn]

69. That won't cover you, as you know. "Jap" is evil, and we all know it, to show hatred, a put down.

The world of sane people nearly vomited when Nixon's Vice-President, Spiro Agnew poised the most ignorant, ugliest thing any vice-president ever asked when he said, "Who's the fat Jap?" That was long ago, and no one thinks any better of using that word now.

Only for @$$holes.

[Akicita]

72. I understand that many people think the word is offensive. My question is why? It's just short for

Japanese. I understand that back in WWII many Americans hated Japan because of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor and because of the inhuman treatment of our prisoners and the people they conquered. But that was 70 years ago. Most Americans have long since gotten over it. Just like 70 years after the War of 1812, we had long gotten over how close the Brits came to destroying our country. That would have been 1885 to put it in perspective. I don't think there is any reason to think Jap today means anything more offensive than Brit did in 1885. At least it shouldn't. I guess some people can't let go of the past and move forward and instead have to perpetuate some faux hatred from the past that doesn't really exist any more.

I'll bet if a poll was done today, very few Americans would say they hated Japan or the Japanese people. In fact, I don't remember any Americans who were glad that Japan suffered from the recent tsunami and nuclear fallout. Everybody supported the United States helping them out.

And I think it may be a little racist that enemies turned friends can be called Brits or Turks but not Japs. I can't think of another reason you call it evil. Please enlighten me.

[HassleCat]

27. Not the "redskins" I know!

I guess things are different where I live. Maybe the American Indians I know are more closely associated with their tribes and bands, or maybe it's because they live in the western part of the country, or maybe something else. But they don't like the idea that a football team is called the "Redskins." A couple of them point out we would not tolerate a sports team called the Darkies or the Wetbacks, or anything such as that. I think they're right. And it doesn't really matter if a poll says they're in the minority. It's a stubborn, stupid move to keep that name, particularly when they could generate enormous favorable publicity by changing it.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Since they represent Washington they should change the name to "Sleazebags." n/t

[Zen Democrat]

29. Bullshit, WaPo.

[Mike__M]

34. Very very close to my reaction which was

Wapo, Bullshit.

[romanic]

32. Not surprised.

Natives have much bigger issues to deal with, a name of a team probably isn't a top priority for them.

[Mike__M]

35. A poll showing

90% agreement on a controversial issue doesn't ring any alarm bells?

WTF DU?

[Judi Lynn]

36. Stop bothering people with "polls" and change the damned name. It's the only right thing to do.

What's wrong with "deniers," short for "genocide deniers?"

[Dont call me Shirley]

38. Daniel Snyder must have paid for this poll...

[Mike__M]

39. And bought himself 400 Tracfones (n/t)

[Dont call me Shirley]

41. 504

[olddad56]

40. the probably asked 500 people from India

[guntotin librul]

45. redskins. is. a. RACIST. name.

as a member of a federally recognized tribe in north Dakota, the word is racist. for those who think not...what if there was a team called the Washington whiteskins? or the Washington blackskins? or the Washington yellowskins??? for those team apologists who think we are being 'honored', No. you cannot cherry-pick like trump supporters try. if you support the name or trump. You. Are. A. Racist. Period.

[uppityperson]

47. My Lakotah friends say it's ok. Me, the wasicu, doesn't like it. Welcome to DU

[guntotin librul]

48. with all due respect to you...I really doubt that...

I grew up in south Dakota among the Pine ridge Oglala people and amongst the Lower Brule Kul Wichasa and still live with my own in North Dakota and not ONE says the name is 'ok'...

[uppityperson]

49. I was surprised, seriously. Their younger grandkids were against it though.

To be fair, it was only a couple talking online, not in person. It's been too many yrs since I've been there in person.

[bemildred]

50. How about if we stop using pejorative nicknames for everybody because we think it's catchy. nt

[-none]

53. Then we would not be able to talk to each other.

Too many people get offended by the words other people use and do not find offensive themselves.

[bemildred]

54. You just did it. nt

[-none]

55. I am one of those that doesn't get offended easily by the use of adjectives or nouns used by others.

I know it says more about the speaker than the listener when the speaker tries using common slurs.

[MosheFeingold]

56. FWIW

I have retire to New Mexico to live near my son and grandchildren. We live on the edge of an Apache reservation and a small town, both of which are heavily native.

The schools are: the Braves, the Warriors, and the Redskins.

I could understand how "redskin" could be derogatory, but apparently it is not to the potentially aggrieved populace, so it's not our Anglo (see what I did?) place to get offended on their behalf.

Bit like calling me a "Member of the Tribe" in another tribal context.

That's fine. It could be derogatory or it could be descriptive. Heck, I lived through the 1970s. Calling someone "friend" was fighting words. Remember, "Friend?"

And I had a boss who was black and had "HNIC" on his desk plate in the 1970s. Yes, exactly what you are thinking was what it meant.

All this stuff is a distraction from real issues, like we probably have to choose between two evil grifters for president.

Also, it's football. I don't care.

[philosslayer]

57. If they choose to use those names, then thats fine

But they shouldn't be appropriated by those of us who are NOT Native American.

[Akicita]

63. I'm confused. Then should white and black players who play on a sports team with Native Americans

wear different uniforms without the "braves" or "redskins" logo since they would be appropriating if they did? Wouldn't they feel left out when the crowd is cheering Let's go Braves?

If cultural appropriation is a problem, should nicknames like Vikings, Mongols, and Trojans be banned unless the team is in an area populated by descendants of nordic countries, Mongolia, or Troy?

In my opinion, any city with a majority African American population should be able to name their team the Warriors since Africa had warriors long before North America did.

Should the Utah Jazz be forced to change their name? That is definitely eggregious cultural appropriation.

[guntotin librul]

82. good job at disassembling...

how many Vikings or mongols or Trojans were subject to genocide in order to steal this land and found this country??? I have no problem with braves or warriors since all cultures had braves and warriors...which brings me back to my earlier reply...if you have no problem with the Washington redskins...why not change the name to the Washington whiteskins??? or the washington blackskins??? or the Washington yellowskins??? you cant have it both ways nor can you cherry-pick....

[Akicita]

83. Read your history. The Trojans were definitely subject to genocide. So in your mind only those

cultures that were subject to genocide should have nicknames referring to them banned? So since the Navajos were not subject to genocide they are fair game?

As a white person I have as much of a problem with a team being called whiteskins as apparently 90% of Native Americans have with redskins. None. I have no desire to have it both ways, whatever that means. If you think about it, non white people would probably have more of a problem with a team named the whiteskins than whites. Now there's a double standard.

Native Americans were treated very badly by this country and are still being treated very badly and are suffering because of that treatment and in many cases their deplorable conditions are being basically ignored by the government and media. Instead of addressing those deplorable conditions, idiotic do gooders focus on silly things like team nicknames to make themselves feel good.

[madokie]

60. I'm part Cherokee

and I'm not offended by any stretch.
In fact I'm proud of my Cherokee heritage

[shrike]

67. My husband is also part Cherokee

Also not offended.

[rockfordfile]

70. Same but redskins is a racist and sick term

[madokie]

71. Part of the name of my state

was derived from the Cherokee word for Red man

So no it is not a racist nor sick term

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

62. I have done a fair bit of work with Native American groups

Their interest level in political correctness and theatrical displays of white guilt is approximately zero while sports memorabilia featuring Native American inspired imagery is absolutely everywhere.

[Akicita]

64. I have a lot of guilt about how our country treated Irish immigrants so I am fighting

tooth and nail to get Notre Dame to drop the Fighting Irish nickname. Are you saying I may be wrong for doing that?

[anigbrowl]

73. Yes, you might be

I'm Irish, from Ireland, and with the reddest of red hair and so on so when I meet new people jokes about Lucky Charms and so on are almost inevitable. Of course I find Irish stereotypes a bit tedious but the only time this really bothers me is on St. Patrick's day because I am not into getting paralytically drunk.

I really don't give a flying fuck about the Notre Dame logo, if anything I find it a bit amusing. And please don't come back at me with 'maybe you don't know about the history yadda yadda,' I know about that stuff in excruciating detail and it still doesn't bother me. I lived in London for 10 years and ran across plenty of residual anti-Irish prejudice (the IRA was still setting off bombs in that city on a regular basis at the time) and I didn't let it bother me then either.

If you feel guilt about it that's your personal hangup. I honestly don't care and think you should move on with your life. Unless you were actively spreading prejudice against some other group of people you have nothing to feel guilty about, and making this into a political issue that you are 'fighting tooth and nail' about strikes me as a form of cultural appropriation. It's not your problem (and if you ask me, it's not a problem to start with) and you are not a better person for trying to make it your problem. Please worry about your own community of origin, not mine. It's disempowering because you're implicitly saying that Irish people are incapable of getting this changed ourselves, or incapable of seeing that it 'needs' to be changed, when in fact most of us simply don't find it worth getting offended over to begin with.

Frankly, I resent people trying to hitch a ride on the historical suffering of others in order to feel better about themselves; when I first moved to the US I was very disoriented by people telling me how much they hated the English in order to score some 'Irish points' with me. I love English people and English culture and the main reason I moved to the US was that I wanted to live somewhere with nicer weather.

Not trying to have a go at you personally but since you asked the question there's your answer. So no, I don't think that's a good use of your time and I find it embarrassing when folks like yourself politicize such things.

[Akicita]

74. Good advice. Thank you. I will take it.

[anigbrowl]

75. OK, I'm glad to share some food for thought

Your motives sound very laudable and I appreciate your historical awareness, so I hope none of that read as dismissive of your sincerity or good intentions. I can certainly relate to your point of view in other contexts.

[Akicita]

77. All good advice and I needed the perspective. Thanks again.

[abelenkpe]

78. LOL

Ok then! A wapo poll and DU is ok with continuing a racist term because hey, 90 percent of those selected to answer this poll are OK with it. So polls are legit when they confirm your bias but baloney when they say something you don't agree with. Sad that anyone on DU defends this term.

[Akicita]

84. Why is white, black, and brown ok to describe people but red is racist?

Native Americans were treated very badly by this country and many still are. Many natives live in deplorable conditions and are basically ignored by the government and media. Instead of addressing these deplorable conditions, idiotic do gooders focus on silly things like sports team nicknames to make themselves feel good. 90% of Native Americans in this poll are saying fuck the idiotic do gooders and give us the help we really need and deserve.

[madville]

79. I still think the potato mascot is a good compromise

Problem solved?

[Akicita]

85. Otherwise known as the Spuds. Has a nice ring to it.

[PersonNumber503602]

81. Indians? Well what they don't tell you is that they did the survey in New Delhi