General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPoll finds large majority of Native Americans are OK with “Redskins”
NBC SPORTSThe 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 doesnt it bother you?
The result was a strong argument for Dan Snyders case that his team does not need to change its name: A whopping 90 percent answered that the name doesnt 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.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Alex4Martinez
(2,193 posts)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.
Vogon_Glory
(9,117 posts)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.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)That's not going to sit well with some people.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)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.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)the ones offended.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)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.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Shandris
(3,447 posts)I'm so sick of dialectic games.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)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.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)came to mind.
Maybe we need a purity poll.
Mendocino
(7,486 posts)they are a political correctness troll?
eShirl
(18,490 posts)Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)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.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)2naSalit
(86,542 posts)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.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)So many here can't wait to swallow it too
Mendocino
(7,486 posts)determine who was "Native American" for the purposes of this survey?
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)They could have included anyone on the Wannabee rolls, as well as the Gramma-was-a-Cherokee-Princess clan.
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
Mendocino
(7,486 posts)Now not very much. Jeff Bezos is the owner, ask Amazon workers what kind of boss he is.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)when they could easily choose a name that 0% find offensive?
WillowTree
(5,325 posts).......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.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Would you ever call a Native American "redskin" to their face?
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)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.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)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:
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.
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?
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.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)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.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Of course, people in Idaho might get their fee-fees hurt.
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)Heh! Snyder would even make more money off it!! Just like NASCAR!!
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)trumad's sockpuppet!!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Or just the Cocksoakers, I'm sure people would find both of those offensive LOL...
GO COWBOYS!
madinmaryland
(64,931 posts)HOW ABOUT THEM COWBOYS!!1!!
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)... does that mean we should ignore them?
9% isn't "nobody".
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)(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.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)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.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)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.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)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.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)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.
kwassa
(23,340 posts)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.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)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.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"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?
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)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.
Bayard
(22,061 posts)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.
tenderfoot
(8,426 posts)It must be so!
Throd
(7,208 posts)Giggity
(86 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)They say it with pride!
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,790 posts)In fact, they embrace that title. I grant that Notre Dame is no more Irish than corned beef and cabbage.
ismnotwasm
(41,976 posts)http://www.changethemascot.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ChangeTheMascotFactSheet2016.pdf