Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Roger Goodell: Redskins Name Honors Native Americans [View all]Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)21. Most people appear fine with keeping the Redskins name. So am I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Public_opinion_polls
Despite vocal and legal action from Native American groups and scholars, the vast majority of people surveyed on the subject in prior years did not find the name offensive. Following the 1992 Super Bowl protests, The Washington Post posted a survey in which "89 percent of those surveyed said that the name should stay." In a study performed in 2004 by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were 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?" In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.[75][76] The problem of individuals claiming to be Native American when they are not is well known in academic research, limiting the value of public opinion polls of the mascot issue.[77] It is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots.[78]
More recent national polls show continued support for retaining the name, although lower (79%) than previously.[79] The opinion of Redskin fans continues to favor keeping the name. Comments made by fans on the web in response to news stories tend to dismiss the controversy as political correctness, and that the name refers to nothing except the football team.[80]
In July 2013 The Washington Post conducted a phone survey of people living in the DC Metro Area. No questions about ethnicity were asked, only whether respondents supported the continued use of the Redskins name and if they were sports fans in general and fans of the team in particular. 66% of the respondents supported retention of the name, while 82% said that if the name did change, they would continue to support the team. A small majority (56%) of those that would keep the name also thought that the word "redskin" was not an appropriate way to describe a Native American Indian.[81]
Similar results came from a poll of residents of the DC Metro Area commissioned by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and conducted in October 2013 which found that although sports fans want to keep the name, 59% also say Native Americans have a right to feel offended by the term redskins and 44% say that when they learn the term is defined as 'offensive' by the dictionary, they are more likely to support changing the team name. Additionally, most people (66%) say that if Snyder meets with Native American leaders, he should not refer to them as "redskins" because the term is inappropriate.
There are basic issues with the reliability of public opinion polls that overshadow their value in many cases. There has been a decline in the willingness of people to participate, now down to about 10%, so there is no way of knowing whether there is any systematic bias in the results. Survey methods influence the results, with those done by traditional mail over-sampling the elderly, and telephone surveys done using only land-lines under-sample the young, who only have cell phones.[82]
Steve Russell, an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University, states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".[83]
Louis Gray, president of the Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism and an Osage Indian: You wouldnt [take a poll] with any other race. You wouldnt have African-Americans vote to decide whether or not any sort of racial epitaph would be offensive. [84]
Despite vocal and legal action from Native American groups and scholars, the vast majority of people surveyed on the subject in prior years did not find the name offensive. Following the 1992 Super Bowl protests, The Washington Post posted a survey in which "89 percent of those surveyed said that the name should stay." In a study performed in 2004 by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were 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?" In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.[75][76] The problem of individuals claiming to be Native American when they are not is well known in academic research, limiting the value of public opinion polls of the mascot issue.[77] It is a particular problem when non-natives claim Indian identity to gain authority in the debate over sports mascots.[78]
More recent national polls show continued support for retaining the name, although lower (79%) than previously.[79] The opinion of Redskin fans continues to favor keeping the name. Comments made by fans on the web in response to news stories tend to dismiss the controversy as political correctness, and that the name refers to nothing except the football team.[80]
In July 2013 The Washington Post conducted a phone survey of people living in the DC Metro Area. No questions about ethnicity were asked, only whether respondents supported the continued use of the Redskins name and if they were sports fans in general and fans of the team in particular. 66% of the respondents supported retention of the name, while 82% said that if the name did change, they would continue to support the team. A small majority (56%) of those that would keep the name also thought that the word "redskin" was not an appropriate way to describe a Native American Indian.[81]
Similar results came from a poll of residents of the DC Metro Area commissioned by the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and conducted in October 2013 which found that although sports fans want to keep the name, 59% also say Native Americans have a right to feel offended by the term redskins and 44% say that when they learn the term is defined as 'offensive' by the dictionary, they are more likely to support changing the team name. Additionally, most people (66%) say that if Snyder meets with Native American leaders, he should not refer to them as "redskins" because the term is inappropriate.
There are basic issues with the reliability of public opinion polls that overshadow their value in many cases. There has been a decline in the willingness of people to participate, now down to about 10%, so there is no way of knowing whether there is any systematic bias in the results. Survey methods influence the results, with those done by traditional mail over-sampling the elderly, and telephone surveys done using only land-lines under-sample the young, who only have cell phones.[82]
Steve Russell, an enrolled Cherokee citizen and associate professor of criminal justice at Indiana University, states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of "self-identified Native Americans... includes plenty of people who have nothing to do with Indians".[83]
Louis Gray, president of the Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism and an Osage Indian: You wouldnt [take a poll] with any other race. You wouldnt have African-Americans vote to decide whether or not any sort of racial epitaph would be offensive. [84]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Oh, brother... I could see maybe making a case for "Braves" (aka Atlanta Braves) but no way that
hlthe2b
Jan 2014
#4
I guess the cartoonist thought "Redskins" wasn't offensive enough to make the point (nt)
Nye Bevan
Jan 2014
#50
He's going to look like an even bigger moron when this ad runs on his Super Bowl:
Auggie
Jan 2014
#10
Change the name to the Washington Yellowskins to honor the Chinese immigrants who
Fred Sanders
Jan 2014
#13
mr goodall, accompany your wife to the cosmetic counter next trip...ask the girl behind the counter
Tikki
Jan 2014
#28
Neither Native or Indian are considered derogatory terms whereas Redskin is. Those would be more
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#39
I would chip in for the new uniforms just to watch hannity and rush freak out! nt
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#44
Why not the Washington Bandits to honor the politicians and lobbyists in the District of Columbia.
olddad56
Jan 2014
#41
Ahhh...that would be perfect. Their uniforms could be orange jumpsuits or prison stripes. nt
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#46
If a race of people find a term offensive to them, then it is probably offensive to them.
olddad56
Jan 2014
#45
The way to hurt these guys is to stop buying the merchandise. It won't hurt the players or
okaawhatever
Jan 2014
#56
that is even better, then the other team owners would want to put pressure on the owner.
olddad56
Feb 2014
#66
why doesn't everyone just stop referring to the team as the Washington Redskins?
olddad56
Feb 2014
#67
Yes, his friends who say "I have Cherokee in me on my great grandmother's side..."
Tom Ripley
Feb 2014
#60
how about every team in the NFL adopt a racial slur for their team name and get mascots to match.
olddad56
Feb 2014
#68
Or we could just admit there's no tribe in DC and come up with something better...
jmowreader
Feb 2014
#72