Roger Goodell, In Defending 'Redskins' Name, Must Think That People Are Stupid

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
Roger Goodell, In Defending 'Redskins' Name, Must Think That People Are Stupid


Posted: 06/13/2013 3:49 pm EDT | Updated: 06/14/2013 10:32 am EDT



The Washington area's National Football League team has a racist name, "the Redskins," and renewed pressure is mounting on the team to do something about it -- namely, change the damn name of the team to something that isn't plainly risible. Washington's owner, Dan Snyder, is resistant to it, having vowed, "We'll never change the name ... It's that simple. NEVER -- you can use caps."

If we were living in a world where football franchise owners could only speak the truth, Snyder would level with us, and simply say, "The trademark I own is extremely profitable, and I'm not willing to cut into those profits to undertake a costly rebranding of the team, even if that is obviously the right thing to do." (He would also probably say, "I really have no idea what I'm doing most of the time," and "I have essentially been fleecing football fans for every dime in their pockets for years," but that is a different story entirely.)

Because we don't live in a universe where football franchise owners are compelled to speak only true things by elemental forces of nature, Snyder offers a lot of dumb hooey about "tradition" as his rationale. And now NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is joining him in supporting Snyder in his effort to keep the team's name as racist as ever, in perpetuity, by defending the name in a letter to Reps. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who co-chair the Congressional Native American Caucus. What the letter tells us, beyond the fact that Goodell places a similar paramount importance on profits, is that Goodell thinks that Cole and McCollum are stupid -- and by extension, so is everyone else.

In the letter, Goodell writes:

In our view, a fair and thorough discussion of the issue must begin with an understanding of the roots of the Washington franchise and the Redskins name in particular. As you may know, the team began as the Boston Braves in 1932, a name that honored the courage and heritage of Native Americans. The following year, the name was changed to the Redskins -- in part to avoid confusion with the Boston baseball team of the same name, but also to honor the team's then-head coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz. Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.

That is, essentially, some flim-flam. The Boston football Braves were so named because they played at Boston's Braves Field, along with the Boston baseball Braves, who were so named because their owner, James Gaffney, was a Tammany Hall macher, and Tammany Hall used an Indian Chief as their logo. There's no suggestion, anywhere, that anyone named these teams thusly because they wanted to honor "the courage and heritage of Native Americans." The best possible spin in that regard comes from an urban legend surrounding the "Braves" name, suggesting that people wanted to honor the courage and heritage of the Boston Tea Party participants, who dressed as Indians during their exploits.

As for the matter of Lone Star Dietz, who coached the Boston Redskins for all of two seasons, during which time the Redskins went 11-11-2, it's not clear that Dietz was actually the Native American luminary he purported to be. Historian Linda Waggoner has done rather exhaustive research into Dietz's life and has concluded that Dietz's alleged Native American origins are at best indeterminable -- but more likely a hot load of malarkey. Regardless, it's pretty contemptible to suggest that "Redskin" honors any Native American, let alone Dietz.

To get a more succinct explanation for why the team got named the Redskins, I'll pass the mic to Alex Pareene:

This Washington football team was named by one of the most vehement racists in the history of American professional sports. When George Marshall bought the team in 1932, they were called the Boston Braves. He changed the name -- to a slur, because he was a racist -- and moved them to Washington. He made “Dixie” one of the team’s fight songs and refused to hire black players well into the 1960s. The NFL integrated in 1946 but Marshall’s team held out until the federal government actually forced them to field black players in 1963. The all-white Washington teams of the 1950s and 1960s were among the worst in the league, but segregation was more important to Marshall than winning football games. The NFL had actually already been racially integrated until black players were suddenly banned in 1933. Interviews with owners suggest that Marshall was responsible for the ban.



This is the man who named the team, and white supremacy and racism obviously informed this decision. In his will he insisted that his foundation not spend any money on “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” It is extremely hard to believe that this man selected the name -- specially changed the name from a less offensive term for American Indians to this term -- to “honor” anyone, the usual argument used by the team’s modern defenders.


If there's one thing you absolutely cannot do if you want to make the case that the Redskins' name is not racist, it's rely on "the roots of the Washington franchise" to make your case for you, because "the roots of the Washington franchise" are shot through with virulent racism, thus making it intellectually impossible. Unless Goodell is an idiot -- and that's certainly up for debate -- he knows all of this, and is just madly spinning gossamer out of a plate of horseshit. But honestly, his excuse-making for the team's plainly opprobrious name gets a lot stupider from there:

For the team's millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America's most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect.

But couldn't you say the same about every NFL franchise? Is there actually something magically special about the racial slur "Redskins" that makes it more symbolic of "strength, courage, pride, and respect" than, say, "Patriot," or "Steeler," or "Eagle," or "Giant?" I mean, okay, "Dolphin," right? Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure fans of all teams see themselves as being unified around the notions of "pride" and "courage."

So Goodell is actually not saying anything particularly special about the Redskins franchise that he wouldn't say about any other franchise, except those other franchises don't have horrifically racist names.

If you want "strength, courage, pride, and respect," look to Stewart Udall, the secretary of the interior who finally told George Preston Marshall that if he didn't integrate his team then he would have to take it on the arches and get the hell out of the government-owned stadium in which the team played. One more reminder that the Redskins, as a franchise, historically suffer from a dearth of "strength, courage, pride, and respect," not a surfeit, and their name is not helping them even one little bit.
--------------

I support Herr Goodell on this one.

How about we get Native American opinion on this instead of a bunch of white faggy Hipsters who want to feel good about themselves?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
WGAS how the name came about?

It hasn't been used as a racist epithet in decades, and definitely now is a symbol of pride and respect. This writer must think people are stupid.
 

Bluestar71

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
602
Liberal Sportswriter's and blowhards are the only people that give a damn about the whole issue.
 

Bluestar71

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
602
WGAS how the name came about?

It hasn't been used as a racist epithet in decades, and definitely now is a symbol of pride and respect. This writer must think people are stupid.
You can argue that the team has actually done a minor service by creating a more positive connotation for an offensive term. These days, I think most people entirely associate the word redskin with the NFL team and not a slur on native Americans.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
You can argue that the team has actually done a minor service by creating a more positive connotation for an offensive term. These days, I think most people entirely associate the word redskin with the NFL team and not a slur on native Americans.
It's not even arguable, it's straight up fact.

That is the only use for the word in today's society and that has been the case for 50 years.

Nobody runs around disparaging Native Americans by calling them Redskins anymore.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
It's not even arguable, it's straight up fact.

That is the only use for the word in today's society and that has been the case for 50 years.

Nobody runs around disparaging Native Americans by calling them Redskins anymore.
Hell, they are such a minority, I'd wager to say a lot of people have even met a Native American.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
How Do Native Americans Really Feel About the Nickname Redskins?

Sports Guy GURU
Sports Guy GURU, Yahoo! Contributor Network
May 21, 2013



"Are you offended by the nickname Redskins or any of their imagery? What do you think most Native Americans that you know feel about this? Do other teams that have Native American mascots or logos offend you? If so, which ones? Please let me know your feelings on this. Thanks!"

And so far I have some very differing opinions:

R.Y. said, "Personally, I don't have a problem with any sports teams using native mascots. I've always felt like it's a compliment to us that the men and women who play the games want to be like us. The majority of people around here (Cherokee, NC) I talked to about the subject, feel the same as I do. Most of the opposition to it comes from strict traditional people who can't seem to practice forgiveness for the ill treatment long years ago."

B.R.S. said, "I am offended by Redskin as a name for a variety of reasons. I believe the obvious is that American Indian Tribes are not red skinned. I realize in art we have been portrayed as having a copper type skin that appears red in certain light.:geek If that was leading issue behind the name, I would say that is not a real reason to be offended. But, you need to ask some of the American Indian Tribes that have almost been wiped out by that name. In colonial times traders and local government paid for skins. There was a certain price paid for various animal skins. On that list was the term "Red-skin," which referred to bloody scalps of American Indians. Most of the affected Tribes were Penobscots, Passamaquoddy, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), Mashpee Wampanoag and others along the New England coast line. The reason they were paid for these scalps, the colonists were working to eradicate the American Indian presence to take over land. My friends from that area do not generally support the "Redskins." In fact one of the Tribes I mentioned is the iconic Tribe the US based its historic view of the pilgrims and Indians had a Thanksgiving dinner. They will say I am a Washington fan (and not even say Redskins).


This mascot name has never been an honor. American Indians have had their name placed on cars, appliances, motorcycles, rivers, towns, etc. Should the football team continue to have the name. I believe it does two things now that you know this. I perpetuates upset feelings. It also shows public ignorance. I don't make that last statement in a pejorative fashion. I say that because we should work to understand and discover. Many people are not aware of the origin of the word redskin. Some may even say the team name is and always will be Redskin. That needs to change. Have the Dallas Cowboys always been the Dallas Cowboys? No, they changed their name decades ago from Dallas Texans. :picard Now with the urge to change, I believe Indian County should feel obligated to help find a new name if they truly want to honor American Indians. I think Indian Country has a great opportunity to educate, repair a slur, educate the world on its existence and principles, and better foster a great American tradition of the game of football. There is a lot more I can say. But, I think you get the point. By the way I am Dallas Cowboy fan. Imagine an Cherokee Indian as Cowboy fan? Dallas is America's Team!

H.O. said "Personally, I am not offended at all. Heck, my high school mascot was the "Warriors" and the local university (UNC-Pembroke) is the "Braves". I would like to think that most schools choose a mascot that reflects strength, cunning, ability, etc so I'm sure there is no ill will toward those groups of people (native Americans, etc). To me, this is just Political Correctness gone haywire. I hate all this PC crap. Next thing you know, the PCs will be claiming groups like "Pirates" are offensive! What about the "Fightin' Irish", "Ragin' Cajuns", or "Mountaineers"? There is a long history of this and many claim the use of native American mascots is actually "honoring" their heritage. As for the commercialization of them, Native Americans utilize various means to commercialize themselves. Do you remember the wrestler "Chief Wahoo McDaniel"? Also, just go up the road to Cherokee. The Cherokee never even wore feather headdresses. They wore turbans. So if Native Americans have no problem using their heritage to commercialize themselves, I have no problem with others using it as well to market their athletics."

Interesting stuff.. So far, it's 2 to 1 in favor of nickname.. and the 1 is admittedly a Cowboys fan.

As I get more opinions in, I will update.

In the meantime let's look at some history of the Native American mascot controversies:

The Seminole Tribe of Florida officially sanctions the use of the Seminole as Florida State University's nickname and of Osceola as FSU's symbol. In July 2005, the Seminole Nation General Council, the legislative body for the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, voted 18-2 not to oppose the use of Native American names and mascots by college sports teams.

Other Indian tribes have also supported the use of their tribal names as a tribute to their heritage. The Ute Tribe approved the use of the name "Utes" for the University of Utah and the NCAA granted a waiver to allow the name to remain.

The Central Michigan University nickname, the Chippewas was originally placed on the "hostile or abusive" list but was removed when the Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Nation of Michigan gave its support to the nickname.

The University of North Dakota's former athletic logo, a Native American figure, was recently dropped. Due to the NCAA's perception that the term "Fighting Sioux" and the accompanying logo are offensive to native Americans, the NCAA pressured the university to discontinue use of the logo. When UND moved in the fall of 2009 to change its nickname, one of the two Sioux tribal councils in the state sued to have the name retained.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, however, is permitted to use the name "Illini" owing to the NCAA ruling that the name is closely related to the name of the state and not directly associated with Native Americans. The term Fighting Illini is in fact a reference to veterans from Illinois who fought during World War I. The symbol Chief Illiniwek was ruled "hostile and abusive" and was retired in 2007 to comply with the NCAA's ruling, and the following year, in compliance with a related NCAA ruling, both U of I and Northwestern University retired their then-current rivalry trophy, the Sweet Sioux Tomahawk.

The College of William and Mary, founded in 1693 with a charter to, among other things, educate and evangelize the native population, voluntarily changed its sports nickname from "Indians" to the "Tribe" in the late 1970′s. However, the NCAA forced the school to remove the two tribal feathers stemming from their logo In 2006 due to "insensitivity" towards Native Americans. The fact that the local Pamunkey and Mattaponi tribes supported the College's use of the feathers was not enough for the NCAA.

The Arkansas State University officially removed its mascot, the "Indians," in 2008, replacing it with the "Red Wolves" at the request of the Osage tribe.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
Retired Native American Chief Would Be Offended If Redskins Did Change Name

by Chris Lingebach

May 29, 2013 4:38 PM

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) - Days ago, ten members of Congress sent letters to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, and the team’s stadium naming rights holder FedEx, along with the league’s 31 other franchises, urging them to have ‘Redskins’ changed due to the name’s offensive nature.

In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.

He gave a detailed account of the origin of the term Redskin, why so many people are offended by it, and how political correctness has allowed this story to fester far longer than it should.

“I think that first of all, you have to make a decision whether you consider it offensive or not, and frankly, the members of my tribe, the vast majority, don’t find it offensive,” Green said. “I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it.”

Earlier this month, Snyder told the USA Today “We’ll never change the name,” but instead of bringing finality to the debate, his words seemed to spark controversy on a national level, bringing activists from both sides out of the woodwork to fan the flames.

Chief Green’s research indicates the common misconception is to think the term was originally used as a racial epithet to denigrate Native people; that the label was actually self-applied, and was used quite frequently during interactions with early settlers.

Here’s a blow-by-blow of the interview, in which each nuance of the great debate is addressed.



Why are people offended by it?

“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”

Origin of the Name

“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.

“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their skin darkens.

“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”

The Logo

“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Native Americans Speaking Out In Support Of Redskins

The Washington Redskins have been under tremendous scrutiny over the last couple of months in regard to what some consider an “offensive” and “racist” name. While the group of complainants only make up 9% of the Native American population (according to the latest poll), many have wondered why the other 91% have been left unspoken.

It’s easy to assume the silence means indifference to the name, but you have to consider the repercussions of speaking out against the popular opinion of the Native American Media. Such punishments can range from the removal from the tribe, as well as professions ruined.

With the possible backlash from the powers that be it’s easy to understand why most Native American’s do not speak out, as they are in fear of their reputation, jobs, or even their life. On reservations it is their law, not the law the general public is used to.

Kevin, whose last name we cannot use wrote us a lengthy email on exactly this after seeing Ray’s appearance on “Outside the Lines” defending the Redskins name. He explains why those who support the Washington Redskins, as well as other teams with Native American connections are kept in silence.

“We quietly support you for the following main reasons, which are briefly included below -

  • The obsession with protesting mascots and names like Redskins is an obsession of white Indians. They protest mascots, children dressing up on Halloween and other silly things because it makes them feel Indian. It lets them scream racism. They know no other way of feeling Indian. They are totally disconnected from the real issues that affect mainstream Indians on reservations. They are fully Americanized. They have lost their language, culture, religion and even their skin color.
  • Unfortunately the white Indians have the loudest voices. If we go against them, they hurt us in our careers and lives because they [white Indians] control our media, academia, government jobs, medical clinics, finances, who gets denied federal recognition, even our tribes – everything. They have the money and the power. We have the Indian-ness.
  • Brown Indians on reservations have more important issues to worry about. Like diabetes, how we get our next meal, crime on reservations, lack of electricity, lack of toilets, lack of running water, no heat when there’s snow outside, getting a relative to a dialysis clinic when there is no transport, finding a job when there’s near 100% unemployment, near 100% consideration of suicide among our youth, alcoholism, drug abuse, elder abuse, spouse abuse, land loss, culture loss, language loss, etc. Mascots are a NON-ISSUE to us.
  • The media should be screaming about the real issues. Instead their main focus is on mascots. The focus on mascots and meaningless debates about redskins detract attention from the REAL issues facing brown Indians.
  • When these white Indians offend sports fans or insult a little child who loves Indians and puts on feathers, they alienate the rest of America against brown Indians. Note that the white Indians blend in beautifully into the white society. No one even realizes they are Indian. But when an angered sports fan who is upset about losing his mascot screams “**** you sand ******” or throws a beer can at us from a passing car screaming “MOTHER******, GO BACK TO YOUR ****ING RESERVATION!!” they scream such obscenities at my father, my cousin, my brother and my family members who look Indian.
  • Indians should do an A-B-C analysis and focus on the A-items. Mascots and names like redskin, or debates about whether the right word is Native American and not Indian, are not even C items. They are Z items. Unfortunately the white Indians obsess over these Z-items because that is the ONLY way they know how to feel Indian. If we twist America’s arm and get America to concede on the trivial items, the country will lose patience with us when we negotiate important A-items.
  • We are offending our fan base. That little child who insists on dressing up in a costume and putting on some feathers loves Indians, but when white Indians insult his mom and dad by calling them racists, he grows up to resent those of us who look Indian. Indians were unflappable. Now even a silly word like “costume” that I used above instead of “regalia” raises hackles? Don’t forget, it’s the white Indians who come down and tell the rest of us to be offended. We had someone who made cartoons about this issue and some of them are attached to this email.
  • The vocalizations of these white Indians seem to unite Indian opposition – they find forums and avenues to kindle hatred against Indians and rehash and reiterate negative stereotypes about Indians. They find a common ground under which those who resent and oppose Indians can unify together and gather in strength.
  • White Indians who oppose mascots point to the Halloween “blackface” and ask, “Don’t you find that offensive???” And the answer is yes, some Halloween costumes are expressly intended to mock and degrade. Sometimes it is Mother Mary dressed up voluptuously in revealing breasts, sometimes stupid people dress up as a rabbi with a hooked nose eating a bagel and counting money. Sometimes people put on a black face that portrays African Americans with exaggerated noses and large pink lips. Yes, these are no doubt offensive. But mascots usually portray teams that their fans are proud of. The Washington Redskins are proud of their mascots and will surely never run down their mascot this way.

In a follow-up, he [Kevin] went on to tell me:

“The American sports lovers are our brothers and sisters. We love them and respect them and also understand they mean us no disrespect for the most part. Please don’t let these clueless, identity-less white Indians drive a wedge between the mainstream Indians and sports loving fans.”

This opens a whole new side to the argument on why those who are Natives and support the Redskins do not speak publicly about it. After all 91% of Native Americans DO support mascots with Native American connections according to the last National Annenberg Election Survey. The Seminoles who support Florida State University, and the Utah Indians who support The University of Utah are prime examples of this.
 

1bigfan13

Your favorite player's favorite player
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
27,123
You can argue that the team has actually done a minor service by creating a more positive connotation for an offensive term. These days, I think most people entirely associate the word redskin with the NFL team and not a slur on native Americans.
It's not even arguable, it's straight up fact.

That is the only use for the word in today's society and that has been the case for 50 years.

Nobody runs around disparaging Native Americans by calling them Redskins anymore.
This is true. Last night on one of the Nat Geo/Discovery channels I was watching a show about slang words. They covered slang from present day to those used hundreds of years ago. And most of the derogatory words/terms that they used a couple hundred years ago wouldn't get a rise out of anyone today.

I imagine that's the same with the term Redskins.

However, I would do what Booze mentioned and poll a group of Native Americans. Ask them what's their take on the term. Because I don't think we as non-Native Americans have the right to tell them what's offensive and what's not.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,754
However, I would do what Booze mentioned and poll a group of Native Americans. Ask them what's their take on the term. Because I don't think we as non-Native Americans have the right to tell them what's offensive and what's not.
It is just funny to me that you don't hear about other ethnic groups being spoken for like they appear to be doing here.

And even the ones who say they don't GAS are ignored by those who want to take up a self indulgent crusade to make themselves feel good about themselves.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,730
I seem to remember getting railed on when I said this was a stupid protest.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Pretending a study is flawed cause you've got nothing else, doesn't disprove anything either.
Using a study that excluded states and had people self identify to be Native American (without actual proof) isn't a great source. My opinion but go ahead and act like your opinion is the only one that matters.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Using a study that excluded states
It excluded Alaska and Hawaii. BFD.

and had people self identify to be Native American (without actual proof) isn't a great source.
Yeah, I'm sure there were tons of people who had an agenda to mess with the survey by pretending to be Indians.

Who cares if it's a little off? It's 91 to 9.

The studies out there that show that Indians do not care vastly outnumber and outweigh those that do. There is nothing to disprove that other than needless questioning of studies for the express purpose of discrediting them because you don't like the results.

There are other tests out there that show it's 65-35, a little closer. I'm sure it's somewhere in between.
 

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
Also consider that that there was a subsets of Native Americans on reservations who didn't have phones. The people self identifying as Native American could have be people like my wife who has a very small percentage of Native American blood and have no experience or affiliation with the culture.
 
Last edited:

2233boys

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
2,793
It excluded Alaska and Hawaii. BFD.



Yeah, I'm sure there were tons of people who had an agenda to mess with the survey by pretending to be Indians.

Who cares if it's a little off? It's 91 to 9.

The studies out there that show that Indians do not care vastly outnumber and outweigh those that do. There is nothing to disprove that other than needless questioning of studies for the express purpose of discrediting them because you don't like the results.

There are other tests out there that show it's 65-35, a little closer. I'm sure it's somewhere in between.
Alaska contains 2 to 3% of the entire countries native population. Yeah excluding 100,000 Native Americans is no big deal. The survey is flawed.
 
Top Bottom