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

Cotton · May 19, 2016

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

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2016, 9:33 AM EDT

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.

The results of this poll are consistent with previous polls showing that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the team’s name, nor do they consider it an important issue facing their community. The question, then, is whether Snyder should show deference to the 9 percent who are offended by the team name. He has shown no inclination to do so, and will surely see this poll as support for that stance.

_______________________________

But but but OUTRAGE!

L.T. Fan · May 19, 2016

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

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2016, 9:33 AM EDT

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.

The results of this poll are consistent with previous polls showing that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the team’s name, nor do they consider it an important issue facing their community. The question, then, is whether Snyder should show deference to the 9 percent who are offended by the team name. He has shown no inclination to do so, and will surely see this poll as support for that stance.

_______________________________

But but but OUTRAGE!

It still will not dissuade some from continuing to stir the pot.

skidadl · May 19, 2016

But those 20 hurt feelings should require outrage and new laws.

Clay_Allison · May 19, 2016

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

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2016, 9:33 AM EDT

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.

The results of this poll are consistent with previous polls showing that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the team’s name, nor do they consider it an important issue facing their community. The question, then, is whether Snyder should show deference to the 9 percent who are offended by the team name. He has shown no inclination to do so, and will surely see this poll as support for that stance.

_______________________________

But but but OUTRAGE!

As slurs go it's not much of one. Saying red people are red isn't any different from calling black people black or white people white.

townsend · May 19, 2016

It wouldn't bother me a second if Snyder has to change just team to the Washington Kidney Beans or whatever. But it would be a pretty hollow gesture. Kind of like when South Carolina took down the confederate flag, but there were also like 6 black churches burned down the same week. Window dressing doesn't actually fix the issues.

Native Americans are being ruined by poverty, not bad PR.

skidadl · May 19, 2016

Clay_Allison said:
As slurs go it's not much of one. Saying red people are red isn't any different from calling black people black or white people white.

The Washington Blackskins would be a cool name.

BipolarFuk · May 19, 2016

townsend said:
It wouldn't bother me a second if Snyder has to change just team to the Washington Kidney Beans or whatever. But it would be a pretty hollow gesture. Kind of like when South Carolina took down the confederate flag, but there were also like 6 black churches burned down the same week. Window dressing doesn't actually fix the issues.

Native Americans are being ruined by poverty, not bad PR.

But like 4 of them own casinos and are rich, so it is OK.

L.T. Fan · May 19, 2016

BipolarFan said:
But like 4 of them own casinos and are rich, so it is OK.

Well that seems to be the outcome when the government makes one totally dependent on them. They either lose their ability to be self reliant or choose to become a foster child for uncle Sam.

townsend · May 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well that seems to be the outcome when the government makes one totally dependent on them. They either lose their ability to be self reliant or choose to become a foster child for uncle Sam.

I think this is a grossly oversimplified narrative, and it brushes over the grotesque and inhuman treatment of natives for the better part of 300 years.

BipolarFuk · May 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well that seems to be the outcome when the government makes one totally dependent on them. They either lose their ability to be self reliant or choose to become a foster child for uncle Sam.

That same government committed genocide against those people in one of history's great travesties that isn't really considered a travesty for some reason. Oh yeah, MURCA!!!

L.T. Fan · May 19, 2016

townsend said:
I think this is a grossly oversimplified narrative, and it brushes over the grotesque and inhuman treatment of natives for the better part of 300 years.

I think history bears out that the government took what they wanted from the native American then created programs to control them a make them almost totally reliant on government resources. Even to the degree that an individual could not even borrow money unless the transaction was done through the bureau of Indian affairs. A great deal of the business conducted by native Americans had to be cleared through the bureau. In addition many tribes were displaced to reservations and were required to wash everything through the government. As I stated previously the government made the Indians completely dependent on government resources and the likes. A lot of the same practices have been extended to other areas of the population and it has created a very large problem of complete dependency. History will validate this.

L.T. Fan · May 19, 2016

BipolarFan said:
That same government committed genocide against those people in one of history's great travesties that isn't really considered a travesty for some reason. Oh yeah, MURCA!!!

We are not on opposing sides in this. No need to start the sarcasm yet.

Clay_Allison · May 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I think history bears out that the government took what they wanted from the native American then created programs to control them a make them almost totally reliant on government resources. Even to the degree that an individual could not even borrow money unless the transaction was done through the bureau of Indian affairs. A great deal of the business conducted by native Americans had to be cleared through the bureau. In addition many tribes were displaced to reservations and were required to wash everything through the government. As I stated previously the government made the Indians completely dependent on government resources and the likes. A lot of the same practices have been extended to other areas of the population and it has created a very large problem of complete dependency. History will validate this.

This clarifies your statement greatly.

Jiggyfly · May 19, 2016

Clay_Allison said:
This clarifies your statement greatly.

skidadl · May 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I think history bears out that the government took what they wanted from the native American then created programs to control them a make them almost totally reliant on government resources. Even to the degree that an individual could not even borrow money unless the transaction was done through the bureau of Indian affairs. A great deal of the business conducted by native Americans had to be cleared through the bureau. In addition many tribes were displaced to reservations and were required to wash everything through the government. As I stated previously the government made the Indians completely dependent on government resources and the likes. A lot of the same practices have been extended to other areas of the population and it has created a very large problem of complete dependency. History will validate this.

Yup

townsend · May 19, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I think history bears out that the government took what they wanted from the native American then created programs to control them a make them almost totally reliant on government resources. Even to the degree that an individual could not even borrow money unless the transaction was done through the bureau of Indian affairs. A great deal of the business conducted by native Americans had to be cleared through the bureau. In addition many tribes were displaced to reservations and were required to wash everything through the government. As I stated previously the government made the Indians completely dependent on government resources and the likes. A lot of the same practices have been extended to other areas of the population and it has created a very large problem of complete dependency. History will validate this.

That makes more sense. From your original statement it sounded like government assistance was what caused natives to be impoverished.

DLK150 · May 20, 2016

You could change their name to The Washington Monuments and not only would I not GAS one way or the other, it won't do one thing to improve the status or condition of native Americans in general today or change the past injustices brought against them. If successful, there would be a bunch of PC pundits patting themselves on the back over getting a word and graphic abolished, the team would change the name and Snyder would rake in the cash from new merchandise sales. Whoopie. Actually there would be a bonus involved: The end of their annoying fight song.

The original Cleveland Browns mostly floundered for years, moved to a different city, took on a different name, and have won a couple of Super Bowls since. In the end, I'm sure the fans in Maryland wouldn't care if they were called the Baltimore Americans(2nd choice, if I recall) as long as they won a couple of titles along the way.

JMO but it's a freaking word, people. It will only hurt you if you let it.

Clay_Allison · May 20, 2016

pdom said:
Named your team after a group of poor people that couldn't defend their homeland. Good choice.

id be happy to change my teams name to the White Peoples, proven domination home and away.

Cotton · May 20, 2016

DLK150 said:
JMO but it's a freaking word, people. It will only hurt you if you let it.

This is exactly how I feel about the word "retarded".

L.T. Fan · May 21, 2016

If the real Redskins aren't worked up about the DC Redskins name then why the fuss?

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

One-armed Knife Sharpener

I'm Easy If You Are

El Presidente'

Old Bastard

Banned

El Presidente'

Demoted

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Demoted

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are

Old Bastard

Banned

El Presidente'

Banned

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

One-armed Knife Sharpener

I'm Easy If You Are