Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

DBIsports

Members
  • Content Count

    346
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About DBIsports

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 03/26/1969

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    dekeblue1@aol.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Searcy, AR
  1. Somehow it is hip to find a way to be offended by something these days. I don't know what it is, but it seems everyone wants to find a way to be offended. Like that stupid Volkswagen commercial that had a white guy talking like a Jamaican guy. A few (non Jamaican) New York Times writers were outraged, but when they asked actual representatives from Jamaica, they liked the commercial. Except that as mentioned before the Annenberg survey was not a good poll, a good percentage of Native Americans, and apparently at least some non- Native Americans, are offended, and it is not a question of the portrayal of a race, but a team name that uses what is mentioned by some as a derogatory term.
  2. They have no problem with the imagery, BUT, are opposed to the team name "Redskins", according to the interview."Many of the people taking part in this debate see it as a black-and-white issue. Either they're completely opposed to all uses of Native American imagery, or they have no problem with any of it. What's your position, or your tribe's position, on that?" It's very, very clear for us, because we've worked with so many institutions in our area. Our position is that if it's not derogatory and it's being used appropriately, with an opportunity to share or cross-share our culture, then it's fine. There's nothing derogatory about "Warriors" or "Braves." There's nothing derogatory about "Indian." But terms like "Redskin" or "Half-Breed," those are derogatory terms to us.
  3. I'd bet you $80 million Snyder would make less money per year off a new name than he would sticking with Redskins. I have no real guess how much less, but I'm confident it would be less. Of course, it would important what the new name becomes. A lame name would kill them in revenue.I think the "New Coke" phenomenon of the eighties would kick in big time, with fans rushing out to buy out all the old memorabilia, and then buying the new stuff, double payoff.A true fan will still buy hats and jersies no matter what. I am a Colts fan and if Irsay decided to change the team name to the Indianapolis Dingle-berries tomorrow, and keep in mind he is crazy enough to do it, I would be among the first rushing to fanatics.com to buy some new stuff.
  4. So, I think it would be hard to argue that a better sample would lead to some monstrous change in response percentages. It would be good to know how many are in each group, though.Out of curiosity, what percentage of people is it acceptable to offend? How many Native Americans would have to be offended before you'd favor changing the name? I don't know that 0.0000% is a reasonable goal for anything- hell, I'm sure there are some nut jobs out there who are offended by the Broncos' nickname- but here in the most Redskins-friendly survey we still have 9% of the Native American population saying they find the name objectionable. Is that an acceptable level for you? How high would it have to go before it's unacceptable? 25%? 50.1%? 100%?As an aside, I'm automatically skeptical of any survey of the Native American population that refers to them as Indians. In my mind, it's akin to seeing a headline reading "Study: midgets don't mind you calling them shorty" or "Survey: negros cool with when you call them 'bro'". If you're going to be conducting a professional survey of a group, at least refer to them by their preferred name.That was the problem with this being a sample survey. It wasn't a survey of Native American population at all, the original link dgreen posted showed the methodology of the survey.I don't understand what you are saying the "problem" is here.It was a presidential survey during the Bush/Dole campaign. They randomly called 65,000 computer generated phone numbers and reach 768 people, who just happen to pick up the phone and claim to be Native American. They asked a bunch of questions, with this question packed in there somewhere. I can imagine the phone call now.Are you worried about the Iraq situation?yesAre you worried about the economy?yesAs a Native American, do you find the Washington Redskins name offensive or doesn’t it bother you? I think a better survey would be a survey with the question at hand being the reason for the survey. And among the Native Americans themselves.
  5. So, I think it would be hard to argue that a better sample would lead to some monstrous change in response percentages. It would be good to know how many are in each group, though.Out of curiosity, what percentage of people is it acceptable to offend? How many Native Americans would have to be offended before you'd favor changing the name? I don't know that 0.0000% is a reasonable goal for anything- hell, I'm sure there are some nut jobs out there who are offended by the Broncos' nickname- but here in the most Redskins-friendly survey we still have 9% of the Native American population saying they find the name objectionable. Is that an acceptable level for you? How high would it have to go before it's unacceptable? 25%? 50.1%? 100%?As an aside, I'm automatically skeptical of any survey of the Native American population that refers to them as Indians. In my mind, it's akin to seeing a headline reading "Study: midgets don't mind you calling them shorty" or "Survey: negros cool with when you call them 'bro'". If you're going to be conducting a professional survey of a group, at least refer to them by their preferred name.That was the problem with this being a sample survey. It wasn't a survey of Native American population at all, the original link dgreen posted showed the methodology of the survey.The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES) is a survey conducted each presidential election by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey is based on telephone interviews which began October 7, 2003 and will continue past Election Day. The sample of telephone exchanges called was randomly selected by a computer from a complete list of thousands of active residential exchanges across the country. Within each exchange, random digits were added to form a complete telephone number, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted numbers. Within each household, one adult was designated by a random procedure to be the respondent for the survey. The interviewing is conducted by Schulman, Ronca, Bucuvalas, Inc. This report deals with interviewing conducted from Oct. 7, 2003, through September 20, 2004. In that period 65,047 adults were interviewed, of whom 768 identified themselves as Indians or Native Americans
  6. I don't know of this research study, nor do I understand your characterization of "pretty much all [Native Americans]." Here's one studyI borrowed this from another site...Annenberg's "Redskins" surveyUnfortunately, Annenberg's methodology confirms that these polls aren't very reliable. Among its demographic problems:It's well-known that relying on telephone landlines skews the results in a conservative direction. Older, conservative people tend to stick with landlines. Younger, liberal people tend to use cellphones.Moreover, a significant subset of Indians living on reservations don't have any phone service. They obviously weren't included in the survey.Alaska is about 13% Native. Excluding Alaska means excluding 100,000 Natives or 2-3% of the total Native population.Meanwhile, excluding Hawaii means excluding one of the most liberal states. We can presume that Hawaiians are more sensitive to mascot issues than residents of other states.Asking people to self-identify as Indians probably skews the results toward wannabes with a small amount of Indian blood. We don't know how they'd answer, but it isn't necessarily the same way as actual Indians.Offensive, bothersome, or wrong?Perhaps a bigger problem is the nature of the question asked: "As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?" Among its problems:The two options aren't symmetrical. Respondents could think the name is offensive but doesn't bother them, or it bothers them but it isn't offensive. Better would be to ask, "Is it offensive or not offensive?" or "Does it bother or not bother you?"Offensiveness is only one aspect of the name. One can object to it on other grounds besides its being offensive.As an example, I'm not offended when people use swear words in public. But I don't think these words are good, and I wouldn't name a sports team after them. So a name can be objectionable without offending me personally.As another example, I'm not offended when people recite the Pledge of Allegiance at events. But I think it's silly at best and a mild form of brainwashing at worst. It's objectionable because it serves no rational purpose even if it's not offensive.The same applies to the "Redskins" name. Consider the poll's headline: Most Indians find "Redskins" acceptable. That's not what the question asked. It asked if the name bothers them, as in personally--a somewhat different attribute.It's easy to imagine people's ambivalent feelings toward a stereotypical name or mascot. For instance, "It doesn't bother me personally, but if others find it offensive, I think it should go." Or, "It doesn't bother me personally, but I think it's biasing people's perceptions, so it should go." In other words, the poll could've asked about more than just the "offensive/not bothersome" duality. It could've asked if the name was good or bad, right or wrong. The actual question is flawed because it doesn't probe the potentially nuanced feelings about "Redskins."
  7. But that is the issue, many Native Americans are offended. So how can a non- Native American, like Daniel Snyder, decide its not offensive enough?
  8. I did a search and did not see where this has been brought up recently, but it's making headlines againRedskins name deemed "Racial Slur". The article even mentions protests and asking RG3 to get involved. At one time I think I would have found it silly to even think about changing something so familiar and tradition filled. But now I wonder if it is truly offensive to someone of that race, maybe a name change isn't the worst idea. We all are aware of the history of racism in this country, and a team name with almost any other racial slur being changed wouldn't even be up for debate. Am I just turning way too leftist in my old age, or is there reason to consider this?