Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (2 Viewers)

[cobalt_27]

The last time this issue came up they asked the native americans in VA and MD what they thought of the Redskins, and they pretty muc all said it was "pretty cool." If it isnt offending the people who should be offended then it isnt offensive

I don't know of this research study, nor do I understand your characterization of "pretty much all [Native Americans]." Your stance on this is in pretty stark contrast to a long-standing history of protests and attempts by Native Americans to get them to change this obvious racial slur.So, if we can agree that it is offending the people who should be offended, then it's offensive? Because, if so, then it seems pretty clear the team needs to change its name. Efforts to interfere with that process amount to further bigotry.

 

[RavenLunatic]

My view has evolved on this and think it should be changed only if the community, players and fans of the team agree and initiate the move...not politicians or a unilateral move by the owner. I understand the insensitive nature of the name and without the pride fans and former players have in the name, it alone should be changed. However it has a meaning of its own and that is the historic football team. Only when you pause to think about it does it make you think of how awful a name the original choice was. Pure ignorance. Still amazed the Bullets name was changed to the Wizards. Awful name.

 

[Raider Nation]

I was not in favor when a bunch of colleges dropped tribe names as their mascots, but I have to say I agree with changing the name of the Redskins. It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.

thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.

I think most Irish people like it, I know I do. Are people upset about the fighting Illini? I just don't see why the term fighting is negative in the context of sports. People may argue that it's a stereotype of the Irish drinking but that is your own bias coming into play.

Read above. The poster earlier claimed that "it doesn't offend anyone." Which isn't true - it offends me. I'm not lobbying to change the name....just pointing out that the poster above is flat out wrong. Google this topic and you'll find that others are offended too.....which again, does not mean we should change the name.

I'm not Irish, so I won't presume to tell an Irishman how he should feel about Notre Dame's nickname.However, since I was young enough to hear NOTRE DAME FIGHTING IRISH, I never pictured a bunch of drunken Irishmen squaring off in a out-of-control bar fight or some other stereotype like that. I took "Fighting" to mean fighting spirit on their chosen field of battle in collegiate sports.

 

[cobalt_27]

I was not in favor when a bunch of colleges dropped tribe names as their mascots, but I have to say I agree with changing the name of the Redskins. It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.

thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.

I think most Irish people like it, I know I do. Are people upset about the fighting Illini? I just don't see why the term fighting is negative in the context of sports. People may argue that it's a stereotype of the Irish drinking but that is your own bias coming into play.

Read above. The poster earlier claimed that "it doesn't offend anyone." Which isn't true - it offends me. I'm not lobbying to change the name....just pointing out that the poster above is flat out wrong. Google this topic and you'll find that others are offended too.....which again, does not mean we should change the name.

I'm not Irish, so I won't presume to tell an Irishman how he should feel about Notre Dame's nickname.However, since I was young enough to hear NOTRE DAME FIGHTING IRISH, I never pictured a bunch of drunken Irishmen squaring off in a out-of-control bar fight or some other stereotype like that. I took "Fighting" to mean fighting spirit on their chosen field of battle in collegiate sports.

And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

 

[SSOG]

And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants. Unfortunately, our country has a rich tapestry of racism and bigotry. Precious few groups have been spared our ire.

 

[omally]

I was not in favor when a bunch of colleges dropped tribe names as their mascots, but I have to say I agree with changing the name of the Redskins. It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.

thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.

I could not imagine being that thin skinned. I'm Irish, and I have never even thought about "fighting Irish" being an offensive term.

 

[Raider Nation]

And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants.

Italian immigrants didn't have a much easier time of it.ETA: not that you implied otherwise.

 

[dgreen]

The last time this issue came up they asked the native americans in VA and MD what they thought of the Redskins, and they pretty muc all said it was "pretty cool." If it isnt offending the people who should be offended then it isnt offensive

I don't know of this research study, nor do I understand your characterization of "pretty much all [Native Americans]."

Here's one study

 

[cobalt_27]

And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants. Unfortunately, our country has a rich tapestry of racism and bigotry. Precious few groups have been spared our ire.

I am well aware of the history of persecution of the Irish in this country. Thankfully, this period was relatively short-lived, and the stature of being Irish has been redeemed in this country, politically, economically, and otherwise, not to mention the fact that "tension" did not include systematic slaughter, torture, put bounties on their heads and skinned them alive, as was the fate of the Native American populations across this country.Not sure how these are equivocal in any way.

 

[DBIsports]

The last time this issue came up they asked the native americans in VA and MD what they thought of the Redskins, and they pretty muc all said it was "pretty cool." If it isnt offending the people who should be offended then it isnt offensive

I don't know of this research study, nor do I understand your characterization of "pretty much all [Native Americans]."

Here's one study

I 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."

 

[SSOG]

And it's not a derogatory slur. It's not a name born of bigotry and racism. And the Irish do not have the history of oppression and racism experienced on the level of the Native Americans in this country, recapitulated by the offensiveness of the "Redskins" name.

Whether or not you are ok or not ok with the "fighting Irish" moniker (and I assume a lot of this is faux outrage) is a weak attempt to bury one's head in the sand re: the Redskins issue.

Yes they do. They can't match Native Americans for sheer length of oppression (no group can, not even the African slaves), but in the late 1800s to early 1900s, when the Irish potato famine was driving immigrants to America in droves, they were every bit as reviled as Native Americans, if not more so because the proximity to the population kept tensions raw and at the forefront at all times. Again, the New York Times was running articles blaming all crime and poverty on the Irish immigrants. Unfortunately, our country has a rich tapestry of racism and bigotry. Precious few groups have been spared our ire.

I am well aware of the history of persecution of the Irish in this country. Thankfully, this period was relatively short-lived, and the stature of being Irish has been redeemed in this country, politically, economically, and otherwise, not to mention the fact that "tension" did not include systematic slaughter, torture, put bounties on their heads and skinned them alive, as was the fate of the Native American populations across this country.Not sure how these are equivocal in any way.

I was going to post about how the worst of the oppression of Native Americans came when the government and the Constitution didn't recognize them as citizens and categorized them instead as something akin to foreign nations, making them a rival, even warring, populace rather than an oppressed citizenry. Upon further reflection, I realize that you are right and the distinction is meaningless- either way, it's racism driven by a perceived competition over resources, and the civic standing of the oppressed other doesn't matter.

 

[dgreen]

I 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.

This survey was in 2004. I'm not sure there was a large enough move away from landlines at that point to make a huge difference. But, even if we assume there was:

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

Moreover, a significant subset of Indians living on reservations don't have any phone service. They obviously weren't included in the survey.

Good point. But, then again - potentially stupid question coming up - if they don't have phone service, do they have TVs? Do they have internet? Do they ever hear the words "Washington Redskins"? If an offensive word is uttered and nobody hears it, is it an offensive word?

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.

Yeah, not sure why they didn't include Alaska and Hawaii.

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.

This is a reach.

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?"

Agreed. It's worded weirdly.

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.

The whole debate has been about the offensiveness of the word. It's not about whether it serves a rational purpose or if it's silly or objectionable without offending.

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.

That's just an argument against the headline, not an argument against the actual results of the survey. Headlines don't always perfectly match.

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."

What if 100 people are surveyed and 100 people say "It doesn't bother me personally, but if others find it offensive, I think it should go." The "if others find it offensive" part would then refer to...nobody. If everyone assumes others are offended, but nobody is offended, then what? Of course, it's not going to be 100/100. It's been mentioned in this thread that if "enough" people are offended, then the name should change. I'm not sure how much is "enough", but I don't think all these nuances this person is mentioning are nearly as important as simply knowing whether someone is personally offended.

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."

It could have done a lot of things and all those things would have been irrelevant to the topic. The claim is that people are offended. Not whether it is good or bad or right or wrong.

 

[SelenaCat]

If an offensive word is uttered and nobody hears it, is it an offensive word?

Absolutely. If you mutter the n-word under your breath, or any of the multiple misogynic terms for a woman, it's still offensive, whether or not it gets heard. Any word that is meant to belittle or demean another has no place in a professional setting. Period.As for giving the fans a voice, I completely disagree with you. That would be like saying that the Southern states should have been allowed a popular vote when slavery was outlawed. Many saw nothing wrong with it, which part of the problem. The fact that many people *can't* see what's wrong with the name is just internalized acceptance of racism.

 

[dgreen]

As for giving the fans a voice, I completely disagree with you.

What did I say?

 

[Fred Lane]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The last time this issue came up they asked the native americans in VA and MD what they thought of the Redskins, and they pretty muc all said it was "pretty cool." If it isnt offending the people who should be offended then it isnt offensive

I don't know of this research study, nor do I understand your characterization of "pretty much all [Native Americans]." Your stance on this is in pretty stark contrast to a long-standing history of protests and attempts by Native Americans to get them to change this obvious racial slur.So, if we can agree that it is offending the people who should be offended, then it's offensive? Because, if so, then it seems pretty clear the team needs to change its name. Efforts to interfere with that process amount to further bigotry.

Yeah I don't know where people are getting this idea that most or all Native Americans are cool with it. My guess is that they're citing some Snyder-funded "research" or something. It's pretty clear that they're NOT cool with it. Check the links from the symposium I posted on the first page of this thread, or the numerous lawsuits brought by Native American groups against the team, or this interview with the president of Native American rights group where she says "the r-word is the most derogatory thing Native Peoples can be called in the English language."This is a settled question. Maybe not every Native American considers it derogatory, but plenty do. Either you're OK with a team name that many Native American people consider derogatory, or you're not.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This is all very reminiscent of the Oompa Loompa’s applying pressure on Syracuse University to drop the offensive "Orangemen" moniker. Just like how people now accept the team as the "Orange" in 10 years no one will be any less put off by the Washington Red-Coats (ummm...I mean Red-Shirts).

 

[SSOG]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

 

[dgreen]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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%?

I have no idea.

 

[DBIsports]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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

 

[dgreen]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

 

[squistion]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

Obviously you don't.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Get over it butthurt WAS fans dgreen. It's going to change eventually, may as well get it over with.

 

[DBIsports]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

 

[dgreen]

Fourteen percent of Indians who called themselves politically liberal said the name was offensive, compared to 9 percent of moderates and 6 percent of conservatives.

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.

Makes sense, but those are just assumptions on your part of how it went. Of course, the lack of detailed information about this study is a bit annoying and only leads to assumptions. It would be nice to know the entire script and it would be nice to know how non-Native Americans answered the question.I don't think there's a problem with their survey including everyone. Their Native American % was the same as the US average (1.2%), so it seems they drew a good sample from that standpoint. It would be interesting to know the difference in % between self-identified Native Americans and those who live on a reservation. That could matter, as suggested earlier.

 

[flc735]

I was not in favor when a bunch of colleges dropped tribe names as their mascots, but I have to say I agree with changing the name of the Redskins. It's pretty much the equivalent of calling a black person the N-word.

Then I want all schools including Notre Dame to stop using the word Irish.

thats not the same. there aren't groups of people wanting notre dame to stop using the word irish. it doesn't offend anyone. in fact, as ar as i know, people of irish decent like that connection. if they did then yes, it would be in the same group. likewise, if native americans were okay with the redskins term, we wouldn't be an issue.it's up to them to decide if it is an offensive term or not. it is not up to me or you (assuming you are not of native american decent)

Not true. My father and I are both Irish....and we find the term "fighting Irish" deeply offensive....don't understand how people can consider it acceptable.

I think most Irish people like it, I know I do. Are people upset about the fighting Illini? I just don't see why the term fighting is negative in the context of sports. People may argue that it's a stereotype of the Irish drinking but that is your own bias coming into play.

Read above. The poster earlier claimed that "it doesn't offend anyone." Which isn't true - it offends me. I'm not lobbying to change the name....just pointing out that the poster above is flat out wrong. Google this topic and you'll find that others are offended too.....which again, does not mean we should change the name.

are you sure? or are you just saying that for the sake of argument? can i make another point? black people were forced into slavery in america. native americans were killed and forced to give up their land. as far as i know, the irish did not have any such problems in america. i think that is an okay reason to be a little more sensitive to black and native americans than we would with another ethnicity.

because of our country's history, there is a difference big between the n-word/redskin vs and irish or italian slur, for example.

even if so, i would bet you would find more people of irish decent that want them to keep the name than would like it to be changed. if it does offend you, you should be doing what native americans are doing. rise awareness and get more people to back you.

 

[flc735]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

'redskin' is okay because it is allowed at FBG?

 

[flc735]

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."

What if 100 people are surveyed and 100 people say "It doesn't bother me personally, but if others find it offensive, I think it should go." The "if others find it offensive" part would then refer to...nobody. If everyone assumes others are offended, but nobody is offended, then what? Of course, it's not going to be 100/100. It's been mentioned in this thread that if "enough" people are offended, then the name should change. I'm not sure how much is "enough", but I don't think all these nuances this person is mentioning are nearly as important as simply knowing whether someone is personally offended.

if no one were offended than no one would be spending their time raising the issue. we are talking about it so clearly this is not the case.if there ween't that many people that were offended, there would not be enough support to raise this issue to the extent to which it is now.if there were 10 people that had an issue with it, it would be ignored. if there were a few thousand, we would be talking about it on internet forums.

 

[dgreen]

It appears, to me at least, that the Redskins are a little more worried about it than they used to be. They used to either ignore it or just give a quick quote about how they are proudly representing. But, now they are writing articles on their web site trying to defend their name. I don't really remember them doing this before, but maybe they have. Not exactly the best written article or argument:

"Redskins""We are very proud of our athletic teams and very proud to be called Redskins!"These are the words of Coshocton High School athletic director George Hemming, who serves as the athletic director for just one of the 70 different High Schools in 25 states are known as the Redskins.Redskins.com found that there are almost as many schools using the name Redskins as Cowboys, as only 75 schools use the name Cowboys, and interestingly just 19 use the name Giants.Coshocton High School is located in east central Ohio which has a rich Native American history. Hemming said "the name represents to us competition and pride."In eastern Ohio, the name Redskins was adopted by Indian Creek High School in 1993.Principal Steve Cowser said the name was selected when two schools with the nicknames Warriors and Indians were merged, and thus the Indian Creek Redskins were born.Cowser explained how the name shows their "pride for the Native Americans and how they lived."As Indian Creek High is a 45 minute drive from Pittsburgh, Cowser closed by stating, "Go Steelers," as a reminder of where his NFL loyalties stand.These schools' athletes have a deep connection, just as the Washington Redskins alumni, and many high school student-athletes have pride in calling themselves Redskins.One familiar high school Redskins athlete was Washington Redskins star Brian Orakpo, who played for the Lamar Redskins in his high School days in Houston, Texas.A full list of all schools and names can be found at www.maxpreps.com.Please check back for weekly updates on and watch Redskins Nation on Comcast Sportsnet at 5:30 and 11:30 p.m. daily for a different Redskins story.

 

[dgreen]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

'redskin' is okay because it is allowed at FBG?

No, that's not what he's saying.

 

[Fred Lane]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

'redskin' is okay because it is allowed at FBG?

No, that's not what he's saying.

The point is that a word is just a word, but it's the intent behind a word that evokes the emotional response. It's okay to pri## your finger, but not okay to finger your...well, I'm sure you get the point.There are redskin potatoes...whoops, can I not call them that anymore? I don't even think of native Americans when I cheer on the Redskins, it's just a name of a team.

 

[daveR]

Take this for what it's worth... My transplanted brother, from Cleveland, wears his Indians jacket around Albuquerque. He claims many positive comments from local Indians, who are not offended by it or the term. On the other hand, I personally doubt those who are offended would say so.

 

[flc735]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

'redskin' is okay because it is allowed at FBG?

No, that's not what he's saying.

The point is that a word is just a word, but it's the intent behind a word that evokes the emotional response. It's okay to pri## your finger, but not okay to finger your...well, I'm sure you get the point.There are redskin potatoes...whoops, can I not call them that anymore? I don't even think of native Americans when I cheer on the Redskins, it's just a name of a team.

i agree. intent matters. what do you think the intent of the word 'redskin' is here? their logo is a picture of a native american. it is clear what the word is intended to mean.if they were the washington redskin potatoes, and had a potato mascot and logo, it wouldn't be an issue. no one would mind. just look. there is no one claiming that they are offended by the 'redskin potato' company.regardless of all that, it still upsets people. to me, it is just a matter of not being a jerk or not.if i had a nickname i didn't like and i asked you to stop calling me it and you ignored me, that would make you kind of a jerk. they asked people to stop, so just stop. mr. synder can change the name and logo and then enjoy the 80 million in profits that it will create in jersey sales. everyone wins.

 

[GregR]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

'redskin' is okay because it is allowed at FBG?

No, that's not what he's saying.

The point is that a word is just a word, but it's the intent behind a word that evokes the emotional response. It's okay to pri## your finger, but not okay to finger your...well, I'm sure you get the point.There are redskin potatoes...whoops, can I not call them that anymore? I don't even think of native Americans when I cheer on the Redskins, it's just a name of a team.

History of how a word has been used drives the meaning as much as the intent. Sometimes more.What history has been seen can differ from one person to another. Especially from a younger white person to an older Native American, in this case.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't even think of native Americans when I cheer on the Redskins, it's just a name of a team.

Then you certainly wouldn't object to a change in the team name, right?Given that there is a good number of folks are uncomfortable with the obvious and explicitly racist moniker that, like all racial slurs, serves to perpetuate the negative connotations and stereotypes of minorities, how would it injure you to change the team name? Especially, since it doesn't seem particularly important to you.

 

[DavidWilsonsTears]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

edit.I just typed in a few awful pejoratives for a black person. They got through the language filter just fine. Your point is bad and you should feel bad.

 

[dgreen]

they asked people to stop, so just stop. mr. synder can change the name and logo and then enjoy the 80 million in profits that it will create in jersey sales. everyone wins.

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.

 

[SSOG]

Redskin######I am neither. I'm not racist. One of those words is harder to type and post than the other. Try it.

edit.I just typed in a few awful pejoratives for a black person. They got through the language filter just fine. Your point is bad and you should feel bad.

I could be wrong, but I interpreted his post as saying it felt more awkward and uncomfortable to type one out, not that it was harder to get through the filter.

 

[jbz]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.htmlGood read with links to documents that include speeches made by native American chiefs where they refer to themselves a "red skins". Also link to study/paper done by Ives Goddard, curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The study basically shows that the term "red skins" was started and used in translations by the native Americans themselves. The originating use of the term Redskins as a team name (Boston Redskins) was in tribute to the head coach, himself a native American. It's not offensive as some people are making it out to be. I admit I didn't really know the background of it all, but doing some reading brought up some interesting stuff

 

[Alex P Keaton]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Good read with links to documents that include speeches made by native American chiefs where they refer to themselves a "red skins". Also link to study/paper done by Ives Goddard, curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The study basically shows that the term "red skins" was started and used in translations by the native Americans themselves. The originating use of the term Redskins as a team name (Boston Redskins) was in tribute to the head coach, himself a native American. It's not offensive as some people are making it out to be. I admit I didn't really know the background of it all, but doing some reading brought up some interesting stuff

You must not listen to rap music.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Good read with links to documents that include speeches made by native American chiefs where they refer to themselves a "red skins". Also link to study/paper done by Ives Goddard, curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The study basically shows that the term "red skins" was started and used in translations by the native Americans themselves. The originating use of the term Redskins as a team name (Boston Redskins) was in tribute to the head coach, himself a native American. It's not offensive as some people are making it out to be. I admit I didn't really know the background of it all, but doing some reading brought up some interesting stuff

You must not listen to rap music.

Must be another word around that I'm not familiar with, to make this comparison accurate. Maybe Redskina?

 

[DBIsports]

they asked people to stop, so just stop. mr. synder can change the name and logo and then enjoy the 80 million in profits that it will create in jersey sales. everyone wins.

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.

 

[Tanner9919]

the name Redskins came about as a sign of respect for Native Americans..

The team moved to Fenway Park[14] (home of the Boston Red Sox) the next year, and owner GP Marshall changed the name to the "Redskins" apparently in honor of then-coach Lone Star Dietz,[15] a Native American (he claimed to be part Sioux, but his actual ancestry has been challenged).[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Washington_Redskins

what's even more remarkable is that Marshall was a known racist, and Redskins were the last NFL team to integrate..so,for a known racist to change the name from Braves to Redskins to honor his Native American head coach, that's saying something..

and the Redskins logo has always been a respectful logo, not some sort of derogatory depiction of an Indian Chief..

I see no difference between Redskins name and the Spartans name..both honor their respective parties..

the Redskins are the 5th most valuable sports franchise in the world according to a recent Forbes' study. There's no way Snyder would change the name, because he would lose millions if he did...when you have that kind of name/brand recognition,you don't fool with it..

Imagine changing the name NY Yankees to the Bronx Bombers or NY Highlanders..now,how much value would that franchise immediately lose? 50-60%? probably a lot more than that!

and, if you really want to get down to it, the term Yankees is actually offensive to Northerners ( New Englanders in particular), especially when it comes to references about the burning of Atlanta and the defeat of the South in the Civil War, it was also a derogatory term used by English soldiers towards Dutch settlers, and is almost always meant in a derogatory yet somewhat playful way among English speaking countries ( Ireland, UK , Aus, South Africa, NZ, etc) towards any American..

 

[Novice2]

Blanking liberals.

 

[dgreen]

they asked people to stop, so just stop. mr. synder can change the name and logo and then enjoy the 80 million in profits that it will create in jersey sales. everyone wins.

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.

Yeah, the old stuff would go like hot cakes. But, once that runs out, I just think the people who would be excited about the new name would be too small. Timing matters for something like this. Right now, I just think it would totally piss off tons of fans. Ticket sales would likely be hurt. And, I'd say the majority of people who would still go to games would be wearing their old stuff for years. I think the only way it would work financially in the short term is for them to pick the perfect name change and logo that doesn't piss off too many people and they immediately experience a lot of winning. If they go with something like "Wizards" and the world's worst colors and logo and lose year after year, it would be a total disaster.

 

[squistion]

Blanking liberals.

That would be an improvement over Redskins.

 

[SSOG]

Imagine changing the name NY Yankees to the Bronx Bombers or NY Highlanders..now,how much value would that franchise immediately lose? 50-60%? probably a lot more than that!

That estimate is so far beyond the realms of credibility that it almost doesn't even bear rebutting. Basically, a team's only source of revenue is its fan base- tickets sold to fans, tv rights to broadcast to fans, merchandise marketed to fans, etc. If we assume that the amount fans spend is based on how much the team wins (a reasonable assumption), and the amount a team wins is unrelated to what it's called (also a reasonable assumption: see Lakers), then the only way a team loses 50% of its value is if it loses 50% of its fan base. And to be perfectly honest, I'd be surprised if a team lost FIVE percent of its fan base over a name change.

Honest question: is there a single Redskins fan in this thread that would stop supporting their team if they changed their name to, say, the Washington Hogs?

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002961.html

Good read with links to documents that include speeches made by native American chiefs where they refer to themselves a "red skins". Also link to study/paper done by Ives Goddard, curator and senior linguist in the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. The study basically shows that the term "red skins" was started and used in translations by the native Americans themselves. The originating use of the term Redskins as a team name (Boston Redskins) was in tribute to the head coach, himself a native American. It's not offensive as some people are making it out to be. I admit I didn't really know the background of it all, but doing some reading brought up some interesting stuff

It is offensive to some Native Americans. That's clearly established in like ten different posts and links in this thread alone. if it wasn't they wouldn't be saying and doing the many things they're saying and doing to combat use of the name.I suspect you meant to say "it's not AS offensive as people are making it out to be." That's already a losing position. If you're doing historical research to evaluate the extent of the offensiveness, the argument is lost- it's a stupid name and it should be changed. There's no reason to keep an offensive nickname just because it's not that offensive. That's silly. Not even close to as silly as Tanner 9919's post about the Yankees losing more than 60% of their franchise's value if they changed their name, but still pretty silly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

they asked people to stop, so just stop. mr. synder can change the name and logo and then enjoy the 80 million in profits that it will create in jersey sales. everyone wins.

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.

Yeah, the old stuff would go like hot cakes. But, once that runs out, I just think the people who would be excited about the new name would be too small. Timing matters for something like this. Right now, I just think it would totally piss off tons of fans. Ticket sales would likely be hurt. And, I'd say the majority of people who would still go to games would be wearing their old stuff for years. I think the only way it would work financially in the short term is for them to pick the perfect name change and logo that doesn't piss off too many people and they immediately experience a lot of winning. If they go with something like "Wizards" and the world's worst colors and logo and lose year after year, it would be a total disaster.

No chance. Ticket sales have three variables: $, quality of team, and gameday experience. That's all 99.99% of fans care about Maybe you'd find 100 idiots who wouldn't buy tickets as some misguided protest of all the "PC liberals ruining America," but if the team is winning someone else would buy their tickets anyway.

 

[SSOG]

No chance. Ticket sales have three variables: $, quality of team, and gameday experience. That's all 99.99% of fans care about Maybe you'd find 100 idiots who wouldn't buy tickets as some misguided protest of all the "PC liberals ruining America," but if the team is winning someone else would buy their tickets anyway.

Yeah, like some of those PC liberals who are ruining America.