Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins?


DBIsports

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?  

746 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Fascinating new poll.  It changes my perspective a bit.

I still support changing the name- if 21% find it disrespectful that's enough for me, it's just a nickname of a sports team after all.  And I think it's weird to name sports teams after ethnic groups at all, even if the name itself is innocuous.  But I care a lot less about the issue than I did yesterday, that's for sure. If people genuinely derive some sort of value from the name, they have a legitimate argument that whatever they derive outweighs the harm of being disrespectful towards a smallish minority of Native Americans + kinda turning off those of us who don't support the name.

I think Steinberg is right and this will tone down the debate quite a bit.  That's pretty much how I feel after seeing the poll. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

Washington Post out with a new poll today...

Link

 

 
Quote

 

Q: How did the survey account for tribal membership?

Respondents were asked whether they are currently enrolled as a member with a Native American tribe and to which specific tribe they belong. Tribal members represented 36 percent of interviews conducted and accounted for 44 percent of the final weighted sample, which matches the Census Bureau’s data on demographic and geographic characteristics. Cherokee and Navajo members accounted for the largest share of this group, though most reported enrollment in smaller tribes. Survey results are reported both for tribal members and non-tribal members, as well as for other demographic groups.

 

 

According to the federal government, if you are not an enrolled Tribal member, you really aren't "Indian."  Much of Indian Country feels the same way.  Enrolled with a tribe = Indian.  Not enrolled in a Tribe = Elizabeth Warren. 

I'd be curious to see the results of only enrolled members. I wonder if they would be different. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweet J said:

 

 

 

According to the federal government, if you are not an enrolled Tribal member, you really aren't "Indian."  Much of Indian Country feels the same way.  Enrolled with a tribe = Indian.  Not enrolled in a Tribe = Elizabeth Warren. 

I'd be curious to see the results of only enrolled members. I wonder if they would be different. 

 

They have a detailed view where they break down responses from tribal members and non-tribal members.  Results are about the same.  See here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Fascinating new poll.  It changes my perspective a bit.

I still support changing the name- if 21% find it disrespectful that's enough for me, it's just a nickname of a sports team after all.  And I think it's weird to name sports teams after ethnic groups at all, even if the name itself is innocuous.  But I care a lot less about the issue than I did yesterday, that's for sure. If people genuinely derive some sort of value from the name, they have a legitimate argument that whatever they derive outweighs the harm of being disrespectful towards a smallish minority of Native Americans + kinda turning off those of us who don't support the name.

I think Steinberg is right and this will tone down the debate quite a bit.  That's pretty much how I feel after seeing the poll. 

The poll was flawed in all sorts of ways.  "Native Americans" aren't a homogeneous group.  The Oklahoma tribes, for a example, are exceptionally different from much of Indian Country.  And the Cherokee is another matter completely. . . 

Each tribe is very different in culture, in community, in way of life.  You can't really account for views of "Native Americans, generally."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweet J said:

The poll was flawed in all sorts of ways.  "Native Americans" aren't a homogeneous group.  The Oklahoma tribes, for a example, are exceptionally different from much of Indian Country.  And the Cherokee is another matter completely. . . 

Each tribe is very different in culture, in community, in way of life.  You can't really account for views of "Native Americans, generally."

Sure.  And my perspective may change again as people dive deeper into the numbers and as advocacy groups speak out.  But I already oppose the name and would unless the poll showed that only like 1% of Native Americans cared at all.  What this does is make me care less about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sweet J said:

The poll was flawed in all sorts of ways.  "Native Americans" aren't a homogeneous group.  The Oklahoma tribes, for a example, are exceptionally different from much of Indian Country.  And the Cherokee is another matter completely. . . 

Each tribe is very different in culture, in community, in way of life.  You can't really account for views of "Native Americans, generally."

Not like Caucasian is a homogeneous group, or African American, or Asian American.  Polling lumps people together - it's kinda the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing the poll numbers of this thread always make me laugh.

Those on the right keep saying that this forum leans left and is predominately comprised of liberals, progressives and the PC crowd. Maybe it does, but this poll has consistently held about a 46% plurality against changing the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, squistion said:

Seeing the poll numbers of this thread always make me laugh.

Those on the right keep saying that this forum leans left and is predominately comprised of liberals, progressives and the PC crowd. Maybe it does, but this poll has consistently held about a 46% plurality against changing the name.

Numerous polls have shown that the majority of people who identify as Democrat and even those who identify as Liberal also support keeping the Redskins name:

"The polling conducted for "Outside the Lines" showed no difference in attitude between men and women, or whites and non-whites.

Politically, however, 89 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of people who consider themselves conservative say the team should keep its name, compared to just 58 percent for Democrats and 53 percent for liberals, according to the poll. In terms of political leanings, 83 percent of Republicans see no disrespect in the Redskins name. That drops to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Democrats."

According to a 2014 poll conducted by Langer Research for "Outside the Lines."

Since the FFA support for keeping the name is even lower than the Democrat support for keeping the name in national polling then maybe people who argue that this forum leans left have a legitimate point.  At the very least, polling figures show that the FFA leans further left than the general public on this issue.

Edited by Gary Coal Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dparker713 said:

Not like Caucasian is a homogeneous group, or African American, or Asian American.  Polling lumps people together - it's kinda the point.

It's more along the lines of polling people in Germany, Spain, France, Switzerland, Hungary, Poland, England, and Ireland about an issue and then saying: "Europeans have an opinion that. . . . . ."  Sure, I guess you could lump residents of these countries together, but in many respects they have very different worldviews based on their underlying cultures.

Indians think of themselves much the same way.  It's not a racial classification, but more like a citizenship and nationality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaka said:

Would anyone in here feel comfortable speaking with a Native American and calling him a Redskin in any context?

Yeah, I didn't think so.  Change the name Danny.

I'd probably call him "Jim," or whatever his name was. Do you often meet people and greet them with "Hello Caucasian Bill"? Seems a bit odd.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 11:15 AM, Gary Coal Man said:

Numerous polls have shown that the majority of people who identify as Democrat and even those who identify as Liberal also support keeping the Redskins name:

"The polling conducted for "Outside the Lines" showed no difference in attitude between men and women, or whites and non-whites.

Politically, however, 89 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of people who consider themselves conservative say the team should keep its name, compared to just 58 percent for Democrats and 53 percent for liberals, according to the poll. In terms of political leanings, 83 percent of Republicans see no disrespect in the Redskins name. That drops to 68 percent of independents and 57 percent of Democrats."

According to a 2014 poll conducted by Langer Research for "Outside the Lines."

Since the FFA support for keeping the name is even lower than the Democrat support for keeping the name in national polling then maybe people who argue that this forum leans left have a legitimate point.  At the very least, polling figures show that the FFA leans further left than the general public on this issue.

These "numerous" polls for the most part have either had suspect methodology and/or small number or respondents which questions the validity of any findings.

If anyone honestly believes almost 60% of liberals/Democrats actually support a name keeping that is considered pejorative and an ethnic slur, I got some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DallasDMac said:

I'd probably call him "Jim," or whatever his name was. Do you often meet people and greet them with "Hello Caucasian Bill"? Seems a bit odd.

:rolleyes: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaka said:

Would anyone in here feel comfortable speaking with a Native American and calling him a Redskin in any context?

Yeah, I didn't think so.  Change the name Danny.

I'd be comfortable talking to him about the Redskins. And I'm sure he'd know I was talking about the football team, because that is what that word means now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sebowski said:

I'd be comfortable talking to him about the Redskins. And I'm sure he'd know I was talking about the football team, because that is what that word means now.

But you wouldn't call him one and it doesn't mean just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EYLive said:

I wouldn't call anyone by their skin color. American Indians aren't different.

I refer to black people as black. It isn't a big deal. It's actually weird sometimes if you try to avoid it. But that's a different point all together. 

 

"Hey, what was that guy's name from the party last night? The one with the white shirt?"

"Hmmm.. Which one?"

"He had a Warriors hat on"

"Not sure who you're talking about"

"Yeah you do. You guys were talking about your favorite taco shops"

"You mean the other black guy that was there?"

"Um... Uh... Yeah, the Warriors fan. He was the only other African American there? I didn't notice."

"Actually, he's from Canada"

" :headesplode: "

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sebowski said:

I refer to black people as black. It isn't a big deal. It's actually weird sometimes if you try to avoid it. But that's a different point all together. 

 

"Hey, what was that guy's name from the party last night? The one with the white shirt?"

"Hmmm.. Which one?"

"He had a Warriors hat on"

"Not sure who you're talking about"

"Yeah you do. You guys were talking about your favorite taco shops"

"You mean the other black guy that was there?"

"Um... Uh... Yeah, the Warriors fan. He was the only other African American there? I didn't notice."

"Actually, he's from Canada"

" :headesplode: "

I agree with you on this.  You would say the "black guy" or the "African American guy" but you wouldn't say the "######".  Just like you would say the "Native American guy" but you wouldn't say "Redskin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Chaka said:

I agree with you on this.  You would say the "black guy" or the "African American guy" but you wouldn't say the "######".  Just like you would say the "Native American guy" but you wouldn't say "Redskin".

It was included in the poll that 80% had no issue with being referred to as a Redskin. So are you telling those people they wouldn't like to be called that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MattFancy said:

It was included in the poll that 80% had no issue with being referred to as a Redskin. So are you telling those people they wouldn't like to be called that?

No.  And?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MattFancy said:

No. But I'm also not going to tell people what they should and shouldn't be offended by.

Neither am I.  I am telling Danny to change the racist name of his team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MattFancy said:

Got it, so the people that should be offended by it, say it's not an issue, but you say it's racist. Makes sense.

Do they?  All of them?

And you don't need to be a victim of something to find it offensive.  I am surprised that I need to tell anyone that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

Keep fighting the good fight. Eventually, you'll find someone who's outraged.  

I would say that eventually you will acknowledge that there are already plenty of people who are outraged but somehow I doubt you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chaka said:

Do they?  All of them?

And you don't need to be a victim of something to find it offensive.  I am surprised that I need to tell anyone that.

90% of the people surveyed said they think it's a non-issue. Glad you're more upset about it than they are though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, avoiding injuries said:

The mob has moved on, the momentum is gone. Let it go. There are other issues worth fighting for. 

It is much less a story now than 5 years ago for sure and seems dead. Usually right after the SuperBowl this story cranks up but this year nothing.  The only way you can apply pressure is $$$$$.  Snyder has already said he will never change even if it costs him financially, the NFL is not going to make him change and  most Native-Americans do not care anyway.  Transgender bathroom has received more pub in a couple of months that this ever had.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington Post

One media figure who seems to have changed his mind is Frank Deford, the veteran Sports Illustrated writer and NPR commentator.

Calling himself “terribly surprised” by the poll results, Deford said: “I’ve always thought you should call people what they want to be called. Cassius Clay said call me Muhammad Ali, and we had an obligation to call him what he wanted. That, to me, would be the analogy. If 90 percent of Native Americans feel this way, I just can’t see what justification there is to remove the name. In a case like this, majority rules.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...