When your point is entirely that in another universe with different poll results people liked the poll more, I’d say your posts consists of an insult rather than an actual argument. I am heartily sick of this strategy of condemning people for hypocrisy and dismissing their points because you’re able to imagine a different circumstance, and in your imagined scenario you imagine them not being consistent with their actions in reality.
On a sidenote, I went to the circus recently and one of the clowns dressed up in this get-up, complete with various Oriental-stereotype gags. I’m not Chinese but holy cow, that was offensive. Who still does that shit in 2016?
A polite complaint was submitted.
This made me think of this Daily Show segment, particularly starting at 3:55 or so. For those who don’t like to be amused or watch youtube, they discuss an earlier poll of self-identifying native americans, of which 90% don’t mind the name by pointing out that anyone can self-identify as native american. Then they cut to the fans of the Washington team identifying themselves as native american. It’s quite amusing.
Sorry you took it this way.
The heart of this matter it seems is this: Is the group that the mascot is presumed to be offensive to, actually offended by it?
Secondarily, what subsection of that group must be offended in order to take action?
Here in DC the argument is generally goes like this.
“Yes it’s offensive. There was a poll conducted in 2004 that showed that only about 10% of Native Americans were offended, and that the vast majority were not. But that poll is now old, and wasn’t done correctly.”
So another poll is done, commissioned by a very left leaning reputable newspaper. That poll shows the very same information 12 years later.
The central question should be: is 9% enough, why or why not.
I think that folks avoiding that question but arguing that two both polls are bogus in that they weren’t done correctly and don’t really show that it’s not an issue to a vast majority of Native Americans is a red herring. A hand wave of this type of polling data in most other areas on The Dope would be met with a fair amount of scorn. But not here for some reason.
You don’t think it’s an issue. Fair enough.
What does it matter if the poll reflects a higher number of natives than what actually exists? If those people believe they are native Americans than they are native Americans, especially for the sake of opinion. I was bummed to learn I wasnt native. I’m 97% boring ass western European. There are no football teams reflecting my boring lineage. The Washington Immigrants?
I think all the non natives are more offensive in their offense of the name than the name itself. What, are you guys just trying to make natives feel self conscious about their heritage? What about Dallas Cowboys? Cowboys vs Indians? That’s like calling your team the nazis! Why don’t you guys go pick on them too? That’s the real shame, and you guys just let it slide. Or the Patriots? The Patriots fought and killed my European ancestors… Probably. I’m outraged, hopefully there are non Europeans as outraged as me and want to protect me.
What if the polling methodology and results actually are suspect?
The NFL is the National Football League. Washington D.C. is the nation’s capital. “Redskins” is an ethnic slur. It is embarrassment to the country that this term is used at all by a team in the NFL, let alone embraced and celebrated.
I believe you may be noticing that large parts of the rest of the country are telling you that the name is inappropriate. Why? Because it is inappropriate, and, like it or not, you represent the rest of the country. You have money coming in through 2 national systems. Enjoy your name and logo. I predict it won’t last much longer.
Yes. And Dan Snyder knows it. He calls his team the Redskins, but for some reason does not refer to actual Indians as Redskins. Because calling someone a Redskin would be offensive to them, as actual polls of actual Indians who have actual skin (no pun intended) in the game has shown.
If it’s not offensive, then put your money where your mouth is and start using it to refer to the people it is not offending; if you truly believe that 90% of Indians won’t be offended, then there shouldn’t be a problem calling them “Redskins”.
That’s not a valid argument. The same term can be offensive in one context and not in another.
Ask the 90% of Native Americans who say the name is not offensive. Are you claiming that 90% would be fine with casual references to them personally as “Redskins”?
What “hand waving”? Fiveyearlurker posted very clear and specific reasons why there are problems with this poll. Do you have any response to those criticisms, other than, “Well, it’s a famous newspaper, so they probably didn’t screw it up”?
I bet if you called a native American a redskin they’d react with the same confused bewilderment as if you called them a Ram or a Packer.
What does “sorry” even mean in this context? Why are you apologizing for something you think I did?
Sure, that’s an important question here, I agree. But what’s not remotely relevant is the hypocrisy you accuse people of, based on how you imagine them behaving in other circumstances. THAT is what the red herring is.
No hands are waving. Criticizing polling methods is a totally legitimate thing to do. The appropriate response, if you believe the poll is valid, is to address the criticisms of the method. What’s not legitimate is to defend the poll from criticism by engaging in ad hominem attacks on the critics, accusing them of hypocrisy based on fantasy versions of themselves.
If you think the flaws 5YL describes in the poll are not actual flaws of the poll, talk about the poll itself. Don’t talk about 5YL’s hypocrisy.
The point is that many people think they are or identify as native American when they genetically aren’t. Without dna testing you can’t have a completely reliable poll. This poll is the best there is, and what’s the difference anyway if it polled people who ARE native or it polled people who are honestly convinced that they are natives. How do those 2 differ for the sake of opinion? Are you implying that people just instinctively answered the poll as if they were native just so that they could skew the results for a football team question that they were only asked after they self identified as native?
FiveYearLurker,
I’m wondering about the claims about the poll that you’ve made in this thread. (Yesterday I was being blocked out of the WP website - used up my number of free views - but today it let me back in for some reason so I looked at it.)
ISTM that you’re confused about the 75% number. In their description of their methodology they do not say that 75% live on or near a reservation, as you claimed. They say: “Roughly 1 in 10 interviews were conducted among Native Americans who lived in Zip codes where at least 75 percent of land is on a reservation or tribal area, and another 10 percent live in Zip codes with at least some portion of tribal land. Final survey results were weighted to match census data indicating 20 percent of single-race Native Americans live in Zip codes with at least 75 percent reservation land, and 17 percent live in Zip codes containing at least some reservation land.”
So basically, the numbers they used were pretty close to what you claim is the average, and you appear to have confused the 75% marker they used for zipcodes with the percentage of people living in reservations.
You then claimed:
In this case, your claim about the survey is accurate, but they dispute your claim about “reported numbers”. Specifically, the WP says: “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.” (emphasis added) I think you need to back up your claim here.
The most startling claim you’ve made is that
I could not find any reference to income at all in the source I linked to. But it did say “The final sample matches population estimates for gender and age groups, Hispanic ethnicity, educational attainment, regional makeup (Northeast, North-Central, South, Mountain and Pacific), and proximity to reservation and tribal lands.”
Perhaps you can provide a link and a quote to the source for your claim, but until then I’m very skeptical of this too.
In other words, solving one problem doesn’t automatically miraculously solve all related problems. Why yes, that’s very true. Props for figuring that out.
Derogation, offense, and group identity involving different ethnic groups of humans is always going to be a complex and sensitive issue (absent that hypothetical millennium I spoke of earlier when all ethnic slurs somehow magically end up obsolete and harmless). All sorts of social prejudices and tensions are always going to be reflected in the names that groups of people use to refer to each other.
That’s part of the situation that we as human beings are stuck with. But there’s no logical reason that we need to enshrine those prejudices and tensions in the official names of sports teams, when we could easily avoid it by just, you know, not calling sports teams by the names or nicknames of human ethnic groups.
Again, criticism of bad data is legit, but some have answered the question as a hypothetical. You seem to be hand waving those answers away.
I will surprised if some evaluation of this poll does not make it to 538’s page btw.
That’s good if you’re going for the cute response, but it’s not logically sound.
If in fact, you accept as a general principle that you cannot avoid doing things that will insult anyone, then that’s not a workable principle, and there’s no reason to arbitrarily call it into use solely in the case of ethnic groups and the like.
As you may have noticed, I’ve disputed and called into question the assertions that FYL made about the data used in the poll. Considering as you yourself asserted that the poll is “crap” based on the notion that 44% of respondents made over $100K, perhaps you would care to provide a source for that claim yourself.
Sure it is, but I’m flattered that you also find it cute. 
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
If in fact, you accept as a general principle that you cannot avoid doing things that will insult anyone, then that’s not a workable principle
[/quote]
Ah, this is where your logic attempt came unstuck. You’re postulating some kind of dependence of team-naming policy on some hypothetical universal principle of always avoiding offense, and attempting to infer that if no such universal principle can be implemented, then it’s impossible to apply a policy of avoiding a particular kind of offense specifically regarding sports-team names.
In fact, of course, there is no such dependence of the particular recommendation upon the hypothesized universal principle in this case. So a specific policy of not naming teams after human ethnic group remains a perfectly reasonable and workable idea, even if it doesn’t simultaneously eliminate every other possible occurrence of offense or insult.
The Atlanta minor league baseball team was the Crackers for years before the Braves moved there. The Atlanta Negro League team was actually the Black Crackers.