That’s probably what I was thinking of, thanks!
‘Seminole’ is an offensive name?
I did address the OP.
Tangent:
There was a college intramural team trying to make a point about sports team names, they called themselves the “Fighting Whities” - I laughed
I have a hard time imagining this scenario. Most businesses, including sports teams, are not going to do anything that offends the majority.
In the unlikely event it happened, the business would quickly make a change. And they should; it’s as wrong to offend a majority as it is to offend a minority.
Bingo.
I think the point, and it’s a legitimate concept, (if not a thing that actually happens) is that the majority is ‘offended’ by proxy. They incorrectly believe the name is bigoted, while the people it references don’t think so at all.
Take the Fighting Irish. Some overly concerned folks might look at it as a reference to stereotypical drunken brawling, a slur on Irish people. They may not know that Irish people LOVE Notre Dame because of the name, and that the Fighting moniker comes not from barroom fisticuffs, but the students violently breaking up a KKK rally in the 1920’s.
Consequently, if Native Americans overwhelmingly loved the Atlanta baseball team because of it’s positive acknowledgment of their history as a people, it would be inappropriate for me to be insulted on their behalf. They’re not children, they can decide for themselves if references to their culture are positive or negative.
Recent studies in the advertising world have shown that a majority of American consumers now (finally!) prefer brands that promote fair representation and depict people of all ethnicities, gender identities, and sexual orientation with depth and dignity, irrelevant if whether the consumer being targeted by the ad is a member of said group.
That being said, let’s walk through a scenario here. Start with a word that has been applied to a minority by the majority. Are we really going to suggest that it makes sense to ask that minority whether it offends most of them before we decide to stop using that word? To me that seems like erring on the side of assuming that such words have some kind of value that deserves to be honored, and should not be don’t away with without careful consideration. That way of thinking is clearly incorrect to me.
Think of it this way:
person one: “Hey Fuzzynuts…you don’t mind if I call you Fuzzynuts do you?”
person two: “…whatever.”
person one: “Fuzzynuts it is!”
Defending a word that white people invented by saying that the minority it applies to “don’t mind” is a dubious reason to continue using it. These words have no intrinsic value and are easily replaced. Let’s replace them.
Which ones of the people it references? Are you going to canvass them all? Are we only allowed to get rid of the name if enough of them say it offends them? How can that possibly be a realistic way to proceed? Why should the burden be on the minority to “speak up” if they don’t like the word?
But in some sense it’s a pointless argument anyway. I am not black, but the n word offends me. I am not a Native American, but the word redskin offends me. And I am a consumer, and many other co summers like me will not support brands that use offensive language. And finally there are enough of us that brands have no choice but to listen to us.
And honestly, who the fuck cares what a sports team is called? They change their names all the time. Sports fans will adapt fast. In a few years nobody will care that the name changed.
I’m not sure if this issue is primarily about who’s offended and who isn’t (although of course that plays a role), and not rather more about fighting inherent cultural racial bias, and racially skewed perception.
I keep thinking about instances of neural networks trained on what was thought to be representative data from the relevant domain, only to develop certain biases: like the Amazon hiring tool that ended up being massively sexist. Nobody ever explicitly told it to disfavor resumes from women; the bias inhered in the existing hiring patterns, and all it did was learn that pattern. As a result, it ended up downgrading resumes from all women’s colleges, or keying on other, more subtle indicators that the applicant wasn’t male—language cues, sports team memberships, and so on.
In the same way, we, without necessarily being ever told so, learn the implicit biases of the culture we’re brought up in. That’s something we ought to strive to correct—and that means, cleaning up the training data, so to speak. Hence, even if nobody’s directly offended by a particular name, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t play into skewing the cultural data towards bias—and since we have grounds to want to avoid that, we’d still have grounds to change that name, even in the absence of an immediately offended party.
An excellent point.
Is it? I’m not Native American, so I don’t feel qualified to say whether the name is offensive or not. It’s not about me. Of all the people claiming it is offensive, I have to wonder how many are personally offended by the name, and how many are offended by proxy. I’ve seen one post that cited a poll on the subject (may be the one linked in this thread) and criticized its methodology, so I’m not even sure how Native Americans feel about the issue.
That said, I don’t think this should be decided by a simple majority. If 49% of Native Americans hear the name and are reminded of generations of hostility, broken promises, mistreatment, and degradation, and 51% think “meh, I guess it’s fine”, then the name should be changed. I don’t know exactly what the threshold is, but there’s got to be a name that more of us can live with than the one they’re using now.
There is a high school here in New Mexico that has the “Steers” as its mascot. If those kids are not offended, they should be.
Yes but this argument is generally used to dismiss the issue all together. People claim that it’s not a real problem. It’s just a phony issue those liberal snowflakes are making up to get attention.
Look at the OP: “I don’t know what the Native American community at large thinks of the Redskins moniker, but clearly many non-Native people were offended by it.” Really? No idea? Because Native Americans have been saying they’re offended by the name for literally decades. (The first official request by Native American groups to change the name were made in 1972.)
But some people, they will simply ignore anything that Native Americans or black people or Hispanics or women have to say. So these groups know they have to enlist white men to the cause just so they will be listened to. The answer may still be no but at least these people will finally acknowledge a question is being asked.
Customers – ticket buyers – are the ones who matter. Especially Season Ticket buyers, for many teams that have years-long waiting lists to get season tickets.
An example: there was a lot of controversy about a new coach after his first (poor record) year, and I had believed earlier front office statements that it was a re-building year, and he needed more time. But a friend who worked in the office told me that “he’ll be gone within 2 weeks”. I asked why, and he told me that an internal survey of season ticket holders had 40% saying they ‘would not’ or ‘might not’ renew their tickets unless the team had les of that coach. And 10 days later he was gone., and the old coach had been coaxed out of retirement.
Season ticket holders are the die-hard fans – and the paying ones.
To heck with the fans. When MLB integrated, some of “the fans” abused Jackie Robinson and so did players on other teams. If the fans want to be racist gits, then that’s on them. The team does not need to–and should not–coddle their sensitive souls.
The two polls that state this are discredited bullshit.
Annenberg 2004 poll[edit]
The survey most frequently cited by opponents of change as definitive of Native American opinion was performed in 2004 as part of the National Annenberg Election Survey. Among other questions regarding election year issues, respondents who identified themselves as being Native American were asked: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” In response, ninety percent replied that the name did not bother them, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.[18] The methods used in this survey and the conclusions that can be drawn from it have been criticized by social scientists,[19] Native American scholars[20] and legal experts[21] for years. In August, 2015, a memo written by senior researchers at the organization responsible for collecting the data for the survey made clear that it should not be taken as an accurate reflection of Native American attitudes at the time.[22]
Washington Post 2016 poll[edit]
In May 2016, The Washington Post (WaPo) released a poll of self-identified Native Americans that produced the same results as the 2004 Annenberg poll, that 90% of the 504 respondents were “not bothered” by the team’s name.[23][24][25]
Differences between the 2004 and 2016 poll[edit]
- The Annenberg poll was criticized for only using land lines at a time when they were rare on reservations, so 60% of the respondents in the new poll were contacted on cell phones, based upon other surveys indicating that 95% of Native Americans have at least one cell phone per household. When a land-line was answered, there was a request that the youngest adult present respond to the questions; for cell phones the individual answering the phone completed the survey.
- The new survey included Alaska and Hawaii, which have large populations of indigenous people, while the 2004 survey only included the contiguous 48 states.
- Sample selection: The new survey was part of the routine WaPo opinion survey, in which all were asked “Do you consider yourself white, black or African American, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, mixed race or some other race?” Only those that responded that they were 100% Native American/Alaskan Native were then asked the questions about the Redskins. (However, 16% of the sample identified themselves as Hispanic.) They were also asked if they were enrolled members of a tribe, and if so which one; 44% of the respondents said they were tribal members. In addition, zip codes containing a high proportion of tribal or reservation land were targeted. Due to the low percentage of Native Americans in the general population, responses were collected over a five-month period, December 16, 2015 to April 12, 2016.
New questions included:
- Participants were asked if they had heard about the debate; 56% responded that they had heard “not too much” or “not at all”. 78% said the debate was either “not too” or “not at all” important.
- 80% responded that they would not be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a “Redskin”.
- A smaller sample of 340 respondents was asked if the term “redskin” is disrespectful to Native Americans, with 73% responding “No”.
- 51% said they are pro football fans, while 48% were not, a split similar to national polls of all adults.
Methodology[edit]
Due to variations between the characteristics of the sample and the population of Native Americans based upon Census data from 2010, the reported results were based upon statistical weighting of the raw data. The respondents were older (274 of the 504 being over 50), more highly educated (at least some college), and more likely to live in the Northeast and North Central regions, compared to Native Americans in the Census. Criticism of the wording of the question “As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” as being confusing was addressed by asking the question again to 43 respondents to check that the same answer was given, which it was by 41 of the 43. However, the problem critics have with the question is that it is unclear what is being asked given that “do you find the name offensive” is distinct from “or doesn’t it bother you”, the later also being awkwardly worded.[21] Reports of the results by the media, such as the Associated Press, say Native Americans are “not offended” rather than “not bothered”.[26]
Response to 2016 poll[edit]
Adrienne Keene, Ed.D responded that the poll uses faulty data and methods, such as the continuing problem of self-identification, and the reporting of the results misses the point regarding objections to the name established by social science research and the authentic voices of Native Americans as being about real harms, not individual feelings.[27] NCAI Executive Director Jacqueline Pata stated, “The survey doesn’t recognize the psychological impacts these racist names and imagery have on American Indian and Alaska Natives. It is not respectful to who we are as Native people. This poll still doesn’t make it right.”[28] Ray Halbritter of the Oneida Nation criticized the poll for “never ask[ing] the people if the name should change” and that “no other community’s ever been asked to justify their existence or deny their degradation through poll testing - not the African-American community, Latino community or Asian community, no one.”[29]
Addressing the problems with the prior telephone polls, the 2020 Berkeley/Michigan University study asked questions regarding offensiveness of team names and fan behavior with more than two options, and details to determine the strength of respondents Native identification.[30]
The Native American Journalists Association (NAJA) issued a statement calling the publication of the poll, and the reporting of its significance, as not only inaccurate and misleading but unethical. “The reporters and editors behind this story must have known that it would be used as justification for the continued use of these harmful, racist mascots. They were either willfully malicious or dangerously naïve in the process and reporting used in this story, and neither is acceptable from any journalistic institution.”[31]
While not addressing the NAJA criticism, the WaPo editorial board maintained its prior position that the name is a slur and that they will avoid its use as much as possible.[32] However, one WaPo editor and advocate for change, Robert McCartney, has decided to drop any further protest in light of the poll results.[33] The editorial board reiterated their advocacy of name change in 2019, citing the opposition of Native American tribes that has resulted in the retirement of Native mascots by high schools.[34]
A Los Angeles Times editorial cites the evidence that the name is offensive to many, which the poll does not change given its questionable representation of Native American opinion.[35]
And here’s a report from Michael A. Friedman, Ph.D. entitled The Harmful Psychological Effects of the Washington Football Mascot the findings of which show
The Washington football team is contributing to prejudice and discrimination against Native
Americans in this country by persistently using a dictionary-defined racial slur that has been
formally protested by over 100 Native American organizations and other groups. This behavior,
if performed on an interpersonal level or in the workplace, would constitute harassment or
bullying.Experimental laboratory studies demonstrate causal effects and mechanisms by which Native
American mascots influence Native American health among adolescents and young adults. Tests
have shown that the presence of Native American mascots results directly in lower self-esteem
and lower mood within this population, as well as increased negative associations of Native
Americans among non-Native American groups. Importantly, these effects occur regardless of
whether the Native American mascot is considered “offensive.”Studies have shown that prejudice and discrimination in the form of racial slurs, racial
harassment and racial bullying is associated with poor mental health among Native American
children, adolescents and adults. This has manifested itself in the form of higher levels of
depression, substance abuse, suicidality, and other negative physical symptoms and health
behaviors among this group in the United States.The Native American people report the highest level of psychological distress of any other group
in the nation, due in part from being the target of ongoing prejudice and discrimination.When considering the dire consequences associated with mental health conditions such as
depression, substance abuse, anxiety and suicide among Native Americans, anything that causes
additional stress and increased suffering, loss of productivity, loss of functioning or further loss
of life in this community, and is preventable, must be considered a public health priority.The findings of this report support the conclusions of the damaging effects of Native American
mascots that have been previously asserted by over 100 Native American organizations, religious
and civil rights organizations and professional organizations such as the American Psychological
Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Counseling Association.The preponderance of scientific data provides further validity to the 40 years of specific claims
from the Native American community of the harmful effects of the Washington mascot.
And since when do we need to take votes on what is offensive? A poll of black people saying they didn’t mind Aunt Jemima doesn’t make the imagely any less rooted in racism and Jim Crow, a poll of people who think the Confederate Flag is just peachy doesn’t change the fact that it represents a part of this country that left the other part over their desire to own black people, and as a poll doesn’t change that lexicographers have been noting that the term ‘Redskin’ has been offensive since it was listed in Merriam-Webster’s first Collegiate Dictionary in 1898 as “often contemptuous.”
Who is the “us” in “Let us replace them” if the minority in question isn’t front and center with their thoughts on the topic? I’ll answer that for you, it’s “the majority”.
So we start with a word applied to a minority by the majority, and end with a word applied to a minority by the majority.
Yes, you can claim that this new word is totally not racist or anything because us white folk really tried hard this time to pick a respectful word to describe you… but I’d rather let the minority weigh in meaningfully.