The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)

[Larry]

1) I think it is probably the case that those without phones have different opinions inasmuch as they are probably worse off. Do you think people in the projects tend to hold different political opinions than people in the suburbs? Why or why not?

It's a valid point.

Unfortunately, the only way to fix it would be to send people to walk up to people's houses (in all 48 states, in the case of Annenberg) and ask them face to face.

It can be done. But your hypothetical ideal poll just became a whole lot more expensive.

3) I don't know how to solve this problem "practically," but I think it is fair to identify it as a possible problem. I know people who are lily white, don't know the first thing about indigenous culture, but love to tell people, "I'm part Indian."

How many of them, you figure, when a pollster asks them who they're voting for, for President, and then asks them their age, gender, political affiliation, and race, answers "Indian"?

I'm a legal, registered member of a Native tribe, and when I'm asked that question, I say "white". Because that's the closest answer.

[grego]

For the life of me, I don't get this part. Do people believe that there are native Americans who did not know there was a pro football team named "redskins" ten years ago?

[Commander PK]

 

the only people who question the annenberg poll are people who dont like the results. 

 

Absolutely, 100%, correct

[s0crates]

It's a valid point.

Unfortunately, the only way to fix it would be to send people to walk up to people's houses (in all 48 states, in the case of Annenberg) and ask them face to face.

. . .

I'm a legal, registered member of a Native tribe, and when I'm asked that question, I say "white". Because that's the closest answer.

I appreciate your honesty here.

[Larry]

Gee, I wasn't aware that a home phone was the ultimate differentiator between poor and well off.

 

I also wasn't aware that poverty was a requirement to be offended by something. 

 

"Oh well we used to be offended by the Redskins name, but ever since my husband got that promotion at work and we bought a home phone we've been the biggest fans."

Uh, I do think it's a fact that really dirt poor people tend to be, shall we say, "underrepresented" in terms of telephone usage.

And I do suspect that they probably have a vastly different life experience than I do, and that it no doubt causes them to feel differently about a lot of issues than I do.

Now, having said that, I confess that I have no clue what percentage of Natives lack a phone. Yes, there are at least some reservations where it's a staggeringly high percentage. But then, I have no clue what percentage of Natives actually live on reservations, now days.

If it's a really small percentage, then it doesn't matter much what their opinion is, because it won;t skew the total number much.

(If it's only 1% of Natives who don't have a phone, then even if 100% of them are offended by the name of the team, it only raises the "percent offended" from 9% to 10%.)

But I suspect it's a lot more than 1% of them.

I feel like I'm trying to herd cats.

Running back and forth between one argument that can't stand up, and another one, can have that effect.

I appreciate your honesty here.

I notice that you edited my post, solely so that you could remove a question I asked you.

[skins2victory]

These people we are guessing about that may not have phones, would probably qualify for a free "Obama phone" if they truely wanted a phone. Just saying....

[Commander PK]

Same here. 

 

Don't want it to change. 

 

Will still be loyal, if they do. 

 

And thinking that it might be time to start thinking about it.  I don't want the team to defend the name to the point where they wind up looking like George Wallace. 

 

I think that is a fair statement and I feel the same.  However, I do not think this will come to standing in the doorway, nor is that something I would want to see.  I want what the large majority of Natives want.  If they decide they want a change, so be it.   

 

What I want to see, is proof, evidence, that a large enough percentage of Native Americans are offended by the name to the extent that the team should seriously consider changing the name.  

 

That proof or evidence has yet to be provided.

 

The opposition needs to stop utilizing their bully tactics and basically trying to force this change "on the cheap."  Stop ignoring those Natives who speak up for the name.  Maybe the opposition needs to listen to them as much as they think Dan Snyder needs to listen to the opposition.  Get your own house in order on a national level, and figure out what you really want and what you want to legitimately pursue.   

 

I can live with the change if it happens the right way....and what is happening right now is definitely not the right way.  

[Larry]

For the life of me, I don't get this part. Do people believe tact there are native Americans who did not know there was a pro football team named "redskins"?

I have not seen anybody say anything remotely close to that.

----------

These people we are guessing about that may not have phones, would probably qualify for a free "Obama phone" if they truely wanted a phone. Just saying....

And if their reservation had cell phone coverage.

And electricity.

From what I understand, at least some reservations, a lot of people don't.

[skins2victory]

And if their reservation had cell phone coverage.

And electricity.

From what I understand, at least some reservations, a lot of people don't.

 

This could be something great for Dan Snyder's organization to help out tribes in need of help to accomplish.

[grhqofb5]

1) "Universally accepted"? I think it is probably the case that those without phones have different opinions inasmuch as they are probably worse off. Do you think people in the projects tend to hold different political opinions than people in the suburbs? Why or why not?

 

 

Yes, universally accepted. Do you have a better method of conducting a poll based upon a random sample? 

Yes, I believe people that are worse off probably have different opinions.  I also believe that native americans who are worse off care less about the name than those who have more money (more likely to possess a phone).  I also believe that just about everyone in the projects has a phone.

[s0crates]

I notice that you edited my post, solely so that you could remove a question I asked you.

 

I edited to emphasize your honesty, which I appreciated.

 

Your questions was: "How many of them, you figure, when a pollster asks them who they're voting for, for President, and then asks them their age, gender, political affiliation, and race, answers 'Indian'?"

 

I have no way of answering that.  All I have is anecdotal evidence that people who are not Native Americans by any stretch of the imagination like to call themselves such. 

[elkabong82]

Uh, I do think it's a fact that really dirt poor people tend to be, shall we say, "underrepresented" in terms of telephone usage.

And I do suspect that they probably have a vastly different life experience than I do, and that it no doubt causes them to feel differently about a lot of issues than I do.

Now, having said that, I confess that I have no clue what percentage of Natives lack a phone. Yes, there are at least some reservations where it's a staggeringly high percentage. But then, I have no clue what percentage of Natives actually live on reservations, now days.

If it's a really small percentage, then it doesn't matter much what their opinion is, because it won;t skew the total number much.

(If it's only 1% of Natives who don't have a phone, then even if 100% of them are offended by the name of the team, it only raises the "percent offended" from 9% to 10%.)

But I suspect it's a lot more than 1% of them.

 

 

socrates was using dirt poor and suburbs to try and differentiate between those with phones and those without, as if there aren't poor NAs that do have phones.

 

Seriously, most NAs are poor so what are the odds all the ones with phones aren't? What are the odds that all with phones are disconnected from the reservations without phones and out of touch with them?

 

Many perspectives are influenced by experience and financial situation heavily influences experience thus can heavily influence perspectives, as we all know. However, when it comes to being offended by something based on the claim it is a slur, is poverty going to influence such an opinion? And is that influence on such an issue enough that having a phone or not significantly skews 90%? I highly doubt it. 

 

Red Mesa and Wellpinit high schools, that both use Redskins, are on reservations.

 

Also, the percentage of poll respondents that identified as NA was close to the total population percentage, so the lack of a phone was probably not a significant factor. If it were half without phones, as socrates egregiously assumed, the percentage would have been roughly half based on polling odds.

[s0crates]

socrates was using dirt poor and suburbs to try and differentiate between those with phones and those without, as if there aren't poor NAs that do have phones.

 

 

Um, no.  I was using the contrast between dirt poor and suburbs to point out that political ideology varies with socioeconomic status. The connection with telephone access is that it indicates a difference in socioeconomic status which telephone polls cannot account for.

 

I'd say that I must not have communicated that clearly, except that others seemed to understand my point just fine.  This seems to be a case of willful ignorance.

[Commander PK]

And enough with the blackskins analogy. 

 

I have come to realize that people who use this "blackskins" "yellowskins" nonsense, is because they are trying to view this debate through their paradigm of the Civil Right's Movement for African Americans.  "If it would not be ok for black people (it wouldn't) it can't be ok for "red" people either. (that's very debatable...see this thread)"

 

The bottom line is not all racial descriptors are created equal.  African Americans were discriminated against in this country because their skin color is "black."  They were called despicable names and treated poorly FOR that reason.  Native Americans were annihilated in large numbers, and they have been historically treated very poorly...but the way I see it for different reasons.  Their skin color, or the way they paint themselves before battle was not really at the core of the reasons they were discriminated against.  They were discriminated against, because settlers wanted their land, and they were considered savages and brutes who had no culture. Many Natives seem to see their connection to the color "red," through war paint, skin tone, whatever you choose to believe as a badge of honor.     

 

I think for Harjo and many who think like her, the problem really isn't with the term "Redskins" as much as it is who is profiting from it.  If a full-blooded Native was part owner of this team, with a tribal endorsement....we are not talking about this right now.

[Larry]

socrates was using dirt poor and suburbs to try and differentiate between those with phones and those without, as if there aren't poor NAs that do have phones.

I don't see him making that claim.

I see him asserting that there tends to be a correlation between lacking a telephone, and poverty. (And, in that, he is absolutely correct.)

(Might be the first thing he's said in this thread, that is.)

(There's also a correlation between poverty, and refusing to participate in polls. Reputable polling organizations, of which Annenberg is one, have methods to try to compensate for it.)

[s0crates]

The bottom line is not all racial descriptors are created equal. African Americans were discriminated against in this country because their skin color is "black." They were called despicable names and treated poorly FOR that reason. Native Americans were annihilated in large numbers, and they have been historically treated very poorly...but the way I see it for different reasons. Their skin color, or the way they paint themselves before battle was not really at the core of the reasons they were discriminated against. They were discriminated against, because settlers wanted their land, and they were considered savages and brutes who had no culture. Many Natives seem to see their connection to the color "red," through war paint, skin tone, whatever you choose to believe as a badge of honor.

What nonsense.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that Europeans arrived on the continent and found millions of white Christians here instead of the natives they found. You think we would have treated them the same way?

[grego]

I have not seen anybody say anything close to that.

The alternative is that the name has somehow become more offensive in the last ten years?

The name didn't change. The context didn't change. The logo didn't change.

But in ten years the number of native Americans who claim to be offended has apparently increased in some significant way?

(Btw, one way this could actually happen is for activists to run around preaching the "scalping" story, unchallenged, to other native Americans, which is unfortunate.)

[Larry]

The alternative is that the name has somehow become more offensive in the last ten years?

The name didn't change. The context didn't change. The logo didn't change.

But in ten years the number of native Americans who claim to be offended has apparently increased in some significant way?

(Btw, one way this could actually happen is for activists to run around preaching the "scalping" story, unchallenged, to other native Americans, which is unfortunate.)

It's certainly POSSIBLE for people's opinions on things like this, to change.

(And me, personally? I think it's a pretty safe bet that they have. If for no other reason than the media announcing millions of times that it is. The media certainly has the power to change people's opinions.)

[s0crates]

I want what the large majority of Natives want. If they decide they want a change, so be it.

What's the magic number? 51%? 60%?

Suppose 30% are offended, you think we should just say, "Get over it, your feelings only count if most of you agree."?

What I want to see, is proof, evidence, that a large enough percentage of Native Americans are offended by the name to the extent that the team should seriously consider changing the name.

That proof or evidence has yet to be provided.

What kind of evidence do you want?

The dozens of Native American groups on record as opposing the name aren't enough? The growing chorus of opposition evidenced by this very debate isn't enough?

What will be enough?

[Commander PK]

What nonsense.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that Europeans arrived on the continent and found millions of white Christians here instead of the natives they found. You think we would have treated them the same way?

 

What does that have to do with racial descriptors?

 

but I'll play.  

 

I never said they weren't treated poorly, in fact I thought I said it pretty well.   Would the white colonists have reacted the same?  No, probably not, but that doesn't mean it was because the Natives had a different skin tone.  That was just one of many differences.

 

Are you implying that white people have never fought against other white people before? and for religious and cultural reasons?  or for a land grab even?

[Commander PK]

What's the magic number? 51%? 60%?

Suppose 30% are offended, you think we should just say, "Get over it, your feelings only count if most of you agree."?

What kind of evidence do you want?

The dozens of Native American groups on record as opposing the name aren't enough? The growing chorus of opposition evidenced by this very debate isn't enough?

What will be enough?

 

 

What would the magic number be?  I don't know exactly.  I know the opposite of 30% is 70%.  The opposite of 50% is 50%.

 

I also question the validity of many of those "Native American Groups" to speak for 3 million people.  

 

If so many Native Americans are truly offended, and I am supposed to take this large list of Native American groups that have spoken out about the name as evidence that Natives at large are offended...how do I reconcile that with the only available concrete evidence of their opinion, The Annenberg Institutes 2004 poll, telling me that NINETY PERCENT of them are NOT offended?  

 

What process did these Native American groups use to come to their conclusion that Native American logos and names are offensive? Where is evidence in the polls they have conducted?  Where are the surveys?  Why should I take what they say on face value without anything tangible to back it up?  Did they only use their own individual opinions taken collectively as a litmus test of the larger Native populations feelings on the matter?

[Commander PK]

and here's another question I have because I honestly don't know.  

 

Are the Natives who are members of these groups...."chosen" by their constituents to "speak" for them?  Or are they basically like Native American "fraternities" where the like-minded can join up?  it seems most are not "elected," some are "appointed" and others....I don't know?  

 

Are only "educated" Natives eligible to have an opinion on this matter?  

 

Here is what I'm getting at....the KKK and the Nation of Islam both claim to work on behalf of their respective "races."  They know what is "best" for their people.

 

How many of you who are white and black feel those "groups" speak for you?  I know the KKK sure as hell does not speak for me, and believe me when I tell you I am as white as they come.  

[RedskinsFan44]

What nonsense.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that Europeans arrived on the continent and found millions of white Christians here instead of the natives they found. You think we would have treated them the same way?

Do Shiite and Sunni Muslims kill each other over minor differences in theology?  All that really needs to exist is some criteria dividing "us" and "them" and something to gain.  Do you think that the last thirty or twenty of Custer's group tried to surrender at Little Bighorn?  You are aware that the bodies of the killed were mutilated against Sitting Bull's expressed wishes?  (and I am not taking Custer's side. just making a point).  Humans are capable of evil in the pursuit of material gain.  This knows no racial, ethnic or national boundaries.  You will find individual differences within all societies. You say you have read Bury my Heart, there are examples of government agents who tried to work for the benefit of the NAs and ones who stole their food.  There are also stories of young NA boys murdering settler families and setting off terrible events.

[Riggo-toni]

Imagine that Europeans arrived on the continent and found millions of white Christians here instead of the natives they found. You think we would have treated them the same way?

Catholic or Protestant?

[elkabong82]

I don't see him making that claim.

I see him asserting that there tends to be a correlation between lacking a telephone, and poverty. (And, in that, he is absolutely correct.)

(Might be the first thing he's said in this thread, that is.)

(There's also a correlation between poverty, and refusing to participate in polls. Reputable polling organizations, of which Annenberg is one, have methods to try to compensate for it.)

 

Dirt poor and suburbs was the exact comparison he made to those with phones and those without, and he's said poverty can change perspectives, so yeah, the direct implication is those with phones aren't poor hence they didn't say they were offended. 

 

This was touched on more in the rest of my post which you cut off and din't respond to. I think you should re-examine what he's saying rather than just leaping to defend the poverty and polls point you're making. I'll ask point blank: Do you think NAs without phones would have a different opinion on Redskins than NAs with phones? If so, then why do schools on reservations, which are obviously far more traditional, use Redskins as well?