Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 This, I don't understand. Larry, for one, has done a nice job defending the annenberg poll and explaining why it is accurate. I don't think anyone that still believes that NA name supporters outnumber name NA changers 10:1 has done a nice job defending the poll. And just because Mr. Clymer stands behind it 100% doesn't mean his conclusions can't be challenged. I don't think that after answering his question anyone can conclude that if 9% are offended by Redskins then 91% find Redskins acceptable (that is how it is characterized in the NAES press release "Most Indians (sic, lol) Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive"). I think that with this opportunity to clear the air he instead clouded it further with a poorly worded question. Instead of having a clear identification of NAs that support changing the name and those that support keeping the name, you have an inaccurate identification of those that are offended (and more than likely support a name change) and a cloudy group that includes devout name keepers and many that don't have a strong position on the question. Following from those conclusions this is how I would interpret the last US election. Since President Obama only received 29.74% of the eligible popular vote he is governing the Nation without the endorsement of 70% of eligible voters. But the ballot had a simple effective question, "Democrat or Republican?"; and while only 29.74% voted Obama, less voted for Mitt 27.47%, and 42% were too indifferent to vote. So instead of a 3:7 vote for Democrats:Republicans, it is more accurate to conclude it is a 30:42:28 vote for Democrat:Indifferent:Republican Would you propose that every single one of the 91 million people that didn't vote are upset with the election results? Or would it be accurate to say that although they chose not to vote, some are pleased Obama won and some are not? But since they chose not to participate for whatever reason, their views really and rightly do not have any bearing on the election results at all. I strongly believe there is a sizable group of NAs in this issue that are indifferent and wouldn't choose either option if asked one simple question. "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you support changing the name or do you support keeping the name?" So while Larry mischaracterizes my words to construct a straw man that I am looking for non-offended marchers to quell the changer rebellion, the main question I'm looking to have answered in my critique of Annenberg is "what percentage of Native Americans devoutly support keeping the name?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I don't think anyone that still believes that NA name supporters outnumber name NA changers 10:1 has done a nice job defending the poll. Of course not. Because you think you've come up with an excuse to ignore it. And the excuse is good enough. (To someone who's looking for an excuse). Your (new) excuse is "let's divide people into three groups: people who are offended if the name stays, people who are offended if the name changes, and people who don't care either way. And then pretend that the people in the third group don't exist. (Or at least, their votes don't count.)" Unfortunately, the question (or the claim) before the court is "is the name offensive?" Not "would changing the name be offensive?" And when the claim is "the name is offensive", the correct question to ask, in the poll, is "is the name offensive?" And when the assertion is "the name is offensive", and I ask someone "is the name offensive?", and they say "no", then the answer is "no". Not "well, but is it ok with you if I force someone to change it, anyway? (And claim I'm doing it for you)?" Edit: Although, if you'd iike to change your objective from The Redskins should be forced to change their name, because it's offensive. to The Redskins should be forced to change their name, because Natives don't care much about it. then I think your proposed polling question would certainly be relevant. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans would not care a bit if WalMart changed their name. But jumping from that fact to "therefore, WalMart must be forced to change it" is a bit tough to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you support changing the name or do you support keeping the name?" Your (new) excuse is "let's divide people into three groups: people who are offended if the name stays, people who are offended if the name changes, and people who don't care either way. And then pretend that the people in the third group don't exist. (Or at least, their votes don't count.)"Unfortunately, the question (or the claim) before the court is "is the name offensive?" Not "would changing the name be offensive?"And when the claim is "the name is offensive", the correct question to ask, in the poll, is "is the name offensive?"And when the assertion is "the name is offensive", and I ask someone "is the name offensive?", and they say "no", then the answer is "no". Not "well, but is it ok with you if I force someone to change it, anyway? (And claim I'm doing it for you)?" You continually misunderstand me. The third group, the indifferent, do exist and their votes do count - to define how many belong in the devout keeper group. "Unfortunately, the question (or the claim) before the court is "is the name offensive?" Why? Not "would changing the name be offensive?" Why not? Who gets to decide that? This issue is volatile and inflammatory, and worthy of more careful examination than one simple, poorly worded question. By framing it the way Annenberg did, you are practically guaranteeing the result that favors keeping the name. And you, in fact, are doing what you are accusing me of; that is claiming their support without actually asking them what they think. Going back to "We did already, see Annenberg's 1 question. It is clearly conclusive." is not an appropriate answer. If anyone in the indifferent camp feel in any way that I have appropriated their voice by voting to change the name they can make amends immediately by leaving the sidelines and proclaiming their support instead of suffering quietly in the shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Oh please. Many, if not all NA's refer to themselves as "Indian". My insurance card says "Indian" right on it. To try to be offended or find laughable that someone else called NA's Indians is garbage and does not deter from the rest of his statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you support changing the name or do you support keeping the name?" Not sure who you claim to be quoting, or what point you're trying to make. You continually misunderstand me. I accurately quote you. The third group, the indifferent, do exist and their votes do count - to define how many belong in the devout keeper group. Unfortunately, the "devout keeper group" are completely irrelevant. (Well, I suppose they might be of academic interest.) "Unfortunately, the question (or the claim) before the court is "is the name offensive?" Why? Not "would changing the name be offensive?" Why not? Who gets to decide that? This issue is volatile and inflammatory, and worthy of more careful examination than one simple, poorly worded question. By framing it the way Annenberg did, you are practically guaranteeing the result that favors keeping the name. Because that's the claim that you, and the name changers, are making. Because that's the standard that has to be met, in order to force somebody else to do something. "I demand that you do what I want, because most people don't care" doesn't work. And you, in fact, are doing what you are accusing me of; that is claiming their support without actually asking them what they think. Going back to "We did already, see Annenberg's 1 question. It is clearly conclusive." is not an appropriate answer. Really? Please quote me where I've stated something untrue, as to what those 90% of Natives stated. Far as I'm aware, all I've ever said about them, is "they said the name isn't offensive". Which they absolutely, positively, did. "Is the name offensive?" "No" Asked and answered. In fact, as long as we're throwing around claims that I'm misstating your position, and you're actually mistating mine, this is probably a good time to put in some other things you've said. Here's you flat out stating that you think the people who don't care about the name shouldn't have their opinion count: What I said was there are roughly 10% that are Changers, 10-20% that are Keepers (completely arbitrary number until such time as someone asks, "If the Washington Redskins changed their name, would you be offended or doesn’t it bother you?”) and roughly 70-80% who don't care (and can't be considered on the Changers or the Keepers side so should be left out of the equation. And here's you flat out stating that there must be protest marches in favor of the name, or their opinions don't count: So where are they Larry? Where's this giant silent majority? If the Minnesota turnout last year was 3,000 name changers there should have 12,000 keepers, or at least 5,000. In fact, here's you doubling down on that claim, by once again asserting that the people who aren't offended, shouldn't have their opinions count, unless they join protest marches: If anyone in the indifferent camp feel in any way that I have appropriated their voice by voting to change the name they can make amends immediately by leaving the sidelines and proclaiming their support instead of suffering quietly in the shadows. But, tell you what. Let's quit this game of moving goalposts. Please feel free to state your position: The Redskins should be forced to change the name of their team, because ______________________________. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Oh please. Many, if not all NA's refer to themselves as "Indian". My insurance card says "Indian" right on it. To try to be offended or find laughable that someone else called NA's Indians is garbage and does not deter from the rest of his statement. Oh please. Whatever you are, you are not an Indian. Indians come from India, and all Native Americans are genetically distinct from the people of the sub-continent. If your insurance card defines you instead of your nation/tribe that's your issue not mine. Despite that, this is not a reasonable conclusion from that one question, "Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive". How can anyone jump from "not offended" to "it's acceptable" without any context to justify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Oh please. Whatever you are, you are not an Indian. Indians come from India, and all Native Americans are genetically distinct from the people of the sub-continent. If your insurance card defines you instead of your nation/tribe that's your issue not mine. Don't you understand? Salistala has been granted the Divine Authority to tell you which terms you are allowed or not allowed to use, to refer to yourself. (Now, me? I will point out that I have used the term "Indian" to refer to Natives. (Including myself). Both in the past and recently. But I will also observe that I don't claim the power to speak for Natives, as a whole. And, while I don't think Salistala has that power, I don't think you do, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Oh please. Whatever you are, you are not an Indian. Indians come from India, and all Native Americans are genetically distinct from the people of the sub-continent. If your insurance card defines you instead of your nation/tribe that's your issue not mine. Despite that, this is not a reasonable conclusion from that one question, "Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive". How can anyone jump from "not offended" to "it's acceptable" without any context to justify it? haha. So as well thought out as your posts often come across...you are now going to insist on telling me WHAT I AM ? There is the laughable part. Hell, the main group that WAS fighting the name is called Oneida Indian Nation (perhaps you missed that). You CAN NOT have it both ways buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Not sure who you claim to be quoting, or what point you're trying to make. I quoted myself, That's the question I would ask if I was looking to clear up the issue. I accurately quote you. So when you stated that I am calling for a march of non-offended, and even when I have repeatedly stated that was not what I said you still continue to misquote me. That's accuracy? Unfortunately, the "devout keeper group" are completely irrelevant. (Well, I suppose they might be of academic interest.) They're irrelevant? Why? They're the reason the team has any moral authority, not the indifferent. It for that reason I want to know how many are out there. Because that's the claim that you, and the name changers, are making. Because that's the standard that has to be met, in order to force somebody else to do something. "I demand that you do what I want, because most people don't care" doesn't work. That's the only claim we make? After the question of offensiveness is decided, that's it? " 'K people, let's pack up now. I'm really happy to know how many are offended, and even though yesterday I felt angry enough to ask the team to change the name, today I'm cool with it." Another falsehood you attribute to me is that I'm demanding this, against any opposition. I have never stated that anyone should do anything against their own wishes, I have simply expressed my opinion on the word, the imagery, and my experiences. And for those reasons I consider my opinion a vote for change. One vote, for me, and I have no authority to speak for anyone else. Really? Please quote me where I've stated something untrue, as to what those 90% of Natives stated. Far as I'm aware, all I've ever said about them, is "they said the name isn't offensive". Which they absolutely, positively, did. "Is the name offensive?" "No" Asked and answered. One simple poorly worded question asked and answered Here's you flat out stating that you think the people who don't care about the name shouldn't have their opinion count: And where would you place their votes Larry? In the keeper camp? Justify that. If Annenberg had asked " Would you be offended if the team changed their name?" Would I get to claim the indifferent if they answered that, no they wouldn't be offended by a name change? If I can't claim them in this situation I don't think it's unreasonable to protest your appropriation. Hence although they have an opinion, it is not productive to this conversation to measure their indifference. And here's you flat out stating that there must be protest marches in favor of the name, or their opinions don't count: There have been posts highlighting NA protests for the name here that have been presented as evidence of NA support of the name, they're usually greatly outnumbered by the protests to change the name. The reason I ask where the support is, is because the poll results strongly differ from actual faces in the crowd. If the true support is in the order of 10:1 or 4:1 from the New Mexico poll, where are they? Why aren't they attending games in the thousands, or even hundreds? I think because they don't actually exist in the numbers you think they do. In fact, here's you doubling down on that claim, by once again asserting that the people who aren't offended, shouldn't have their opinions count, unless they join protest marches: Opinions? What opinions? If respondents answered the question I propose there would be a certain percentage saying change the name, a certain percentage saying keep the name, and a certain percentage saying "I don't care....". That opinion? "I don't care..." should count? For what? Unless the respondents clearly answer for or against a position, including them on either position is not really the right thing to do. But, tell you what. Let's quit this game of moving goalposts. Please feel free to state your position: The Redskins should be forced to change the name of their team, because ______________________________. I vote for the Redskins to change the name of their team, because the name is offensive to me and my experience with the word is highly negative. haha. So as well thought out as your posts often come across...you are now going to insist on telling me WHAT I AM ? There is the laughable part. Let's get beyond your identity and answer the question, "Most Indians Say Name of Washington “Redskins” Is Acceptable While 9 Percent Call It Offensive". How can anyone jump from "not offended" to "it's acceptable" without any context to justify it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 If it was highly negative or highly positive the number of protesters would increase dramatically. Thing is, most people, even NAs don't find this to be an issue. It's annoying more than anything. I can appreciate that the word offends you...but then why type it ? Why come here ? You seem intelligent enough to understand that you should be out trying to convince other people, not people that are not offended by the name...just like the majority of NA's. Odd thought process going on there. Salistala, Interesting way to slice out the other part of my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I can appreciate that the word offends you...but then why type it ? Why come here ? You seem intelligent enough to understand that you should be out trying to convince other people, not people that are not offended by the name...just like the majority of NA's. Odd thought process going on there. This is a discussion about Redskins, I've wavered back and forth over how to express it and have come to the conclusion this is an academic discussion of a volatile word that still needs our focused attention. Asterisks distract from that. Debating with the strongest of the name keepers sharpens my game, if I can examine the evidence presented by the most passionate fans and their greatest debaters and present reasoned counter-arguments then when I do discuss this issue away from here I have confidence that I can handle most counters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Salistala, Interesting way to slice out the other part of my post. I think I've already stated my opinion of Halbritter and by extension the Onieda Indian Nation But to be clear, I, in no way, support or endorse anything Ray Halbritter or the Onieda Indian Nation have done or said in this debate of the Redskin name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 http://www.indians.org/articles/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 http://www.indians.org/articles/index.html I want to offer an apology. I have no business in your self identification. Not even close to the way I see my world, but if that is the way you see yourself and your family I have no right to question it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 And where would you place their votes Larry? In the keeper camp? Justify that. In the "people who say the name isn't offensive" camp. And I "justify" it, because they were asked if it was offensive, and they said "no". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I vote for the Redskins to change the name of their team, because the name is offensive to me and my experience with the word is highly negative. 1) The question was "The Redskins should be forced to change their name, because . . . " 2) But hey, if you want to change your position from arguing on behalf of Natives, to just your own opinion, then that's cool. Hey, everybody! The Redskins should change their name, because Sal, here, wants them to. Guess we can all stop arguing about what Natives, as a whole, have said on the subject. Sal Has Spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 The more I look at arguments both for and against the word, the more I think we are missing the point. Because, I think most acknowledge that there exists a positive (as in the way Washington, Red Mesa and other schools use it), neutral (in its origin), and negative (when used as a slur to demean someone is native American origin) version of the word. And these different meanings are determined by context. I can fully appreciate Sals experience with the negative version of the word, even though I've never heard of anyone personally having that experience- and, my personal experience with the word being entirely positive, as I've always defined it as the professional football team (or, rarely, a potato). Still, I don't discount Sals input as illegitimate. But, it's the lack of recognition of "context" from the name changers that I can't agree with. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen it. I've even seen accusations that the team was named to mock natives. This thinking, this "all or nothing, my definition is the only definition, there is no other" kind of thinking, which is what's going on, I will never get behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I want to offer an apology. I have no business in your self identification. Not even close to the way I see my world, but if that is the way you see yourself and your family I have no right to question it. One thing I've wondered as I've followed this debate over the years is that the problem is that the Redskins name is both offensive and inoffensive. That is, to some Native American groups the name has a negative history, to others a neutral history, and to still a third group a positive history. Honestly, that's the vibe I get from listening to different people, experts, leaders, and advocates of Native American backgrounds. I think there is a huge difficulty in taking a heterogeneous group of cultures and trying to pretend they have one mind, one history, and one set of experiences, but that's what we do when it comes to the name "Redskins." I've heard from too many scholars, Native Americans, and leaders who say it isn't offensive to discount that. Likewise, I've heard the opposite. Mind you, the only scientifically done poll of Native American opinion led to an astounding one-sided result that it is/was not offensive. Given the diversity of opinions, I lean on that poll because having worked in the media for close to a decade I know how many polling groups are out there who could easily conduct another one and do it cheaply. If there has been no other poll done or no other poll published of Native American opinion since Anenburg then there's a reason. In my news bureau, we were able to farm out a national poll for about $5,000. It was conducted nationally, got over 20,000 respondents, and we were able to do a number of statistical breakdowns on our questions with confidence and a reasonable error margin. There's no reason... unless you don't want to know the results or know them already that a new poll shouldn't have been done by a news organization, a Native American advocacy group, Halbitter himself, etc. It's irresponsible if you care about this issue. But regardless of that, I truly have come to believe that one size does not fit all when it comes to Native American peoples. The different histories, economics, and degrees of acculturation have led to vastly different viewpoints. So, it is damned hard to determine what is offensive to all and given everything that has been written and said it is clear that the offensiveness of the name Redskins is not a universal truth among Native Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Are you still trying to push the notion that anybody who thinks the name should be changed should be personally attacked if they say so, here? Just an opinion, but that seems to be both a really dumb argument, and one that makes all of us look really ugly. And severely assholish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I can fully appreciate Sals experience with the negative version of the word, even though I've never heard of anyone personally having that experience- and, my personal experience with the word being entirely positive, as I've always defined it as the professional football team (or, rarely, a potato). Still, I don't discount Sals input as illegitimate. Oh, we've had other people relate stories of the word Redskin being used in flat-out racist manners. And I certainly see no reason to doubt them. Yeah, I'm technically a Native. But I don't look native. And I was "raised white", so to speak. I list myself as white, on job applications and things. Although I did list myself as Native on the Obamacare web site. Got better health insurance, that way. So I have absolutely no doubt at all that the average "reservation Indian" (to coin a label) no doubt has had a vastly different life experience than I have had. And if he has a negative reaction to the team name, I'm not going to dispute his feelings, or tell him he's wrong, or claim that my opinion counts more than his. Heck, if Natives, in general, have a negative opinion of the name, I'm not going to even be surprised. I'll chalk it up to them having lived a different life than I have. My only thing, about this issue, is that all of the evidence says that they don't have a problem with the name, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salistala Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 1) The question was "The Redskins should be forced to change their name, because . . . " 2) But hey, if you want to change your position from arguing on behalf of Natives, to just your own opinion, then that's cool. Hey, everybody! The Redskins should change their name, because Sal, here, wants them to. Guess we can all stop arguing about what Natives, as a whole, have said on the subject. Sal Has Spoken. One vote, for me. But these Tribes and Nations voted too: NA only NA in combo Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians n/a n/a Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma 15,500 (24,400) Comanche Nation of Oklahoma 12,300 (23,300) United Tribes of Colville Reservation 8,100 (10,500) Chippewa Tribe 112,800 (170,800) Hoh Indian Tribe 150 (200) Muscogee Tribe 43,200 (81,700) Chickasaw Tribe 28,000 (52,200) Choctaw Tribe 75,100 (159,600) Seminole Tribe outside Florida 12,400 (29,800) Juaneño Tribe 2,900 (4,300) Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 1,700 (2,500) Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan 800 (1,100) Menominee Tribe 8,400 (11,100) Oneida Indian Nation n/a n/a Oneida Tribes of Wisconsin 6,000 (7,300) Osage Nation 8,900 (18,600) Navajo Nation 287,000 (332,100) Penobscot Nation 2,100 (4,300) Poarch Band of Creek Indians 2,500 (3,200) Samish Indian Nation 450 (900) Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 4,400 (5,300) Standing Rock Sioux 9,100 (10,400) Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations 2,700 (3,400) (Fort Berthold Indian Reservations) 644,500 (957,000) “2010 Census CPH-T-6. American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes in the United States and Puerto Rico” census.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Where is the link ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 One vote, for me. But these Tribes and Nations voted too: Could you provide me with a link to support your claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THOSE TRIBES declared that they wanted the name changed? Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Could you provide me with a link to support your claim that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THOSE TRIBES declared that they wanted the name changed? Thanks in advance. That's unnecessary, but it would be nice to see the breakdowns. How many voted for v against. What was the participation rate of the vote (Did ten people vote or the whole population) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 That's unnecessary, but it would be nice to see the breakdowns. How many voted for v against. What was the participation rate of the vote (Did ten people vote or the whole population) 1). He's actually claiming that there was a vote, and that every single member agrees with him. Frankly, that's shocking news, to me. 2). And I'm willing to bet that not one single one of those tribes even HAD a vote. Rather, a majority of the tribe's POLITICIANS passed a non-binding resolution, or signed a petition. If there was a vote, it was a vote of maybe six politicians, which he is now trying to claim equals 100,000 unanimous votes. In short, he's trying to claim that every single person in the US VOTED to have Obamacare repealed, and another couple of investigations into Benghazi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.