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

[Burgold]

Maybe you should suggest that to them Burgold. 

 

Call up the Hoh Indian Tribe in Washington state and inform them they should've or should do a poll before they denounce a controversial word about their race. 

I'd actually have no problems doing this. It's a very natural and basic reporter question.

 

Hello. I'm doing a story on the Redskins name and how it and the related imagery impact Native American Groups. Do you have any polling data you could share with me? How did they respond to the name? How many people did you ask? What were the questions? What were the results? Did you find any disparities based on age, gender, or region?

 

or

 

Hello. I'm doing a story on the Redskins name and how it and the related imagery impact Native American Groups. Do you have any polling data you could share with me?  No, are you planning to do a poll? What I'd really like to find out about the group you represent is a) what their response to the name and imagery is if there are disparities in reaction to the name based on various factors such as age, gender or region? c) some basic info about how you conducted the poll (IE was it in person, over the phone via mail or email. What was the percentage of response. How many of those you contacted participated in the poll and does impact your statistical confidence in the results)

 

If they asked me to do it or said belligerently, "Why don't you do it?" I'd say I would be happy to if they could you email the contact information of their population so I can create a randomized list and get a good sampling.

[grego]

Boss -

The guy who ran the poll for annenberg is anti - name, but he defended the poll and it's methodology.

[Bonez3]

But "I don't like the redskins name because . . . " is not bias.

100% of the people who don't like NA imagery, do dislike the Redskins name. Counting them as people who don't like the name is not an error.

Right, I would agree. If its not 100% it's probably virtually 100%.

But I just like the question 'is it offensive' more. I see 2 reasons to change name. Either it's offensive or all NA imagery should not be used as mascots.

[Boss_Hogg]

The contradictions in these discussions are amazing.

 

 

You do tell native people what to be offended by.

Your movement's leaders have said again and again that native groups such as high schools that have chosen the name and other natives who have said they are not offended are mistaken and need to be educated.

 

And if the movement to get rid of things that make a mockery of the native way.. "playing indian' as it's been called by the protester in name only, then how anyone can ignore the name of not only a guy who led the way in the genocide, but then took them out and paraded them around...

 

Aside from the fact, the incontrovertible fact that the only reason Buffalo Bill is known as Buffalo Bill is because he killed more buffalo than anyone and led massive hunts to kill huge numbers of buffalo .. and these hunts were not just the result of ignorance of over privileged sportsmen.. these were orchestrated by the army specifically TO DESTROY the native way of life.

Every historian that has ever spoken on the decimation of the native way of life points DIRECTLY to the destruction of the buffalo herds as a primary cause.

These facts cannot be argued.

 

To pretend that white society is rife with native mockery, and then to imagine that somehow "Buffalo Bills" is a coincidence named after, oh, Bill Schinsky or somebody..  it's ridiculous.

 

There's a whole discussion back there of how natives in the movies and entertainments of the time when the team adopted the name were as window dressing, 

we were treated to the pronouncement that " Native themed fantasy was huge in western films and pop culture at the time. Playing indian was an easy sell.

 

Some players from the mid 30s Redskins teams performed as Native Warriors in half time shows. There was no half time meeting or rest for those players. Not to mention they had to change in and out of their Indian costumes from their game unis. The owner would hand pick the players he deemed would perform best as actors. Can't imagine there was much "honoring" on anybodies mind. But, that's jmo."

 

No argument, Natives were not only treated badly in the movies, but usually played by white guys in makeup. but one is the same as the other..

SO, then i ask about the Bills, and you go to the museum which, among other things suggests he was a great man for taking the natives out to show the world what they were before he helped destroy them.

And to respond i show you posters of the exploitation...   very similar to the movies that were not only popular entertainment of the 30s, but definitely in the 1880s on up, thanks again to the exploiter in chief, Buffalo Bill.

So, it's really a simple question.

You guys who think we should not be telling people what to be offended over, but are clearly offended over at least the redskins name.

 

Why doesn't the Bills name bother you? this is a question to all name cangers. (for lack of a better term.) The Bills name isn't even on the radar. The only time they are even mentioned in context to any native protest or controversy at all is from when they played the Redskins in the Super Bowl, and it's not their name in the news.

 

Every time i ask, the question is ignored or gets treated as if it's ridiculous to even ask it.. especially in context of this debate... and I don't get it.

 

The fact a buffalo is on the helmet is nothing but a slap in the face when you recognize who Buffalo bill was and why he is known as Buffalo Bill.

 

(and thanks for answering, by the by.  Truth is even though i would like the name to stay, i really don't care if it changes.  I'm more concerned with how this has happened than what actually has happened.)

 

~Bang

 

Where in this thread have I told a native person on what to be offended by? I'm echoing the feelings of natives I spoke with from my recent ravels out west and in Florida; all the while posting results from clinical studies about the harmful effects of native sports mascots. 

 

I also understand that its driving you crazy as to why natives aren't offended by a football team named after a bison hunter/showman/marksman with a bison on the helmet. Maybe it's because said football team does not have a racial slur for a nickname nor do they have a native american mascot. Maybe it's because the bills fans don't dress in sacred war bonnets and feathers and mock certain cultures and customs? 

 

Bottom line is we won't know why they aren't offended until we ask. Why don't you call up and ask some of the tribes on the lists I've supplied. 

 

Also, I've reached out to the city of Denver's Buffalo Bill museum for clarification on the section regarding native Americans.

 

Of course you'll have your chance to ask this question to real native Americans in person. The change the mascot movement is planning multiple protests at FedEx field this year.  

 

I'm not offended by our team name, I'm a white guy who hasn't experienced racial slurs or degradation. But I think it's time we move on and adopt a name and mascot that's unifying and not dividing.

[PCS]

Rule 11 is taking a beating in here folks. Tough enough to wade through all this without that one. Just a heads up for now. 

[grego]

Boss, his name is Adam Clymer -

___________________________________

The poll results cited incessantly by the Washington football team were generated from one question among hundreds during a 2004 Presidential campaign issues poll—why was that done, since the name was not a campaign issue?

Because only a poll with our huge sample would get a statistically meaningful number of respondents identifying themselves as Indian or Native American. Given that … we were reaching out to 100,000 people, we had the chance to get a valid statistical sample. I wrote the question because I knew the issue came up most autumns and I thought it would make an interesting short piece. We began asking questions on October 7, 2003, and ended September 20, 2004. We had around 66,000 respondents overall, including 768 who identified themselves as Indian or Native American.

Do you think the issue was well-served in a survey of this size and nature, given all the variables involved regarding Native American identification, say, or lack of access to phones, or levels of disassociation from mainstream culture?

I don’t think there was anything wrong with our methodology. All pollsters ask for self-identification on demographics from age to education to ethnicity to religion.... When someone says they are married, you don’t ask for a marriage certificate. The question measured whether the respondents cared about the issue. The fault is in the interpretation given the poll by Dan Snyder and others. My answer when first questioned about this by Courtland Milloy of the The Washington Post stands; If you gave a dinner party for 20 and one person left unhappy because of something that was said or served and the other 19 had a jolly time, was your party a success? No, it was a failure.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/16/man-who-ran-dan-snyders-poll-course-id-change-name-152737

[Boss_Hogg]

Again, not a fan of the poll's question; 'Should the Redskins change the name?'

 

Not, is the name offensive. Still, only 18% and what % want name changed because on NA imagery, not so much because its a slur.

 

Look, on the NA imagery thing, I would yield all day. I argue purely the idea that its a slur. Period.

 

Fair enough. Words can mean different things to different people. 

 

First, actually, it was closer to 800.  But then, I know that you have a habit of slanting the punbers you post in whichever direction you think will help you. 

 

Second, only if your definition of "problematic" is "this mathematically valid data says that I'm not only wrong, but wrong by one of the widest margins anywhere in history, so I desperately need to come up with some lame excuse to ignore it".

 

Silly me, I was under the impression that I saw it proven, mathematically, in both high school and college statistics classes. that randomly selecting a small sample from a larger population allowed one to draw conclusions about the population as a whole.  (Granted, I don't remember how to do that proof.  But I seem to remember that it happened.) 

 

But tell you what.  During the upcoming Presidential election, every time somebody posts polling numbers, loudly announce that randomly calling people and asking them their opinion is "problematic". 

 

Don't actually try to prove that it's wrong.  Just announcing that you don;t believe in polls is all you need to do. 

 

(When the actual elections come out, and they agree with the poll?  Don't change your mind.  Keep insisting that the poll is actually off, by more than 40%.) 

 

 

You know, I understand that these polls also ask people about their approximate income level, their race, their age, and their gender. 

 

I think you should contact Gallup, and tell them that their polling data is off by more than 40%, because they don't demand naked web cam pics of every person who identifies as female.  

 

Tell them it's because you're convinced (without any support whatsoever) that more than 40% of the "women" they surveyed, are really lying about their gender, and that all of the liars are expressing (some opinion that's different from what you want to claim that women have). 

 

Record the phone call.  I'd love to hear it.

 

 

Really?  I'd love to see your support for that.  (But then, I'd love to see your support for anything.) 

 

You missed my annenberg  point by a country mile. You act like tribal membership or lineage doesn't matter...it does matter. While one tribe Patawomeck isn't offended, the Cherokee, Navajo and Oneida tribes are offended. This is important data to collect. 

 

And presidential polling data is way different then asking people what they think about a controversial word. 

 

You also didn't address my point about the New Mexican poll. Native Americans make up 9% of the population in NM. The poll consisted of 500 registered New Mexican voters. This right here is problematic too. 

 

So lets assume all native Americans in NM are registered voters; that means 45 native Americans took the poll last fall.

 

Should we allow the majority (white folks) speak on the behalf of the minority (native Americans)?

 

You most certainly did. You had a part in parenthesis that referenced the word Indian as possibly offensive given geographical consideration. Ironically enough, an person with Indian heritage from Asia posts like 3 posts later. 

 

For the record, I will stand by Indian being a far more offensive word than Redskin IMO because of the association with the actual country of India being misrepresented. I lived with a Mexican-American (Full blooded Mexican) guy for a year in SoCal and he told me most Mexican Americans prefer Latino because they are not Spanish, they take 'offense' to that. 

 

Not that I ever brought this up once in this thread, but I did live with the guy for a year and he stated some Mexicans feel more linked to the NA history than the Spanish/European one. I mean, frankly could he claim NA ancestory theoretically? Regardless, he associated himself with the 'Indian' culture in regards to his heritage. We played a lot of Madden and I routinely repped the Redskins, it never even was a thought for either of us it was offensive. I'm Skins 24/7.

 

I stay away from personal experiences as much as I can, but wanted to highlight the geographical thing some. Also, it is more in reference to just my opinion that another word is actually more offensive.

 

That's your prerogative. 

 

And they make up 2% of the population of the US.

But then, that's according to the US Census bureau, which lets people self identify.  You should contact them, and tell them that the actual number is grossly different, because you just say so. 

 

 

 

The alternative is? 

 

Let me guess.  We should cherry pick only the people who agree with the answer we want to hear, and announce that only the people who agree with me, count? 

 

Good argument with the US census bureau self identification issue. 

 

But where in this thread have I denounced natives who support the name? They deserve respect for being independent thinkers and they should also have agency over a controversial word about their race. 

 

I'd actually have no problems doing this. It's a very natural and basic reporter question.

 

Hello. I'm doing a story on the Redskins name and how it and the related imagery impact Native American Groups. Do you have any polling data you could share with me? How did they respond to the name? How many people did you ask? What were the questions? What were the results? Did you find any disparities based on age, gender, or region?

 

or

 

Hello. I'm doing a story on the Redskins name and how it and the related imagery impact Native American Groups. Do you have any polling data you could share with me?  No, are you planning to do a poll? What I'd really like to find out about the group you represent is a) what their response to the name and imagery is if there are disparities in reaction to the name based on various factors such as age, gender or region? c) some basic info about how you conducted the poll (IE was it in person, over the phone via mail or email. What was the percentage of response. How many of those you contacted participated in the poll and does impact your statistical confidence in the results)

 

If they asked me to do it or said belligerently, "Why don't you do it?" I'd say I would be happy to if they could you email the contact information of their population so I can create a randomized list and get a good sampling.

 

 if you feel that the tribes need to explain themselves through polling data or whatnot before they denounce our name then I recommend doing what you just suggested. 

[Larry]

Right, I would agree. If its not 100% it's probably virtually 100%.

But I just like the question 'is it offensive' more. I see 2 reasons to change name. Either it's offensive or all NA imagery should not be used as mascots.

 

Actually, I gave a third possible motivation why someone might vote "change the name". 

 

It's the person who isn't offended by the name, but who wants the noise to go away. 

 

Now that is a person who will vote to change the name, but who will not vote for "offended". 

Where in this thread have I told a native person on what to be offended by? I'm echoing the feelings of natives I spoke with from my recent ravels out west and in Florida; all the while posting results from clinical studies about the harmful effects of native sports mascots.

 

And making up bombastic untrue claims about native opposition.  And suggesting that the only people whose opinions we should ask, are ones you've hand picked to agree with you.  And telling us to ignore every single time people actually have asked natives their opinion.  And announced that we shouldn't pay attention to the majority of Natives. 

[grego]

Hey, everybody- Park city was telling everyone to not quote large blocks of text.

Don't want to see anyone banned.

[Bonez3]

Actually, I gave a third possible motivation why someone might vote "change the name". 

 

It's the person who isn't offended by the name, but who wants the noise to go away. 

 

Now that is a person who will vote to change the name, but who will not vote for "offended". 

 

And making up bombastic untrue claims about native opposition.  And suggesting that the only people whose opinions we should ask, are ones you've hand picked to agree with you.  And telling us to ignore every single time people actually have asked natives their opinion.  And announced that we shouldn't pay attention to the majority of Natives. 

Yup- a situation many here expressed throughout the thread.

 

PS- Yes I am guilty of violating rule 11. Will definitely be mindful going forward. 

[Boss_Hogg]

Rule 11 is taking a beating in here folks. Tough enough to wade through all this without that one. Just a heads up for now. 

 

my apologies Park City Skins

 

Boss, his name is Adam Clymer -

___________________________________

The poll results cited incessantly by the Washington football team were generated from one question among hundreds during a 2004 Presidential campaign issues poll—why was that done, since the name was not a campaign issue?

Because only a poll with our huge sample would get a statistically meaningful number of respondents identifying themselves as Indian or Native American. Given that … we were reaching out to 100,000 people, we had the chance to get a valid statistical sample. I wrote the question because I knew the issue came up most autumns and I thought it would make an interesting short piece. We began asking questions on October 7, 2003, and ended September 20, 2004. We had around 66,000 respondents overall, including 768 who identified themselves as Indian or Native American.

Do you think the issue was well-served in a survey of this size and nature, given all the variables involved regarding Native American identification, say, or lack of access to phones, or levels of disassociation from mainstream culture?

I don’t think there was anything wrong with our methodology. All pollsters ask for self-identification on demographics from age to education to ethnicity to religion.... When someone says they are married, you don’t ask for a marriage certificate. The question measured whether the respondents cared about the issue. The fault is in the interpretation given the poll by Dan Snyder and others. My answer when first questioned about this by Courtland Milloy of the The Washington Post stands; If you gave a dinner party for 20 and one person left unhappy because of something that was said or served and the other 19 had a jolly time, was your party a success? No, it was a failure.

Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/16/man-who-ran-dan-snyders-poll-course-id-change-name-152737

 

Thanks for sharing that

 

it makes me a feel better knowing that the proprietor of the poll is defending the methodology even though he doesn't agree with our name. 

 

I'de also like to share this:

 

the “scientific fact” of the Annenberg finding replaces the “voice” of American Indians.

 

This is significant when one lifts the curtain to examine how the “science” was conducted. While the popular media represent the finding as emanating from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, or as Snyder noted in his letter, as the “highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center,” reference to the fact that the question posed was part of the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES04) is rarely if ever noted. And it should be.

 

 

 

 

Read more at https://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/16/exploring-science-behind-poll-snyder-cites-defend-his-redskns-152739

[Burgold]

 

 

 if you feel that the tribes need to explain themselves through polling data or whatnot before they denounce our name then I recommend doing what you just suggested. 

What a crappy sentence. I'm actually offended by it and am hoping it's just sloppy English.

 

It's not that they need to "explain" themselves. It's that it would be cool if they got their say. I'm not comfortable speaking for them.  You apparently are. So far, every time they've had their say as a group you've dismissed it.

 

You may be right. Statistically, it seems unlikely. Instead, you are holding to anecdotal evidence and politicians. It's pretty terrible how opposed you are to people being allowed to speak for themselves. These are intelligent individuals capable of considering issues and speaking their own mind.

Why in the world would you deny them that and only allow surrogates to speak for them?

[PCS]

Note: The Buffalo Bill Museum may have an interesting time with clarification. They,(and historians),have a tough time separating Ol' Bill's bull**** and factual events. They do know that he was very good at scouting for Native Americans as well as Buffalo for a brief time. So good,he won a Congressional Medal of Honor for it. Part of his show,(and many believe this is quite possibly based on a true event),is where he reenacted a scene where  he killed a young warrior named yellow hair and took his scalp. Held it high and then announced it was the first for Custer. Yes. He did seem to regret that in later years,(and some Native Americans forgave him this later on when apparently,he did change)but that's one of several contradictions of Buffalo Bill.  

[Bang]

Where in this thread have I told a native person on what to be offended by? I'm echoing the feelings of natives I spoke with from my recent ravels out west and in Florida; all the while posting results from clinical studies about the harmful effects of native sports mascots. 

 

I also understand that its driving you crazy as to why natives aren't offended by a football team named after a bison hunter/showman/marksman with a bison on the helmet. Maybe it's because said football team does not have a racial slur for a nickname nor do they have a native american mascot. Maybe it's because the bills fans don't dress in sacred war bonnets and feathers and mock certain cultures and customs? 

 

Bottom line is we won't know why they aren't offended until we ask. Why don't you call up and ask some of the tribes on the lists I've supplied. 

 

Also, I've reached out to the city of Denver's Buffalo Bill museum for clarification on the section regarding native Americans.

 

Of course you'll have your chance to ask this question to real native Americans in person. The change the mascot movement is planning multiple protests at FedEx field this year.  

 

I'm not offended by our team name, I'm a white guy who hasn't experienced racial slurs or degradation. But I think it's time we move on and adopt a name and mascot that's unifying and not dividing.

 

 

It's very difficult to take this seriously.

First off, in the post of yours I quoted, you reasoned it is not up to us to decide what should offend them.. and i pointed out that is exactly what the founders of this movement DO.

if you need links and quotes of them stating that the native people who disagree need to be educated so tyhey can be offended, it can be easily found. Amanda Blackhorse says it in her sleep.

 

What drives me crazy about the Buffalo  Bill name is people like you, who have decided based on personal discussins why people are offended, that you can't take it a step further and at least RECOGNIZE the guy for who he is and what he did, and what EVERY HISTORIAN agrees is a primary cause of their way of life being destroyed.

 

I would think that the people who started this movement would be concerned about the Bills. but it's not even registerted.

and thanks for showing me to be prophetic.

I said that whenever this question is asked, you guys with all your historic references and anecdotal evidence act as if it's a ridiculous question.

 

I don't call any of those tribes because i don't care.

My question is why YOU don't care.

And by YOU, i mean all of the groups who are trying to get the redskins, Indians and Chiefs changed, and all native imgery removed from sports.

Why crusade halfway? especially when it is SUCH an offensive name?

I mean really,, who Buffalo Bill was and his relation to the downfall of the Native is nowhere in dispute. Anywhere.

What i hear is because Buffalo Bill is not actually ON the helmet, then it's not offensive to continually honor the man most responsible for the decimation of the buffalo herds that every historian says ended the native way of life.

(Oh,, or as you put it.. "buffalo hunter and marksman" )

Could you whitewash it any more?

His place in history is not in dispute.. he was given the congressional medal of honor for his service. Service that was to scout out the enemy, (the natives living their lives)  and to kill massive amounts of buffalo to deprive them of everything they needed to survive.

They gave him the Medal of Honor for doing the exact thing all historians agree destroyed the native way of life, and to you he's a 'buffalo hunter and marksman"...  and you need a museum dedicated to making him look like a hero to confirm it for you.

 

Oh, and a "showman", even though what he did was take the people he had helped defeat and shoved onto reservations by starving them and depriving them of their sustenance and shelter, and exploited them. 

this is also not in question.

i wonder,,, if given the choice,, would those natives rather go on his wild west show and recreate the things they did BEFORE he came and destroyed their lives,, or would they rather he had just not come in the first place?

 

This is what "drives me nuts" about the lack of any Bills discussion.

Always with the finger wagging on the Redskins..  but silence on the worst.

Approach it honestly.

 

~Bang

[Boss_Hogg]

Actually, I gave a third possible motivation why someone might vote "change the name". 

 

It's the person who isn't offended by the name, but who wants the noise to go away. 

 

Now that is a person who will vote to change the name, but who will not vote for "offended". 

 

And making up bombastic untrue claims about native opposition.  And suggesting that the only people whose opinions we should ask, are ones you've hand picked to agree with you.  And telling us to ignore every single time people actually have asked natives their opinion.  And announced that we shouldn't pay attention to the majority of Natives. 

 

I'll admit we have fans out there that wan't the name changed just so the noise will stop. That is fact and I won't dispute it. 

 

I want the name and image to go away because I don't want to have to explain to my children why we support a team that some people find offensive.

 

And the native opposition is real but you choose to ignore it. 

[Larry]

You missed my annenberg  point by a country mile. You act like tribal membership or lineage doesn't matter...it does matter. While one tribe Patawomeck isn't offended, the Cherokee, Navajo and Oneida tribes are offended. This is important data to collect.

And they asked all of them.

You know? A random selection of all Natives in the lower 48.

You want a poll that breaks down results by individual tribe? Pay for it.

But no, making up whatever result you want, and ignoring every single random poll, well, it ain't gonna convince me.

 

(I'll also point out that there is exactly one possible motive, for wanting the data broken down by tribe:  So that the person doing the asking can cherry pick which groups voted the way he wanted them to vote.) 

 

And presidential polling data is way different then asking people what they think about a controversial word. 

 

 Because

 

1)  You say so. 

 

2)  . . . . ? 

 

You also didn't address my point about the New Mexican poll. Native Americans make up 9% of the population in NM. The poll consisted of 500 registered New Mexican voters. This right here is problematic too. 

 

Again, only if your definition of "problematic" is "didn't get the results I want".  

 

 

So lets assume all native Americans in NM are registered voters; that means 45 native Americans took the poll last fall.

 

 

And? 

 

I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but there actually is actual mathematics that tells us that if you sample a certain number of people, from a larger population, then the result you get will be accurate within a certain number. 

 

The Annenberg poll is mathematically accurate to within +/- 2%. 

 

You may not like that fact, but it is, in fact, a fact. 

 

The margin of error for the NM poll was plus or minus 4.1%

 

Should we allow the majority (white folks) speak on the behalf of the minority (native Americans)?

 

 

Guess you didn't read your own link: 

 

Sanderoff said the poll about the Redskins nickname was conducted July 10 and the survey approximated the percentage of Native Americans in the state. In fact, Sanderoff said there were “no statistically significant differences” among Hispanics, whites and Native Americans in the results.

 

 (BTW, Here's the link to the actual poll, rather than somebody trying to spin the poll.  I'm sure it's a coincidence that you picked the link that doesn't have the actual poll, but has the headline that's slanted in your direction more.) 

 

Albuquerque Journal:  New Mexicans say Washington should stick with Redskins

 

Which also contains this interesting little tidbit: 

 

At least three national polls conducted in the past two years found a majority of public support for keeping the Redskins team name. Those polls included a December 2013 survey by Public Policy Polling that found 71 percent of Americans surveyed were in favor of keeping the name – the same figure as the Journal flash poll.

 

 

Although obviously that paragraph does not claim that said polls polled Natives. 

I'de also like to share this:

 

the “scientific fact” of the Annenberg finding replaces the “voice” of American Indians.

 

This is significant when one lifts the curtain to examine how the “science” was conducted. While the popular media represent the finding as emanating from the Annenberg Public Policy Center, or as Snyder noted in his letter, as the “highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center,” reference to the fact that the question posed was part of the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES04) is rarely if ever noted. And it should be.

You got any reason why you suddenly want to claim that asking people about the Redskins name, after they've answered questions about who they're voting for, is some kind of problem? Other than "because I'm searching for some reason to ignore a national poll, other than conducting a national poll, which I don't want to do (for some reason)"?

[Boss_Hogg]

What a crappy sentence. I'm actually offended by it and am hoping it's just sloppy English.

 

It's not that they need to "explain" themselves. It's that it would be cool if they got their say. I'm not comfortable speaking for them.  You apparently are. So far, every time they've had their say as a group you've dismissed it.

 

You may be right. Statistically, it seems unlikely. Instead, you are holding to anecdotal evidence and politicians. It's pretty terrible how opposed you are to people being allowed to speak for themselves. These are intelligent individuals capable of considering issues and speaking their own mind.

Why in the world would you deny them that and only allow surrogates to speak for them?

 

Well that's how your post came off to me. It sounded like you wanted hard data before each and every tribe denounced the name.

 

I like you Burg, I like your posts and I respect your contributions to the board. But I believe this board has an "ignore" function and if you choose to use it, I won't be offended. 

 

 

It's very difficult to take this seriously.

First off, in the post of yours I quoted, you reasoned it is not up to us to decide what should offend them.. and i pointed out that is exactly what the founders of this movement DO.

if you need links and quotes of them stating that the native people who disagree need to be educated so tyhey can be offended, it can be easily found. Amanda Blackhorse says it in her sleep.

 

What drives me crazy about the Buffalo  Bill name is people like you, who have decided based on personal discussins why people are offended, that you can't take it a step further and at least RECOGNIZE the guy for who he is and what he did, and what EVERY HISTORIAN agrees is a primary cause of their way of life being destroyed.

 

I would think that the people who started this movement would be concerned about the Bills. but it's not even registerted.

and thanks for showing me to be prophetic.

I said that whenever this question is asked, you guys with all your historic references and anecdotal evidence act as if it's a ridiculous question.

 

I don't call any of those tribes because i don't care.

My question is why YOU don't care.

And by YOU, i mean all of the groups who are trying to get the redskins, Indians and Chiefs changed, and all native imgery removed from sports.

 

What i hear is because Buffalo Bill is not actually ON the helmet, then it's not offensive to continually honor the man most responsible for the decimation of the buffalo herds that every historia says ended the native way of life.

(Oh,, or as you put it.. "buffalo hunter and marksman" \

Could you whitewash it any more?

His place in history is not in dispute.. he was given the congressional medal of honor for his service. Service that was to scout out the enemy, and to kill massive amounts of buffalo. They gave him the Medal of Honor for doing the exact thing all historians agree destroyed the native way of life, and to you he's a 'buffalo hunter and marksman"...  and you need a museum dedicated to making him look like a hero to confirm it for you.

 

Oh, and a "showman", even though what he did was take the people he had defeated and shoved onto reservations by starving them and dcepriving them of their sustenance and shelter, nd exploited them. 

this is also not in question.

i wonder,,, if given the choice,, would those natives that he took on his wild weest show and made them recreate the things they did BEFORE he came and destroyed their lives,, or would he rather he had just not come in the first place?

 

This is what "drives me nuts" about the lack of any Bills discussion. Approach it honestly.

 

~Bang

 

I don't have an answer for this Bang, I have no idea why those natives aren't offended or upset with the buffalo team. I tried offering suggestions (imagery, racial slur, etc) but that's not good enough. 

 

But if you truly believe that natives should be offended with the Buffalo team then that's your opinion and I'll respect that. 

[Larry]

And the native opposition is real but you choose to ignore it.

I'm going to pretend that your completely untrue claim about me is due to your massive ignorance, and not simply monstrous dishonesty. 

 

The native opposition and lack of offense are both real.

See, unlike you, I recognize both groups of Natives.  (And have done so, numerous times, in this thread.  Including multiple times, just in the last few days.) 

Well that's how your post came off to me. It sounded like you wanted hard data before each and every tribe denounced the name.

Or perhaps he's simply pointing out that when you claim that a tribe feels a certain way, that it certainly appears that no one has actually asked the tribe. (Well, no one that you aren't trying desperately to ignore.)

 

[Boss_Hogg]

And they asked all of them.

You know? A random selection of all Natives in the lower 48.

You want a poll that breaks down results by individual tribe? Pay for it.

But no, making up whatever result you want, and ignoring every single random poll, well, it ain't gonna convince me.

 

(I'll also point out that there is exactly one possible motive, for wanting the data broken down by tribe:  So that the person doing the asking can cherry pick which groups voted the way he wanted them to vote.) 

 

 Because

 

1)  You say so. 

 

2)  . . . . ? 

 

Again, only if your definition of "problematic" is "didn't get the results I want".  

 

 

 

And? 

 

I know this may be a difficult concept to grasp, but there actually is actual mathematics that tells us that if you sample a certain number of people, from a larger population, then the result you get will be accurate within a certain number. 

 

The Annenberg poll is mathematically accurate to within +/- 2%. 

 

You may not like that fact, but it is, in fact, a fact. 

 

The margin of error for the NM poll was plus or minus 4.1%

 

 

Guess you didn't read your own link: 

 

 (BTW, Here's the link to the actual poll, rather than somebody trying to spin the poll.  I'm sure it's a coincidence that you picked the link that doesn't have the actual poll, but has the headline that's slanted in your direction more.) 

 

Albuquerque Journal:  New Mexicans say Washington should stick with Redskins

 

Which also contains this interesting little tidbit: 

 

 

Although obviously that paragraph does not claim that said polls polled Natives. 

You got any reason why you suddenly want to claim that asking people about the Redskins name, after they've answered questions about who they're voting for, is some kind of problem? Other than "because I'm searching for some reason to ignore a national poll, other than conducting a national poll, which I don't want to do (for some reason)"?

 

I still don't understand how you can compare a presidential poll question with a question about our team name. 

 

Nor do I understand why we're taking the NM poll and Ammemberg poll as gospel when there have been legitimate questions raised.

 

Nor do I understand why we're dismissing the native tribes, associations, and peoples who have spoke out against our name. 

 

But that's just me. 

[Dan T.]

Another point about the oft-cited Annenberg poll is that it is now over 10 years old.  In this day and age, attitudes can change dramatically in the course of a decade.

[Larry]

I still don't understand how you can compare a presidential poll question with a question about our team name.

I haven't.

 

Nor do I understand why we're taking the NM poll and Ammemberg poll as gospel when there have been legitimate questions raised.

 

 

There haven't been. 

 

The name change supporter who conducted the poll, says that the poll is accurate. 

 

(Your response?  Ignore this fact, and claim he said the exact opposite of what he actually said.) 

 

Nor do I understand why we're dismissing the native tribes, associations, and peoples who have spoke out against our name. 

 

 

I have not done so.  I have, in fact, done the exact opposite. 

 

I have, however, chosen to give more weight to the people who aren't offended by the name due to the fact that they outnumber the complainers by 10 to 1. 

 

The fact that this particular Native happens to agree with the 90% helps, too. 

[Burgold]

Another point about the oft-cited Annenberg poll is that it is now over 10 years old.  In this day and age, attitudes can change dramatically in the course of a decade.

I think that's a really valid and important point. Frankly, I would love to see another poll conducted and hopefully an even more comprehensive one. I've been baffled for quite a while why there hasn't been one.

 

It seems to me that the media would have conducted one even if none of the Native American groups have (or have declined to publish their findings)

[Larry]

Another point about the oft-cited Annenberg poll is that it is now over 10 years old.  In this day and age, attitudes can change dramatically in the course of a decade.

 

Agreed.  Frankly, I'd be stunned if the "percent offended" hasn't changed. 

 

If nothing else, the media has been announcing the name-changer's "facts" relentlessly, for several years now.  (Despite the fact that they aren't true.)  And the media absolutely has the power to change people's minds, in large numbers.  If it couldn't, people wouldn't pay for advertising. 

 

Me, I figure I'd be really surprised if the "percent offended" hasn't at least doubled, since Annenberg. 

 

(Although, I will point out.  There have been more recent polls, although they were also smaller.  And all of them have produced results that are at least similar to Annenberg.) 

 

----------

 

But, just like all of the other excuses that the name changers like to pretend mean we should just ignore all polling, and take their word for it that they speak for all Natives, that's what that is:  an attempted excuse to ignore. 

 

The age of the poll is a valid reason why the data may have changed. 

 

It's not a valid reason why we should just ignore it and believe whatever we want.

[Bang]

Well that's how your post came off to me. It sounded like you wanted hard data before each and every tribe denounced the name.

 

I like you Burg, I like your posts and I respect your contributions to the board. But I believe this board has an "ignore" function and if you choose to use it, I won't be offended. 

 

 

 

I don't have an answer for this Bang, I have no idea why those natives aren't offended or upset with the buffalo team. I tried offering suggestions (imagery, racial slur, etc) but that's not good enough. 

 

But if you truly believe that natives should be offended with the Buffalo team then that's your opinion and I'll respect that. 

 

 

Thanks. I sincerely appreciate that.

i do believe it's valid, especially given the criteria.

 

~Bang

[Larry]

I think that's a really valid and important point. Frankly, I would love to see another poll conducted and hopefully an even more comprehensive one. I've been baffled for quite a while why there hasn't been one.

We already know why the main parties haven't run another one.

Snyder has no motive to run another one. Right now, if you stack up the polls on Dan's side, ve the Name Changers, Dan's winning by at least 1 to 0.  (And maybe 3 or 4 to 0, depending on whether you count the lesser polls.) 

The team that won the Super Bowl has no motive to have a rematch.

And the Name Changers haven't run one (or have run them, but have hidden the results), because the results have shown (or, the Name Changers think they will show) that they don't speak for the Natives.

 

Neither party has any motive to run another one. 

 

 

It seems to me that the media would have conducted one even if none of the Native American groups have (or have declined to publish their findings)

 

 

Now that, to me, I chalk up to the absolutely abysmal state of journalism in this country. 

 

Journalism isn't about reporting facts, any more.  It's about taking an issue, pretending that it has exactly two sides, getting one or two colorful sentences from an icon for each side, printing both side's sound bites (while intentionally not pointing out that one of both of them are flat out untrue). 

 

Frankly, journalism in the US doesn't want to settle this issue.  There's no profit in settling an issue. 

 

If journalists were like the ones I imagine they used to be, CBS News or the NYT or ESPN would have hired Gallup, and published the results.