• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Redskins Name Change Thread

That poll is laughable (not the methodology...the actual poll). The question was something like "do American Indians have the right to be offended by..." Give me a break. The fact that it was only %59 is the shocking part. Anyone has the right to be offended about anything. That poll was commissioned by the group that is driving (and profiting off of) this movement. They worded that poll to get a desired response. Again, the surprising thing for me is they only got 59%.

People who don't like the results of polls question the methodology...that defense is as old as polls.

I am on my phone is I don't have access to the polls but from memory there have been 2 such polls. One taken about 10 years ago (during the opening of the American Indian museum in DC) that showed 90% of American Indians were not offended by American Indian imagery and another one taken about 5 years ago that showed 80% have no problem. I am fairly sure that both polls (I know the first one) mentioned the Redskins specifically.

Sure those polls are somewhat dated but I have never seen a poll that shows there is a significant number of American Indians are offended by any of this.

jags.gif
 
Again...not questioning the methodology. I firmly believe that at least 59% of the population thinks that American Indians have the right to be offended by Indian mascots. However, if you don't see the ridiculousness of that poll that you are either not paying attention or lying to yourself.
 
Again...not questioning the methodology. I firmly believe that at least 59% of the population thinks that American Indians have the right to be offended by Indian mascots. However, if you don't see the ridiculousness of that poll that you are either not paying attention or lying to yourself.

I just find it humorous that a critique of the methodology just means you aren't satisfied with the results, but a vague criticism of the poll itself is a perfectly valid position.
 
There is a big difference between "I don't believe the results of your poll" and "you asked a ridiculous question to get a desired result".

Do you honestly think a poll asking "do you think that Native American people have the right to feel offended" has any substance? Hell, I would think that most Americans believe that person has a right to feel offended by any damn thing he/she well pleases. If they were being honest they would have asked "are American Indian mascots offensive".

Here is a link to the poll

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b41b9bde-1b19-40f7-af86-0b585eb8df03

You can't tell me that this poll was a serious endeavor to learn about people's attitudes and thoughts. Again, this poll was commissioned by the Oneida Nation...the group that has BY FAR been the biggest winner of all the attention this issue has gained.
 
I mean, most surveys ask really stupid questions and people misrepresent the findings literally all of the time. Isn't that kind of the point? Outside of the one question (which isn't actually a methodological critique, IMO), what are your other critiques?
 
I am not questioning the methodology...I think I have said that several times. I have no reason to think that every one of the questions accurately represents peoples thoughts. My critique (if you call it that) is that the questions in the poll were constructed to get a desired outcome.

It would be the same thing if the Redskins relased a poll that said:

Given the rich history of the Washington Redskins and the deference they have paid to Native Americans while honoring their strong traditions, do you think the Washington Redskins should be forced to change their names?
 
Last edited:
It would be the same thing if the Redskins relased a poll that said:

Given the rich history of the Washington Redskins and the deference they have paid to Native Americans while honoring their strong traditions, do you think the Washington Redskins should be forced to change their names?

Isn't that essentially what Redskins's PR has been using to justify their position for the past decade?

Are there other questions that you disagree with or feel are leading, to a greater extent than most opinion or "attitudes" surveys?
 
Isn't that essentially what Redskins's PR has been using to justify their position for the past decade?

Are there other questions that you disagree with or feel are leading, to a greater extent than most opinion or "attitudes" surveys?

Yes

Not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about this poll? If so, yes...I think 3, 4, 5, 10 (to a lesser extent) and 11 were all asked in a leading way. That is nothing new in surveys. There are two types of polls IMO. Ones that try to uncover a truth and ones that are constructed to produce a desired outcome. This one is about as "desired outcome" as it gets.
 
Yes

Not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about this poll? If so, yes...I think 3, 4, 5, 10 (to a lesser extent) and 11 were all asked in a leading way. That is nothing new in surveys. There are two types of polls IMO. Ones that try to uncover a truth and ones that are constructed to produce a desired outcome. This one is about as "desired outcome" as it gets.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Here are the questions, for those interested:

#3: Forgetting for the moment about the football team, and just thinking about the word itself ... if someone referred to a Native American person as a "redskin," do you think that Native American person would have the right to feel offended?

#4: The former CEO of the Oakland Raiders has said it would be unacceptable if the name "Redskins" were instead any other negative term used against other races. Do you agree with this statement? Disagree? Or have no opinion?

#5: The word "redskin" is listed as offensive in dictionaries, and considered a racial slur by many Native Americans. Does this make you more likely to say the team should change its name? Less likely? Or make no difference either way?

#10: If Snyder does attend the meeting, would it be appropriate? Or inappropriate? For him to use the term "redskins" when talking NOT about the football team, but when talking about Native Americans themselves?

#11: Recently, both Democratic and Republican elected officials, including President Obama, have been supportive of the idea of changing the team's name. Aditionally, a psychologist has concluded the name has a negative impact on the self-image of Native American children. If the team DID decide to change its name ... would you be comfortable? Or uncomfortable? With their decision to make the change?
 
That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Here are the questions, for those interested:

#3: Forgetting for the moment about the football team, and just thinking about the word itself ... if someone referred to a Native American person as a "redskin," do you think that Native American person would have the right to feel offended?

#4: The former CEO of the Oakland Raiders has said it would be unacceptable if the name "Redskins" were instead any other negative term used against other races. Do you agree with this statement? Disagree? Or have no opinion?

#5: The word "redskin" is listed as offensive in dictionaries, and considered a racial slur by many Native Americans. Does this make you more likely to say the team should change its name? Less likely? Or make no difference either way?

#10: If Snyder does attend the meeting, would it be appropriate? Or inappropriate? For him to use the term "redskins" when talking NOT about the football team, but when talking about Native Americans themselves?

#11: Recently, both Democratic and Republican elected officials, including President Obama, have been supportive of the idea of changing the team's name. Aditionally, a psychologist has concluded the name has a negative impact on the self-image of Native American children. If the team DID decide to change its name ... would you be comfortable? Or uncomfortable? With their decision to make the change?

This "poll" is a joke. right?

#3 - Ignoring the context in which a word is used is simply ridiculous. Consider words such as Black or Jew, which have both been used in certain contexts in a highly derogatory fashion. Context is crucial and cannot be ignored, and that is what the question asks from the answerer. No wonder you will get a distorted answer.

# 4 - "any other negative term" assumes that Redskin in the context of the Washington professional football team is a negative term. It is not. It does not meet the requirements for being a dergogatory term, i.e. the necessary context and the derogatory intention of the user.

# 5 - Lots of words can be used in a derogatrory manner. Do the dictionaries being invoked point this out for the other words too, or only for Redskin and a few other words? If the dictionaries are faulty on the complete meaning of this word, then why should we pay attention to them? If they are not, then why do we read them selectively and apply meanings that are inappropriate in the context of usage and intention?

#10 - Once again context and intention are essential for understanding the meaning of words.

# 11 - Really? Politicians trying to grandstand for the ignorant who need pc to tell them what to think. Never heard of this before. Is there any subject for which some psychologists have not concluded whatever you could possibly imagine and it's opposite? (Oh really? You mean a real psychologist? I bet he had glasses, a white coat, a beard, and maybe a funny accent.) If your thinking is under the sway of such influences, you will indeed be easily confused and misled. I, and every other thinking person, ought to be uncomfortable whenever understanding the meaning of words based on their context and the intentions of the speaker, which is a basic civilized norm, is sacrificed on any altar of ignorance and misunderstanding, however widespread, including pc.
 
Last edited:
I would be curious to hear another argument for keeping the name besides: slippery slope, we don't want to, or just because.
 
Redskins Name Change Thread (Dan Snyder Letter On Page 5)

I would be curious to hear another argument for keeping the name besides: slippery slope, we don't want to, or just because.

That is like proving a negative. I think the burden should be on people that want the name changed. The main argument for changing the name is that the word is offensive. However, the evidence points to the fact that very few people (American Indiana or otherwise) find it offensive.
 
Last edited:
That is like proving a negative. I think the burden should be on people that want the name changed. The main argument for changing the name is that the word is offensive. However, the evidence points to the fact that very few people (American Indiana or otherwise) find it offensive.

I'm not sure it does. You seem to only want a poll that addresses general feelings about Indian mascot imagery rather than the specific term "redskins". There is not an equivalency.
 
I would be curious to hear another argument for keeping the name besides: slippery slope, we don't want to, or just because.

i suppose "there are bigger things to worry about than the nickname of a fucking professional football team" is covered under "just because"
 
i suppose "there are bigger things to worry about than the nickname of a fucking professional football team" is covered under "just because"

Yes. I could also add a new category of "people are unable to discuss anything until we have a cure for cancer."
 
I'm not sure it does. You seem to only want a poll that addresses general feelings about Indian mascot imagery rather than the specific term "redskins". There is not an equivalency.

I haven't seen a poll that addresses the specific term "redskins" since the SI poll 10 years ago.

As I said earlier, I think the main argument that defenders use ("few people find it offensive") is about to be null. With all the media attention this has gotten people will eventually be convinced that the word / name is offensive. That is why I would go ahead and change the name now.
 
He just doesn't want yo have to change his boards name

And my username on about damn near everything. Do you know what a pain in the ass that would be? I guess that is what I get for being a racist.
 
And my username on about damn near everything. Do you know what a pain in the ass that would be? I guess that is what I get for being a racist.

Better get started on that social security card before the next #obamashutdown.
 
Back
Top