9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name

[Malazan]

So because "9 out of 10" are not offended, we should keep offending the other 10% and continue using a derogatory racial slur? Got it

 

This is the most idiotic thing posted in here. This logic is insane. Where does it end? Someone is always offended by something.

 

Question the sample size, the accuracy, etc, but holy hand grenade, Can you imagine a world where if 10% of people are "offended" by something that we do away with it?

[Jauronimo]

No one on planet Earth- Native Americans or otherwise- thinks that the name 'Washington Redskins' is a greater problem in the Native American community than poverty and alcoholism. Like zero people.

Put up a picture of a college girl dressed like slutty Pocahontas and a pic of daily life on the Rez on Facebook and see which one draws more attention. "Cultural appropriation" or destitute poverty?

[dwight in philly]

I've been axing all the people in the projects why they still live there. If its so bad and bleak there, why not go live in the Hamptons where opportunity and success are just handed to you? Seems like common sense to me.

Edited May 20, 2016 by dwight in philly

[Malazan]

No one on planet Earth- Native Americans or otherwise- thinks that the name 'Washington Redskins' is a greater problem in the Native American community than poverty and alcoholism. Like zero people.

 

Given the amount of attention given to each issue, it certainly seems like the name of a football team is a much larger issue.

[DrDawkinstein]

 

Social Justice Warrior. Anyone who holds the shallow and childish view of being grievously offended, and loudly proclaims their offense, on behalf of a third party who they believe isn't aware of and needs to be taught how offended they should be by said offense.

 

For example: rich, white busy-bodies who act like Native Americans' biggest problem is "Washington Redskins," while ignoring the rampant alcoholism and grinding poverty that oppresses Native Americans.

 

Or: rich, white busy-bodies who act like changing a team mascot will rip all of their own memories and pride away. Seriously, come check out the beauties in Lancaster that are losing their **** over changing their school mascot. You'd think the school board was trying to burn their houses down.

 

It baffles me that white people feel so strongly about having to keep it.

 

Who cares if you are called the Legends from now on? At least its not insulting an entire group of people.

 

Given the amount of attention given to each issue, it certainly seems like the name of a football team is a much larger issue.

 

Because the media knows the NFL will get viewers (especially controversy in the NFL), while helping people improve their situation is boring and bad TV.

[metzelaars_lives]

 

Given the amount of attention given to each issue, it certainly seems like the name of a football team is a much larger issue.

What does the amount of media attention have anything to do with anything? It is a hot button topic, as evidenced by this thread. Was Casey Anthony killing her daughter the most "important" issue of whatever year that was? There is little to no correlation between how important an issue is and how much media attention it gets. Blame the media if you want.

Edited May 20, 2016 by metzelaars_lives

[BarleyNY]

The logo of Chief Wahoo is offensive for the Cleveland Indians . The Bill/Bills comment is just plain stupid so we'll just ignore that one.

They still use the logo, but when they built their current ballpark in 1994 they were careful to not put it on any permanent fixture anywhere in the park. Seems like they didn't think the logo and/or name were certain to outlive the park.

Edited May 20, 2016 by BarleyNY

[B-Man]

What does the amount of media attention have anything to do with anything? It is a hot button topic, as evidenced by this thread. Was Casey Anthony killing her daughter the most "important" issue of whatever year that was?

 

 

The poll clearly demonstrates that it is not..........................to the very people you "feel" it should be.

 

 

It is a media driven topic.

 

 

.

[Mr. WEO]

I've been axing all the people in the projects why they still live there. If its so bad and bleak there, why not go live in the Hamptons where opportunity and success are just handed to you? Seems like common sense to me.

 

Oh Jauronimo, I expected it wouldn't be you!

 

Anyway, the obvious difference is that American government and society have been pouring billions into the plight of urban poverty (with some positive results, but not much), and are now forcing affluent municipalities around the country (most famously Baltimore and North Texas suburbs so far) to provide low income housing and increasing rent vouchers, etc.

 

For the American Indians, the same government does really nothing other than perpetuate their misery in these poverty camps. But they will certainly stand with the indigenous people when it comes to derogatory nomenclature.

 

But my question, despite your quick dismissal is an obvious one and isn't mitigated by the plight of the urban poor. .

Edited May 20, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[Jauronimo]

 

Oh Jauronimo, I expected it wouldn't be you!

 

Anyway, the obvious difference is that American government and society have been pouring billions into the plight of urban poverty (with some positive results, but not much), and are now forcing affluent municipalities around the country (most famously Baltimore and North Texas suburbs so far) to provide low income housing and increasing rent vouchers, etc.

 

For the American Indians, the same government does really nothing other than perpetuate their misery in these poverty camps. But they will certainly stand with the indigenous people when it comes to derogatory nomenclature.

 

But my question, despite your quick dismissal is an obvious one and isn't mitigated by the plight of the urban poor. .

1. It was a joke.

2. As I'm sure you know, its not easy for many people, even people with the means and resources, to leave home. To rather glibly ask, why don't they leave, is an over simplification and begs for the response I gave you.

[Malazan]

 

Or: rich, white busy-bodies who act like changing a team mascot will rip all of their own memories and pride away. Seriously, come check out the beauties in Lancaster that are losing their **** over changing their school mascot. You'd think the school board was trying to burn their houses down.

 

It baffles me that white people feel so strongly about having to keep it.

 

Who cares if you are called the Legends from now on? At least its not insulting an entire group of people.

 

Because the media knows the NFL will get viewers (especially controversy in the NFL), while helping people improve their situation is boring and bad TV.

 

 

What does the amount of media attention have anything to do with anything? It is a hot button topic, as evidenced by this thread. Was Casey Anthony killing her daughter the most "important" issue of whatever year that was? There is little to no correlation between how important an issue is and how much media attention it gets. Blame the media if you want.

 

You assumed I was talking about the media which is very telling. I was talking about *you*. Your attention is focused on this issue.

[DrDawkinstein]

 

 

 

You assumed I was talking about the media which is very telling. I was talking about *you*. Your attention is focused on this issue.

 

Make a thread about the other stuff and I'll join in on that one too. Neither Metz nor I started this thread or discussion, just contributed to it in the (obviously) boring dregs of the offseason.

[jr1]

[Beef Jerky]

SJW= Social Justice Warrior. SJWs are generally crazy people that believe some really crazy ****.

 

These are people that think air conditioning is sexist:

 

 

 

Apparently it's sexist to ban all single gender clubs, and not exclude women from that rule:

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/09/harvard-women-rally-against-single-gender-policy/h8AqIk3ub40v2cnLap4gFP/story.html

 

 

There are many, many more examples but the general rule is that SJWs wish the oppressed to become the opressors.

So the next time a woman has a hot flash and turns the air on I can tell them to stop being sexist?

[Mr. WEO]

1. It was a joke.

2. As I'm sure you know, its not easy for many people, even people with the means and resources, to leave home. To rather glibly ask, why don't they leave, is an over simplification and begs for the response I gave you.

 

It wasn't meant to be glib. I have always wondered this. It is really not like the urban situation at all. Most if not all of those people would rather move up and on. The situation seems to be the opposite for the reservations.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Doesn't understand the vast importance of changing an NFL team's name.

 

 

 

 

.

[NY Nole]

So because "9 out of 10" are not offended, we should keep offending the other 10% and continue using a derogatory racial slur? Got it

You offend me. So I think you should stop posting on this board all together. Then I can implement the same philosophy to anyone else that I deem to be offensive and soon I will be the only one allowed to post. If you are offended, don't buy a Redskins branded product, turn the channel or find another outlet that brings tranquility to your daily life. It is the beauty of living in this country.

[JP's Voice]

You offend me. So I think you should stop posting on this board all together. Then I can implement the same philosophy to anyone else that I deem to be offensive and soon I will be the only one allowed to post. If you are offended, don't buy a Redskins branded product, turn the channel or find another outlet that brings tranquility to your daily life. It is the beauty of living in this country.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what you say. It just seems that by saying 9/10 are okay with it justifies the use of a term that is offensive to many people (well if only 90% of this population is offended by the name then I guess I'll have to cut my losses with the other 10%). I know that nobody has to support the team if they're offended by it. However, just because saying 9/10 people are okay with it doesn't really make the behavior right or appropriate (using the racial slur redskin). I expect more from the powerful in this situation (a professional football team) than the random fan. I would expect the team to be a leader in trying to end the bias, rather than just plugging along because 10% are offended. My logic and my opinion has nothing to do with what the behavior should be of the club. But then again they are a business trying to make money...

[....lybob]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143

[B-Man]

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/06/04/67-percent-native-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143

 

Your 2014 article purports to debunk the "famous" 1994 poll.

 

and (ironically) uses all of the partisan tactics that you so often assign to any conservative articles. Did you read about the articles source ?

 

. James Fenelon, Lakota/Dakota from Standing Rock, a sociology professor at California State University, San Bernardino, compiled his own data

 

The new WAPO poll certainly has as much credence as the one in your reply.