In other words, no. You cannot find ONE, just ONE scientific poll of bona-fide members of indian nations that come remotely close to the numbers you continue to post as if there were.
Redskins name controvesy
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 304
- Views 34K
Yes I can but you're just going to continue being an ass, and find something to nitpick just like with the 2004 poll because everyone isn't full blood or they don't live on tribal lands or they don't go to every tribal meeting or it's not scientific enough etc etc etc. So where is your poll, there isn't one that supports the minority point of view and they don't want one taken because it shows their true colors and schemes just to get some press. So I am done with this before I say something that will really offend
Before the Braves moved here, we had the Atlanta Crackers. No one hollered about that name. Vancouver has the Kanucks, no protesting there. several Redskins teams on Indian reservations. This is nothing more than a vocal group trying to make a name for themselves. The same group complains about FSU even though the Seminole tribe supports the school.
Again, please read what I post and please do not add your own words to mine. I said these people SELF-IDENTIFIED as having native American ancestry. IOW, these are people who, most likely, NEVER had any contact with any of the indian nations other than hearing that someone in their ancestry was whatever percentage native American. Do you see the difference here? There is a rather distinct one.
Second, I never said the poll had to be of 100% full-blooded American Indians. I said the poll had to be of bona-fide members of indian nations. There is also a gargantuan difference there.
I don't take offense in that you are calling me an ass. It is the general response by those who do not have the facts to back up a claim that has been put into question. You will not find any such poll because there isn't one with the results you claim.. at least I have yet to find one. If you do, I will be happy to eat crow (the bird, not the Indian nation) and shut up.
Of all recent polls of all flavors, the highest number is in the mid 80s against taking any action. The average of polls is in the 60s. The lowest percentage of people who find the name offensive (or say the see how some could find it offensive) in these more recent polls is in the very high teens while to highest is in the low 40s.
----
Was the Crackers logo a caricature of a stereotypical white bigot? Were there characterized chants and cheers based on religious christian hymns? Is the team name in existence today? No? Then this is another example of a false equivalence.
As to the reams on indian reservations with the name: 1) How many native americans are involved with the Washington franchise as permanent employees, players, manages, etc? I can save you a lot of time. The number starts with Z.
2) Is it okay for a black man to call another black man by the N word in specific circumstances? Is it ever okay for a member of another race to do the same under any circumstances? There's your answer.
As to team names bearing the names of tribes, and others such as chiefs, braves, warriors, etc, please reread the very first post in this thread for your answer.
Wow.
Your pretty smart Tony. You only answer the questions that you think you know the answer with your opinion on most.
How does it feel thinking you are the smartest in the room??
I wonder though.
Have you ever watched The Big Bang Theory???
Your pretty smart Tony. You only answer the questions that you think you know the answer with your opinion on most.
How does it feel thinking you are the smartest in the room??
I wonder though.
Have you ever watched The Big Bang Theory???
Now that the Ole Miss "Rebels" are in the college football polls at #3,it is time to discuss how the name "Rebel" is hurtful & offensive to portions of our society(UNLV can change their name to the "Lucky Dice"
). I suggest they they change their name to the more politically correct "Freedom Riders." Political Correctness today=North Korea tomorrow.
). I suggest they they change their name to the more politically correct "Freedom Riders." Political Correctness today=North Korea tomorrow.
Nope, but then again the Redskins logo isn't a caricature, but a well drawn representation. The Cleveland Indians (Chief Wahoo) not so.
And if the Crackers were arund today, would make no difference, as the people here loved the team now, and still fondly remember them.
Everything you say is your own opinion which is very hypocritical as you keep asking everyone for firm proof when you yourself offer none.
We've offered example of schools that have 100% native american enrollment using the Redskins mascot, yet you offer nothing, except possibly a very vocal tribe in NY that is against all Indian mascots (Seminoles, Braves, Utes, etc...)
I guess it's a lost cause. Not that people see the redskin issue for what it is, but that those that automatically reject the proposition as a reflex would actually READ what I say without injecting their own thoughts to mine building straw men to then tackle in response.
It is one thing to say "I think you're wrong". That's fine. That is opinion. It is another to say "90% or 95% of people agree with me." That is a statement of fact. I was challenging the statement of fact. I still am.
I frankly don't care what name Snyder uses or why they called them the Redskins to begin with. You have your opinion and I have mine. Both of us can find people, studies, and polls that will agree with the way we think on this and almost any other issue. It doesn't bother me in the least of what someone else thinks or the opinion they hold. Here is this great nation, that is allowed. Well, still somewhat. Here are a couple of issues and please understand I am not saying this is how you feel or what you mean.
Just because people have no problem with the team name does NOT MEAN they are racist. To often, that is how things are framed with disagreement on an issue such as this, affirmative action, the punishment of Gurley, Winston, or the case of Treyvon Martin or Michael Brown. This is the card the left uses time and time again on issues such as these. Second, and to me just as important is, the name of the Washington football team has NO IMPACT on the lives of those who claim to be offended. It doesn't impact their job, their marriage, the way they live life and so forth. How sad it would be to go through life allowing something like that to impact ones life and their happiness. If that is truly the case, it is ON THEM and THEM ALONE. For govt. agencies to claim the name Redskins has such an impact that they will do away with copyright's or ban that name on TV is so ridiculous it boggles my mind. If people want the name changed, convince enough people to agree with your premise. But by claiming people racist, that they are so offended by that name, or use the govt. for such a meaningless matter will not be successful and in fact will cause the other side to fight even stronger to keep the name.
Your superior intellect and advanced processing skills obviously do not allow you to communicate with weaker minds such as ours that populate these forums. How about explaining your position in reasonable terms that a normal average Joe can understand? Without Throwing a hissy fit about people not capable of reading or comprehending your highly intellectual posts. We realize that you have convinced yourself that you are the arbiter of what is fact or fiction despite what others who have weaker mental may think. Only can decide what is racist and only you can decide what offends. There is no need to defend your decision because the rest of us are just plain dumb. Perhaps its time you came out of you ivory tower and considered both sides of an issue and maybe realize that only 10% of the American population even care about the Redskin name contreversy
stmcld
I appreciate the thought it took to to compose your response. It is well considered and I appreciate your position. I have one question, though. Pick a racial or ethnic slur (as I posted previously), perhaps a disparaging aphorism that refers to an ethnic identity you may identify with and insert it in the place of the term Redskins in your post above. Do you still stand by it? If yes, great. No need to respond further. If not, why not?
And before someone else brings it up the equivalent terms is "Fighting Mics" not the Irish.
I appreciate the thought it took to to compose your response. It is well considered and I appreciate your position. I have one question, though. Pick a racial or ethnic slur (as I posted previously), perhaps a disparaging aphorism that refers to an ethnic identity you may identify with and insert it in the place of the term Redskins in your post above. Do you still stand by it? If yes, great. No need to respond further. If not, why not?
And before someone else brings it up the equivalent terms is "Fighting Mics" not the Irish.
Last edited:
Look Juan, I don't know why you want to cop an attitude. I have never held myself superior to anyone. I have never called anyone stupid, or moronic in this thread because it is an opinion. The superiority complex is inferred, not implied. I at no point hold myself above those with differing considered opinions. However, if the opinion posted by others leaves me with a question, I will ask it, just like others here have. If others ask serious questions of my opinion, I will answer them to the best of my ability.
The issue, Juan, is that I posted specific words in a specific order which mean a specific thing. The responses to those posts were taking issue with things I DID NOT SAY. They were taking issue with things others THOUGHT I typed, then built an argument on the straw man they constructed from the either intentional or unintentional misreading of my original comment. And if you would have read one of my responses I did, is as plain an English as possible, answer the question after referring people to my previous posts. From the first post in this thread I have typed out in as plain as English as is possible for me what my opinion on the subject might be. So, either you did not read the thread before responding, or, if you will pardon the break in protocol, you are trolling me with this last post. If so, congratulations. You succeeded in getting a rise out of me. If not, I apologize and I hope this response answers your concerns.
Look everyone, this issue is not about ME. There is no need to attack me. Attack my position on this topic! I welcome that. It challenges me to support my own opinion. I hope others see that in none of my posts have I made aspersions to anyone else state of mind, education, or upbringing. I merely ask the people questions to have them clear up some of their positions or to challenge them to think of their position in a different way as in my previous post. If you feel the only way to attack a person's message is to attack the person to shut them up, or to call them an ass because they asked you to provide proof of a statement of fact rather than opinion, then your conviction of your own opinion must be weak, or at the very least, reactive or not well thought through. That is not the fault of the person with a differing opinion.
The issue, Juan, is that I posted specific words in a specific order which mean a specific thing. The responses to those posts were taking issue with things I DID NOT SAY. They were taking issue with things others THOUGHT I typed, then built an argument on the straw man they constructed from the either intentional or unintentional misreading of my original comment. And if you would have read one of my responses I did, is as plain an English as possible, answer the question after referring people to my previous posts. From the first post in this thread I have typed out in as plain as English as is possible for me what my opinion on the subject might be. So, either you did not read the thread before responding, or, if you will pardon the break in protocol, you are trolling me with this last post. If so, congratulations. You succeeded in getting a rise out of me. If not, I apologize and I hope this response answers your concerns.
Look everyone, this issue is not about ME. There is no need to attack me. Attack my position on this topic! I welcome that. It challenges me to support my own opinion. I hope others see that in none of my posts have I made aspersions to anyone else state of mind, education, or upbringing. I merely ask the people questions to have them clear up some of their positions or to challenge them to think of their position in a different way as in my previous post. If you feel the only way to attack a person's message is to attack the person to shut them up, or to call them an ass because they asked you to provide proof of a statement of fact rather than opinion, then your conviction of your own opinion must be weak, or at the very least, reactive or not well thought through. That is not the fault of the person with a differing opinion.
Says who? You and a very vocal minorities of Indians?
Guess what, some Indians feel the same way about the term Indian, or Warriors, or even Braves.
While many more don't make the same leap of judgement that you're now stating as fact.
If it is such a bad term, then why are there Navajo Reservation High Schools with the Redskins mascot?
The reason you are attacked, or feel so, is because people are asking you to put up the same burden of "proof" you keep demanding from others, yet refuse to give. Instead you present your opinions as settled fact, not giving others the same curtisy to present their own opinions, which everything you have posted (opinion not fact).
