Exactly!
But, fair warning. I'm quite well versed in research design.
I guess so, according to Harry Reid, the good and fine people at ESPN and many liberal know nothings. lol
We know for a fact he is a Backstabber.
Thank you
and the majority of them find the name offensive, then change it. It's their opinion that should count, not affluent white liberals. I'm not convinced a majority of them have a problem with it. The Seminole Tribe embraces the Florida St name and logo, for example.
The university attended, also used a Tribe as their teams name and logo. They have pride in their tribe, but that's different from being called by a name one feels is demeaning.
While there exists some racist americans, it is rare that I find anyone who is truly racist and offensive.
If people think Americans are racists they haven't been to other countries enough lo
I don't care what poll is taken, the term is offensive to the Native American community. I'm sure if there were poll taken in the south during Jim Crow Days, they would have found overwhelming support for their current actions. It's bullshit...period.
They call themselves "The Redskins".
People have been telling me for several years now that I should be offended at the use of the word "Oriental" Sorry, but I've got better things to do than be pissed off all the time over some perceived slight
But, I got kind of curious about how Native Americans felt about the term, after you quoted your statistics. I had realized that, other than those who I know personally, who find it a pejorative term, I had no idea the percent of them felt that way. Seems like, from the article I've attached, about the same amount as those Americans who feel it's not.
I believe if a portion of our citizenry feel a term used is pejorative toward them, then I'd rather not use it, and I can't see why a team would continue to use it. If a team used an equivalent term for whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, would we tolerate that? I know it's hard to give up traditions, but it's also deeply ingrained, since childhood, as our boys play cowboys and Indians, who the good guys are. I see no need for a professional team to stay rooted in that past mythology.
They asked whether it was racist OR racial. Those two words mean vastly different things. I would have to answer with the majority on that specific question.
Of course the term has "racial" implications. But no one I know of uses it or thinks of racism when someone mentions the term.
Furthermore, there was a study in 2004 by Pew research that showed 89% of native Americans were not offended by the term and that the Redskins should keep their nickname.
I'd say many of the people I know, who are non-white, equate racial with racist, even though they have different definitions. A racial term is often experienced, when said by someone from a differing racial group, as being demeaning and pejorative.
Plus, the study you mentioned is 10 years old, and you haven't post how they posed the questions.
I find it interesting, given all the discussion about the reason for the name change, there are so few recent and substantive studies on the subject.
If the name really is racist, it would be racist in 2004 too, right? Especially with Native Americans I would think.
The interesting thing about the ESPN poll is that they did NOT, as far as I can tell, break it down for Natives only, which is odd. Now ESPN has been on the "change the Redskins name" bandwagon so it makes them look bad here.
But your question re: the method of how the question was asked is valid. I do think the better question would have been, in the poll you cite, was to ask if it was "racist" and leave the word "racial" out of it. But I fear the pollster was trying to get the result they wanted.
Numerous schools around the country, as Rick Reilly pointed out in Sports Illustrated, have kept the Redskin name that were made up of half or greater Native American kids. They are proud of the name Matt.
Squishy white liberals shouldn't be the ones determining what is and what is not offensive to another race. The native Americans are more than capable of determining that for themselves.
Things can change a lot in 10 years. What was the acceptance of gays and lesbians, and their rights to equality under the law changed in 10 years? How many gay pride parades were there 10 years ago vs. today. Does this reflect upon how they view themselves now, or how they accept the terms used to address their sexual orientation. Do they now feel safer to express themselves and what they believe; what they find offensive when being addressed. Perhaps it's time to name a professional team by a gay/lesbian term. Let's rename to 'Golden State Warriors' to the Flamboyant State Warriors! 
Plus, you still haven't addressed the issue of how the question was asked, and to whom and by whom, in the study you have referred to. Do you think there might be a difference in response, by the Native American, based on if the questioner was white or Native American. Again, we can point to anecdotal evidence to argue both sides of the issue, and we only have two conflicting studies; both having their limitations, to draw on. I'm only saying I wish there was more solid evidence that one side or the other could be using to support their case.
P.S. As a volunteer with Big Brothers, I was with the young and adolescent boys of a tribe close to my university campus. If I had addressed any one of them as Redskin, I'd probably had been knifed. Meaning, they didn't like the term. That was many, many moons ago; perhaps things have changed.
by the term, and in large numbers, you think liberals and the media should drop this crusade for a name change, right?
Exactly!
But, fair warning. I'm quite well versed in research design.
It was an Annenberg poll, not Pew, and it was 90% of natives that said they were not offended by the term Redskins.
Not too many take exception to the term "Redskins" especially when it comes to sports team names.
My late business partner, a Goldwater Conservative and full blooded tribal member, jokingly referred to himself as the Redneck Redskin.
But the one that boiled his blood, and apparently many others, is the term Amerind, or American Indian.
My partner always insisted on being called a Native American, or better yet, a son of the Cahuilla tribe.
If he were still alive, he would have called all this a "Liberal Kerfuffle"
...of Frostbite Falls, MN. Legend has it that the nickname was a tribute to Moishe Pipik who opened the first deli in Frostbite Falls. His chicken soup was said to have saved the townspeople from freezing during the Great Blizzard of 1923. Hokey smoke, Doc, he was quite a guy!
...had to get in the Wayback Machine to find that, didn't you? Do you realize how dumb that makes you look?
"A recent study by the California State University, San Bernardino reports 67% of Native Americans find the Washington Redskins name and imagery racist."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/native-americans-offended-by-racial-slur#4bol615
The article also goes on to say about YOUR poll:
"An oft-cited 2004 survey had claimed only 9% of Native Americans found the name Redskins offensive, but the methodology has been criticized. Tribal status was not verified and Alaska, which has a significant Native population was excluded." Yeah, we know why it was 'oft-cited' don't we Jack? Many righties like you are still citing it TEN YEARS LATER because it achieved the results you wanted, not necessarily the truth.
If there was a poll taken with only asking white people if blacks should be called niggers, starting from the birth of the usa to the 1980s and I bet you would have a high percent of people saying it was okay to call black people niggers. Hell even President Lyndon B. Johnson would call black people niggers, to his credit he change over the years, and he bullied 2 civil rights bills through congress. Does it really matter if Washington changes their name and my answer is no because that is not what the lawsuit it about. I think people are forgetting or don't know that this is a trademark/copyright lawsuit not about forcing them to change their name, but about whether Washignton should have trademark/copyright protection of the name Redskins and the logo. If you look at history, then the answer is clear that the term Redskins is a slur simliar to nigger/nigga and thus is not allowed to be trademark/copyrighted. What gets me it seems to me that epsn is focusing on the Redskins as a slur about a person's skin color and not the real troubling aspect of it of killing native americans for money. I have not seen one interview where they bring of that fact that just because something is not allowed by trademark/copyright that you can still not make money off it. Look at all the rappers and music exercutives out there that make money off of the word nigger/nigga, which cannot be trademark or copyrighted.
I find it funny that the owner of Wahsington is going around saying the team name honour native americans when you have people dressing up as "Redskins" in the stands. Someone needs to show this guy a picture of that and ask how is this honouring native americans. Do I think the owner should change the name of the team, my answer is no because he stated time and time again that he would not change the name. However, I think he should loose the trademark/copyright of the name and we really see how in favor of the name he is when he can not make as much money from it.
I think espn coverage of the issue a couple of years ago was way better than what they are putting out today. Seeing an old native american almost break down and cry at a braves game during the tomhawk chop, maybe feel like I wanted to chock Ted Turner.