Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name......
Across every demographic group, the vast majority of Native Americans say the team’s name does not offend them, including 80 percent who identify as politically liberal, 85 percent of college graduates, 90 percent of those enrolled in a tribe, 90 percent of non-football fans and 91 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 39. |
Guess I should be 0.25 X 0.10 = 0.0250 offended. The whole thing is silly.
I remember when Stanford University dropped the Stanford Indians name in favor of the Stanford Cardinal (but their logo is a Sequia Tree). I never understood that one.
If you want to talk offensive, remember the Cleveland Indians "Chief Knock-A-Homa. Even that - that was just plain stupid.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
Do you need a survey to answer what is 2 + 2? There is a difference in scientific fact and what a population of humans think.
Regardless is 10% not worthy of consideration? What percentage do you require?
And bringing in global warming into the discussion does nothing for it. It's just another thing you'd bring into the discussion to derail it. As if it is on any rails at the moment.
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
Do you need a survey to answer what is 2 + 2? There is a difference in scientific fact and what a population of humans think.
Regardless is 10% not worthy of consideration? What percentage do you require?
And bringing in global warming into the discussion does nothing for it. It's just another thing you'd bring into the discussion to derail it. As if it is on any rails at the moment.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
What fucking idiocy. Can someone link how you block people here please?
HideAPoster Extension - ( New Window )
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
He's either a liar or a deluded fool. Ignore him and he'll fade away (I know, it's difficult).
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
I'm doing a poll. How many hours per day do you spend listening to RW talk radio?
He's either a liar or a deluded fool. Ignore him and he'll fade away (I know, it's difficult).
Smarten up, pal. This fool like facts.
But you care to know how many hours I spend listening to RW talk radio. That's just you.
He's George Zimmerman's personal cheerleader. I think it's pretty obvious how much he listens to RW radio.
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
how listening to Rush, etc 8 hours a day impacts the average moron
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
Must have a bustling career to be able to keep coming back to these threads and troll away.
Exactly.
Can be said about a lot of things/people in society.
Quote:
In comment 12964269 BMac said:
Quote:
In comment 12964224 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
Many of the people who "take comfort" in the fact that the WAPO poll sample size is "only" 504 Native Americans will however believe and re-cite the phony "97% of all climate scientists believe global temperatures are rising and humans are the cause."
An online, two question survey of selected scientists with 79 respondents.
That number is based, in large part, on the available peer-reviewed studies among climate scientists, not on any single survey.
It is not. With all respect, you just believe what you are endlessly spoon-fed. We first started hearing this 97% nonsense after the "poll" referenced below. This passage is from a WSJ article 5/27/14.
"Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Here's the link to the entire article:
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/
The below link is to a laundry list of pieces debunking this myth. Link - ( New Window )
I have a lot of issues with the politics of climate change, but even so, you have to see that there is a difference between a polls people answering a science question based on their expertise, as opposed to a poll of people answering on the basis of their emotions.
I agree with you. Emotions ought not play into it.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
how listening to Rush, etc 8 hours a day impacts the average moron
The two most obvious things come to mind:
1 - Liberals will invariably need to bring up Rush or Fox News, etc. Never fails. People like me are incapable of original thought or doing anything but regurgitating Rush.
2 - The personal attacks and name-calling are a given too.
I'm not sure about original thought but those programs reinforce existing biases and prejudices. They make a fortune preaching to choir.
Those calculations have some wonderful assumptions hidden in them; namely, that the underlying population follows some pretty restrictive assumptions (asymptotically normal, stable variance, independence, etc.). It also requires an a priori knowledge of the standard deviation of the population in response to the question. How can you figure out the mean of the answer before the question has been posed?
It's pretty bad; in fact, do you know where the underlying calculation of it came from?
Another fun fact; if you put in a different standard deviation, you can get an adequate sample size of 7! Who needs 504; we only need 7.
It's a bad calculation, and bad statistics.
Since a lot of people won't do it, here is the basis for the calculation.
Quote:
The estimator of a proportion is \hat p = X/n, where X is the number of 'positive' observations (e.g. the number of people out of the n sampled people who are at least 65 years old). When the observations are independent, this estimator has a (scaled) binomial distribution (and is also the sample mean of data from a Bernoulli distribution). The maximum variance of this distribution is 0.25/n, which occurs when the true parameter is p = 0.5. In practice, since p is unknown, the maximum variance is often used for sample size assessments.
For sufficiently large n, the distribution of \hat{p} will be closely approximated by a normal distribution.[1] Using this approximation, it can be shown that around 95% of this distribution's probability lies within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Using the Wald method for the binomial distribution, an interval of the form
(\hat p -2\sqrt{0.25/n}, \hat p +2\sqrt{0.25/n})
will form a 95% confidence interval for the true proportion. If this interval needs to be no more than W units wide, the equation
4\sqrt{0.25/n} = W
can be solved for n, yielding[2][3] n = 4/W2 = 1/B2 where B is the error bound on the estimate, i.e., the estimate is usually given as within ± B. So, for B = 10% one requires n = 100, for B = 5% one needs n = 400, for B = 3% the requirement approximates to n = 1000, while for B = 1% a sample size of n = 10000 is required. These numbers are quoted often in news reports of opinion polls and other sample surveys.
You lost me at \hat, which I mistakenly thought was an abbreviation for "backwards asshat"
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
I think this is probably the most feasible thing to believe. And while there may be a small noisy minority, is it really such a big deal to acquiesce to them within this particular context?
If you find that percentage to be the same as those who are offended by Harry Potter and magic in public schools, would you likewise feel that you should acquiesce?
This is not my argument in favor of retaining Redskins because I don't care one iota in either direction about the name. However, it's fascinating to me how similar arguments can go in either direction because they are shaped by what the advocate himself supports or doesn't support.
Your comparison is non valid based on the fact one of the offended party is dealing with actual racial heritage, the other with religious beliefs. It is a non-starter at that point
Asked before and unanswered. Probably because if that figure is reached they'll have to accept something.
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Quote:
In comment 12963939 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12963902 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
I don't want to split hairs and I don't think I am here. I want you to realize why I asked the question. What you originally said was:
"The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them."
Although now you are saying you were interpreting the poster's version of what the Navajo said that's not what you originally wrote.
I asked about you interpreted in "the worst way possible" because your interpretation leads you to conclude that the Navajo indicated that "it's your problem" and 'given how you've screwed us in the past we'll be watching how you handle this.' I don't see anything of the sort.
You say there's a need for interpretation. I say the Navajo's words are crystal clear; both he and his friends just don't care. Yeah he also says they have bigger problems but there's no indication from the poster that the Navajo blames those problems on white people.
Couple of things: First, I'm quite comfortable with the prospect that you and I will continue to disagree on the essential points here, and I don't disrespect your opinion, so don't think I'm trying to convince you of my position. However, you mischaracterize much of what I've said. For example, in my original post, I said "The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is...", but I phrased it that way for brevity's sake, assuming that the fact that these weren't actually the words of the Navajo person was obvious.
Second, I never said that the indication from the Navajo person was that most Indians blame their problems on White people. But it would be asinine to even engage this discussion about the Washington team name without acknowledging its context, namely, that White civilization on this continent engaged in genocide and the destruction of Indian cultures. Therefore, I acknowledged that we've done many more fucked up things to Indians than naming sports teams after slurs used to describe them (you incorrectly had me putting those words in the Navajo person's mouth). So, in that context, MY conclusion is that Indians, by and large, probably see the Washington team name as a problem that affects White people more than it affects them at this point.
I further conclude that using Indian apathy on this matter as some kind of proof that it's okay to use a racial slur against them is wrong. The poll itself is irrelevant; in my opinion, it is simply a tool being used to entrench bigotry. It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this. (Incidentally, if it did matter, then why is it okay to offend ten percent of the Indian people?) What matters is that a growing number of people in general are disgusted by the fact that it's 2016, and we are still using a racial slur and calling it okay. To me, your desire to just take this third-hand anecdotal statement at face value is taking the easy way out.
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
OK then what number 30%, 40% what is the magic number?
It might be a regional thing, not many people care about the Redskins out here that I am aware of. They are mostly Cowboy fans.
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Quote:
In comment 12964479 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Since we are guessing. I guess it more a combination of it not being a high priority for many compared to other issues they face to where they become activists or even bother getting involved. I doubt that the Native Americans have anywhere near the money, clout, or organization for protesting anything compared to other groups which bring issues they view as important to the political forefront and awareness of the American people.
That doesn't mean it isn't demeaning to many of them.
Quote:
In comment 12964505 steve in ky said:
Quote:
In comment 12964479 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12964441 steve in ky said:
Quote:
What percentage of ethnic group need to be offended by something for it to matter?
If it truly was 67% that were offended that, to me, would matter. I think the name would've been changed a long time ago if 2/3 of Native Americans were offended.
But the poll you cite above is silly. As biased and unscientific as it gets.
Do you really think 67% of native Americans is a large and influential group in this country?
I'm simply saying that the moment it was demonstrated to me that 2/3's were genuinely offended and thought it was a slur I'd be in favor of changing it too.
My guess is, as has been suggested, that the vast majority could care less.
Since we are guessing. I guess it more a combination of it not being a high priority for many compared to other issues they face to where they become activists or even bother getting involved. I doubt that the Native Americans have anywhere near the money, clout, or organization for protesting anything compared to other groups which bring issues they view as important to the political forefront and awareness of the American people.
That doesn't mean it isn't demeaning to many of them.
I don't disagree with you here at all. Well said.
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings.
Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings. Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
So you think the end goal here is to "make people sound like racists who don't agree with them"...
...as opposed to just saying "hey, we've come a far way in terms of treating people equally in this country, maybe we shouldn't have a pro sports team named after a slur".
It's so annoying to hear the argument that "why aren't they talking about the more pressing issues for x group!!!". It's funny because:
a) sometimes they actually are, but people don't hear about it because it's news, and
b) it implies that for some reason, we can only deal with one issue per subculture/culture/racial group/subset at a time.
They just want to set up a simplistic morality test that allows them to label as racist anyone who won't come out in support of their opinion. If they get Snyder to change the name, or better yet, force him to sell the team, then they carve another notch in their rifle butts and move on to something else.
This article, published in the liberal internet news service Huffington Post, pretty much sums up my feelings. Thirteen Issues Facing Native Americans Beyond Mascots and Casinos - ( New Window )
I believe there's a lot of truth in what you've said.
With this poll reflecting almost identical results as the last major poll Annenberg poll of 2004 their job just got harder.
It's so annoying to hear the argument that "why aren't they talking about the more pressing issues for x group!!!". It's funny because:
a) sometimes they actually are, but people don't hear about it because it's news, and
b) it implies that for some reason, we can only deal with one issue per subculture/culture/racial group/subset at a time.
Right, the United States of America isn't dealing with other issues in other subcultures/cultures/racials groups/subsets that are also pressing. I must have missed those threads on BBI...
Quote:
In comment 12964047 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963939 JimboWHO said:
Quote:
In comment 12963902 Mark C said:
Quote:
In comment 12963712 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
Most Indians don't give a shit one way or the other - don't love the name, don't hate it either, don't really care. Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities. There is a small, noisy activist contingent that does care. Few Indians pay them much mind, either.
Again, that's just what I've been told anecdotally by a friend who is full Navajo and lives in New Mexico in a region that is largely Indian.
The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them.
But using that piece of information as justification for perpetuating the common usage of a racial slur is also fucked up. In fact, it's an indication of just how deep our fuckeduppedness goes.
And you know what else is fucked up? The very prevalent notion in our society today that morality and ethics should be shaped by polling data.
I 'm curious as to why you feel you have to "interpret" in the worst way possible, what a Navajo has said?
I don't know what you mean by "in the worst way possible". But let me see if I can satisfy your curiosity... I wasn't interpreting what a Navajo said. I was interpreting what his friend said he said about what he thinks most Indians he knows think about the subject. In order for that statement to have any meaning or relevance, I'd say that a fair amount of interpretation is warranted. And the bulk of my interpretation is based on the poster's own words: "Many of them roll their eyes at the idea of white people getting bent out of shape about the names of sports teams while ignoring the many very serious problems present in a lot of their communities."
You see? I hear that as: How you (White people) choose to define us, doesn't define us, it defines you. And besides, we have other things to worry about.
I don't want to split hairs and I don't think I am here. I want you to realize why I asked the question. What you originally said was:
"The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is that most Indians attitude is, essentially: "This is your problem, White people, not ours. You deal with it. And how you choose to deal with it is on you, not on us." In comparison to all of the other fucked up things we've done to Indian people and culture , this one seems trivial to many of them."
Although now you are saying you were interpreting the poster's version of what the Navajo said that's not what you originally wrote.
I asked about you interpreted in "the worst way possible" because your interpretation leads you to conclude that the Navajo indicated that "it's your problem" and 'given how you've screwed us in the past we'll be watching how you handle this.' I don't see anything of the sort.
You say there's a need for interpretation. I say the Navajo's words are crystal clear; both he and his friends just don't care. Yeah he also says they have bigger problems but there's no indication from the poster that the Navajo blames those problems on white people.
Couple of things: First, I'm quite comfortable with the prospect that you and I will continue to disagree on the essential points here, and I don't disrespect your opinion, so don't think I'm trying to convince you of my position. However, you mischaracterize much of what I've said. For example, in my original post, I said "The way I interpret what your Navajo friend is saying is...", but I phrased it that way for brevity's sake, assuming that the fact that these weren't actually the words of the Navajo person was obvious.
Second, I never said that the indication from the Navajo person was that most Indians blame their problems on White people. But it would be asinine to even engage this discussion about the Washington team name without acknowledging its context, namely, that White civilization on this continent engaged in genocide and the destruction of Indian cultures. Therefore, I acknowledged that we've done many more fucked up things to Indians than naming sports teams after slurs used to describe them (you incorrectly had me putting those words in the Navajo person's mouth). So, in that context, MY conclusion is that Indians, by and large, probably see the Washington team name as a problem that affects White people more than it affects them at this point.
I further conclude that using Indian apathy on this matter as some kind of proof that it's okay to use a racial slur against them is wrong. The poll itself is irrelevant; in my opinion, it is simply a tool being used to entrench bigotry. It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this. (Incidentally, if it did matter, then why is it okay to offend ten percent of the Indian people?) What matters is that a growing number of people in general are disgusted by the fact that it's 2016, and we are still using a racial slur and calling it okay. To me, your desire to just take this third-hand anecdotal statement at face value is taking the easy way out.
I appreciate your approach but you're right, we're gonna disagree. In fact, to hear you say "It doesn't matter what most of the Indian people think about this" is baffling to me. If we're not offending Native Americans with the Redskins name then we can explain this by understanding this is just more nonsense ginned-up by our grievance industry.
Why is it OK to offend 10% of the Indian people? Because you can find 10% of any group offended by something.
Thank God that's not the standard.
Link - ( New Window )