WaPo poll-90% of American Indians not offended by "Redskins"

wait for it...

You need a national poll of that ethnic group in order to determine whether or not your team name offends people as a slur.

Go figure

they are more offended with Snyder.

who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller?

I find it really hard to reconcile this poll and the poll from 2014 where 67% of native americans polled agreed with the statement "The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol" (though it's a bad question).
Link - ( New Window )

with a football teams name?

That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent.

Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...

I noted the problematic question in the poll I cited. The WaPo poll asked: "The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?”

The question should have ended at "offensive". I dont even know what they're asking. And it could be racist AND not bother some people. I bet a bunch of people would say that it's the name of a football team and doesnt really matter to them.

In comment 12963416 Deej said:

Quote:

who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller?

Wapo conducted it.

In comment 12963428 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

In comment 12963416 Deej said: Quote: who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller? Wapo conducted it.

PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.

In comment 12963423 kicker said:

Quote:

That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent. Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...

I agree. We know from the past that plenty of Native Americans are offended. I don't have the exact statistics but it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they would be offended.

In comment 12963431 Deej said:

Quote:

In comment 12963428 Greg from LI said: Quote: In comment 12963416 Deej said: Quote: who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller? Wapo conducted it. PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.

There's a clip on You Tube of John Oliver talking about sponsored studies. There's always an agenda.

In comment 12963431 Deej said:

Quote:

In comment 12963428 Greg from LI said: Quote: In comment 12963416 Deej said: Quote: who did and sponsored the poll? John Miller? Wapo conducted it. PFT says Wapo commissioned it, which makes more sense.

Annenberg Public Policy Center

if there is even a chance that someone feelings might get hurt, you have to bend over backwards to appease them. Seems like it would make more sense for them to thicken their skin.

People would be livid if policy in this country (say, an Earned Income Tax Credit) was enacted because they polled 30,000 people to make their conclusion, which is similar to the sampling here.

The only way you can draw a conclusion from this, or other similarly shitty surveys, is if you go in with a preordained answer.

In comment 12963392 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Go figure

bullshit

The article itself is garbage too.

None of this changes the fact that Redskins is a racial slur.

In comment 12963423 kicker said:

Quote:

That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent. Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...

The results sound fishy to me but that statement also would say that any sample of 30000 would be meaningless. Not a statistics expert but I guess a small percentage of population becomes less important in a very large population.

In comment 12963423 kicker said:

Quote:

That's LESS than one-hundredth of one percent. Unless you think that this sample size is meaningful, you may want to rethink your conclusion...

Yeah, pretty small sample and I'm sure different nations feel differently.

I understand the "Redskin" term being offensive, it is a putdown or slur. I don't understand Indian, Chief, Braves etc. The "redskin" protesters would get a lot more traction if they'd give up on the other mascot names that are not offensive.

In relation to USA population.

In comment 12963440 kicker said:

Quote:

People would be livid if policy in this country (say, an Earned Income Tax Credit) was enacted because they polled 30,000 people to make their conclusion, which is similar to the sampling here. The only way you can draw a conclusion from this, or other similarly shitty surveys, is if you go in with a preordained answer.

Aren't most political polls done with samples in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1250 respondents with some using smaller samples? 550 sound light, but not unheard of.

Annenberg is run out of Penn. This is not a group of zealots or wing nuts.

Shocked, I tell you!!

nuance related to political position). Whole different ballgame; they "dress" this up as a largely binary choice to make it seem like you can use the small sample size, but it's incorrect sampling methods.

In comment 12963437 njm said:

Quote:

Annenberg Public Policy Center

Well that's a very legit outfit. Question is just so oddly worded.

What are you afraid of?

.

that show the opposite conclusion (such as the one Deej posted), that have (rightfully) been shit on. And the response to this travesty?

Provide another, shitty, survey.

It's almost apropos...

As far as I can tell, this is entirely WaPo's doing

small sample size. They need to go to the reservations and wake up the drunk Indians to get a reasonable amount of them to comment!

they literally asked, on average, 10 people in each state? As kicker points out, that's probably why you'd get a dumb result when asking if the name of a group, describing its (caricature) skin color is offensive.

In comment 12963472 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

What are you afraid of?

Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...

In comment 12963472 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

What are you afraid of?

dude. Seriously?

In comment 12963477 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

small sample size. They need to go to the reservations and wake up the drunk Indians to get a reasonable amount of them to comment!

Racist. That should say drunk Native Americans.

In comment 12963479 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

In comment 12963472 Greg from LI said: Quote: What are you afraid of? Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...

That, I'd believe!

Go tell those dumb Navajo the truth!

Per WIkipedia:

Quote:

The U.S. Census Bureau reports a 2010 population of 129,779, with 47,094 households and 25,854 families within the city of New Haven. The population density is 6,859.8 people per square mile (2,648.6/km²). There are 52,941 housing units at an average density of 2,808.5 per square mile (1,084.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city is 42.6% White, 35.4% African American, 0.5% Native American, 4.6% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 12.9% from other races, and 3.9% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino residents of any race were 27.4% of the population.[54] Non-Hispanic Whites were 31.8% of the population in 2010,[55] down from 69.6% in 1970.[56] The city's demography is shifting rapidly: New Haven has always been a city of immigrants and currently the Latino population is growing rapidly. Previous influxes among ethnic groups have been African-Americans in the postwar era, and Irish, Italian and (to a lesser degree) Slavic peoples in the prewar period.

?

there is another poll from the Washington Post stating that Redskin is "disrespectful" to 20-23% of the Native Indian population.

Is that not enough reason to change the name? In all seriousness, what is the magic percentage where the name should be changed?

If you were at a party and you knew 1 out of 5 people thought a word was personally disrespectful and 1 of 10 thought it was personally offensive, would you use it?

About every Native American I have spoken to is offended by this word. The word itself and the history behind the word.

Not a fancy poll...just an observation from every day people.

In comment 12963417 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

with a football teams name?

If even one Native American is offended it is one too many. We need to learn from our mistakes of the past. Why do we still show the old westerns on TV? Why was F-Troop allowed on TV. How could you allow Johnny Depp to play Tonto? Why hasn't Manhattan been returned?

All team names should be eliminated and replaced by colors.
The Blue
The Red
The Aquamarine
The Fuchsia
The Mauve
The Sandcastle White
The Lavender
The Salamander Brown

Or, if he does, it's a recent thing. He used to live in some 95% white town. Don't remember it because I have never been, and never will go, to Connecticut.

Glen Allen:

Quote:

The racial makeup of the CDP was 74.92% White, 19.54% African American, 0.41% Native American, 3.08% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 0.80% from other races, and 1.18% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.73% of the population.

Richmond:

Quote:

As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 204,214 people residing in the city. 50.6% were Black or African American, 40.8% White, 5.0% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.6% of some other race and 2.3% of two or more races. 6.3% were Hispanic or Latino (of any race).

I live in Glen Allen, on the southeastern side about 5 minutes from the city limits. Is that specific enough?

members of the Catawba Indian tribe, and they think this is just a bunch of PC crap. In fact, most were redskins fans and some still are (this area was mostly Redskins fans prior to the Panthers arriving).

But again - it is probably where you are and who you know as to their responses.

don't shoot the messenger, just Sioux me...

But those saying a sample size of 504 is too small are wrong.

There are about 2.9M native americans or alaskan natives in the US. A sampling size of 504 would return results that have a margin of error of about +/- 4.5% at a 95% confidence level

The article itself says that margin is 5.5%, so they must be reflecting a 99% confidence level.

Either way, 504 poll respondents is plenty.

In comment 12963498 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

Or, if he does, it's a recent thing. He used to live in some 95% white town. Don't remember it because I have never been, and never will go, to Connecticut. Glen Allen: Quote: The racial makeup of the CDP was 74.92% White, 19.54% African American, 0.41% Native American, 3.08% Asian, 0.06% Pacific Islander, 0.80% from other races, and 1.18% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.73% of the population. Richmond: Quote: As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 204,214 people residing in the city. 50.6% were Black or African American, 40.8% White, 5.0% Asian, 0.3% Native American, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 3.6% of some other race and 2.3% of two or more races. 6.3% were Hispanic or Latino (of any race). I live in Glen Allen, on the southeastern side about 5 minutes from the city limits. Is that specific enough?

Dude, you REALLY need therapy. Seriously. Do it for your family. I assume they hate you as much as most of us do.

go to Connecticut, I make sure a bunch of immigrants make me some killer pizza.

In comment 12963479 Chris in Philly said:

Quote:

In comment 12963472 Greg from LI said: Quote: What are you afraid of? Here is someone who has never been to New Haven...

lol far from it!

In comment 12963506 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

go to Connecticut, I make sure a bunch of immigrants make me some killer pizza.

The OliveSkins?? I hear they love the nickname!

Can I get a count on the number of jews at the bureau of labor statistics, while we're at it?