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. |
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.
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 are correct, Greg and it's pathetic. I guess the complaining somehow makes them feel good about themselves.
Go to Deej's link...
If that google explanation ( and I have no dobt it can be found on google) was used in technical much less scientific circles it would be DOA
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
Quote:
Go figure
You are correct, Greg and it's pathetic. I guess the complaining somehow makes them feel good about themselves.
Leftists like Chickasaw nation member and Republican Congressman Tom Cole? Who sent a letter to the NFL calling the team name a "racial slur"?
Link - ( New Window )
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
It's 5.4 million if you allow for having a "multi-race" Native American, and 2.9 million if that is the racial category alone.
This isn't a liberal/conservative divide. Or it shouldn't be. I am as conservative as anyone here. But this is a simple equation. About 300,000 people who are Native Americans are offended by this and that is acknowledged even by those who want to keep the name.
A racist man who owned the team named the team the Redskins. We don't know his motivations but saying he did it to "honor" them is a lot more farfetched than saying he did it out of insensitivity. Personally, I don't think it mattered at the time. But we have evolved. It matters (or should matter) now. And it does matter to 300,000 people at the low end.
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
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Quote:
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
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Wouldn't this offend the colorblind?
"What the fuck is blue!!"
Quote:
In comment 12963497 Reale01 said:
Quote:
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
And the new expansion team, the Puce.
Wouldn't this offend the colorblind?
Actually, a team named The Puce should offend everyone.
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Are you saying they should change the name to the Redskitonians?
I'm sure there's a segment of Native American's who are offended by the term, for a number of reasons whether politically driven or not, and there's also undoubtedly a segment who could give a flying fuck. Either way, the idea that some of the BBI elites squawk as if they're infinitely offended speaks to their need for attention and their need to elevate themselves as a group so overwhelmingly evolved. Gimme a break!
I'd go with Bloodthirsty Savages. Washington BS sounds about right.
Quote:
Really, the only place scientific things can come from, is science.
Are you saying they should change the name to the Redskitonians?
You raise sort of an interesting question...would it be acceptable to change it to something other than Redskins, so the word itself was not offensive but is structured to allude to the previous name? Redskittles or Redskitoninans or Red legs or something of that nature might be perceived as not changing enough. Conversely, would people be offended if they changed the name to something that had no relationship with Indians whatsoever? A lot of times people will go from offensive to related but benign, e.g.; Warriors. But if you named it something like "Fred" would people perceive that as being too dismissive?
The Jihadists?
Quote:
...The Terrorists? This way, every time something shitty happens in the world, Snyder's team will get blamed.
The Jihadists?
Works, too, but I like the broader application of the generic "Terrorists."
Quote:
...The Terrorists? This way, every time something shitty happens in the world, Snyder's team will get blamed.
Then they would win the Super Bowl every year. Every time we made a law or restriction or rule, the Terrorists would win.
Only the off-season Bowl, which they seem to win every year anyway.
Link - ( New Window )
it's a fucking sports name. why the fuck are we bringing attention to our shameful treatment of native americans. why the fuck would anyone be against changing the names other than Skins fans and Snyder?
Why is this a big deal? Look, I AGREE that nobody should be SOO OMG OFFENDED over this. Those people can be ridiculous and way over the top.
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
This is a sports team name, it should make no difference either way and shouldn't be as big of an issue as it is, and considering the way society is moving, the Redskins should just give it up and change the fucking name...they'll have to eventually.
But I hate how this is a flashpoint. The real flashpoint should be the Cleveland Indians Mascot. Fuck that mascot, that mascot is disgraceful and really should be put out pasture.
I don't know any Native Americans, but if there was a brown one for "Indians" (type of Indian as my heritage) i'd be fucking pissed.
And truth be told, if there was a team called the "Brownskins" referring to me, I'd be pretty pissed off also, regardless of whether it was previously a slur or not.
From my admittedly limited experiences with Russian nationals, I picture crew-cut men wearing track suits drinking from morning until whenever they pass out.
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
In general, I'm against being superficial, so intent should have some role, I think.
Quote:
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
Apparently, this has been an ongoing issue for Native Americans since the late 60s.
But as I always said. Washington is the far more offensive name. I would also add that it dies matter if non Indians are offended.
Quote:
But those acting like this is some egregious PC LIBERAL AGENDA CHANGIN MY WAY OF LIFE are just as fucking bad.
Basically what this comes down to is WHO started the movement to change the name? If it was a group of native Americans then perfect. If it was any other group of people who are not native American... then year it would be a PC Liberal agenda.
You can't tell me that there are not native Americans that care. Clearly this is coming from them.
And even if it is a liberal agenda, it's not about the "bad" political correctness, it's about basic human correctness. Maybe we don't need to shit on the indigenous people we essentially wiped out. Is it really changing your way of life? Does this impact you so much?
How come people don't complain about the Seminoles or Blackhawks? Because at least those names come off as honorary.
But you know what--- say this was a movement started by white liberals (it wasn't)... SO. WHAT? How is it such a big deal that it's become a rallying cry for people to complain about the "stupid PC liberals".
I don't get why the Skins couldn't have handled the situation better and asked for some sort of name suggestions from Indian tribes about somethign that would retain both the Skins heritage of using a Native American name with a term that also honors the plight and bravery of Native American tribes as well.
Such a stupid thing to dig your heel in over.
I have recently made some posts about how despite the fact that I'm liberal, I've seen some college age kids go over the top (see the Black Lively thread).. but this is such a stupid hill for "conservatives" to die on (I guess if this is a liberal viewpoint, then the other sides are conservatives).
Well then, maybe they would be rooting for the skins to beat the cowboys !!
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 have also saw other polls with differing numbers. This changes little to me. It was a Native American group who started the protest.
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.
Quote:
Go figure
I'm sure there's a segment of Native American's who are offended by the term, for a number of reasons whether politically driven or not, and there's also undoubtedly a segment who could give a flying fuck. Either way, the idea that some of the BBI elites squawk as if they're infinitely offended speaks to their need for attention and their need to elevate themselves as a group so overwhelmingly evolved. Gimme a break!
The "BBI Elite. What a fucking funny dogwhistle for northeast liberal elites.
I'm not "offended" but I think it'd be pretty fucking shitty if a team was called the Brownskins and named after Indian people (Indian as in India). I'm Indian so I'm using a little empathy here.
"Offense" isn't binary. Offended doesn't always mean that you hurt someone feelings... it can also mean that someone thinks youre being a total asshole.
In this case, the Redskins are just being total assholes.
Also can we drop this thinking that "you can't offend anyone these days, everyone is so offended".. its true in some circumstances, like with college kids, or with corporations who need to cater to the lowest common denominator (e.g. most offensiible people) solely for profits...
...but we also have a Republican Candidate who opened his campaign by declaring Mexican immigrants rapists, stokes hatred against Muslims, and is just generally suspicious of many groups (that's the nicest way I can put it).
He's getting applauded for offended people. Check the comment section under Yahoo news, Fox news, or Facebook, and let me know if you "cant offend anyone these days".
I was looking at a comment on fox News when the new Surgeon General was appointed, who happens to be Indian. Comments ranged from Muslim Obama ruining the country, they're taking it over from the inside, to "they all look the same through a scope".
This dude isn't even Muslim, he's hindu and Indian, but people can openly declare "they all look the same through a scope". People need to stop worrying about their right to offend people - its clearly in tact, you just may get called out for it depending on where you say it.
There are still activist groups that protest them, though they don't seem to get as much traction due to the official relationship between the tribal organization and the school.