New Poll: 90% of Native Americans Not Offended By “Redskins”

According to the Washington Post:

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

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.

The previous poll taken in 2004 produced the same result.

Despite the fact that there are majority-Native American schools with the Redskin moniker (e.g. Red Mesa High School and Wellpinit High School), an extremely vocal minority of Native Americans and their willing dupes on the Left insist that it’s a racist term and are actively seeking to force their views down everybody’s throat. As Wellpinit graduate, James Seyler said, “We shouldn’t change it because everybody in politics wants us to change the name. We’ve been here for thousands for years. It’s people who weren’t raised here who are bothered by it.”

Where did the term Redskins come from?

Ives Goddard, emeritus senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology, in 2005 wrote a research paper on the term.

He says the assertion [that “Redskin” refers to the bloodied scalp that bounty hunters used to show proof of a kill] became popularized when American Indian rights activist Suzan Harjo said it on the “Oprah Winfrey Show” in 1992.

“There wasn’t anything to support the connection,” says Goddard. “But that’s what everybody now thinks.”

In fact, he says, it was Indians who first came up with the term when the whites showed up in this continent: “You guys are white, we are red.” It became derogatory in later usage, he says.

And, adds Goddard, what’s acceptable “is based on today’s language,” and the term is clearly offensive to many.

Many? Apparently, not the vast majority of Native Americans. How about this list?

Brooklyn Italians
Boston Celtics
New York Knicks
Minnesota Vikings
Montreal Canadians (referring to the French-speaking residents of colonial North America)
Alfred University Saxons
Alma College Scots
Bethany Swedes
Idaho Vandals
Louisiana-Lafayette Ragin’ Cajuns
Michigan State Spartans
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Verona Hillbillies

And on and on. Why aren’t the Irish up in arms about Notre Dame? Why aren’t Germans twisted over the Vandal mascot? The obvious answer is that mascots are intended to represent strength, prowess, ferocity or a culture. No insult is intended by a mascot, which is probably why the majority of Native Americans see no harm in it. Folks up in arms over the Redskins need to find a better cause to gripe about. Game over. Move on.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
"... patriarchy is alive and well."
  • Retired military

    Doesn’t matter. If 1/10000 of 1% of American men identify as women and want to use the women’s restroom then they must allow all men into the women’s restrooms despite what women think.

  • Charles Harkins

    Maybe they should adopt the redskins logo as the logo for gender neutral restrooms. Imagine the constipation that would engender (pun en-gender).

  • Brucehenry

    There are several caveats regarding this poll that ought to be kept in mind prior to any discussion about its substance or the impact it might have on the ongoing debate and legal battle over the name of Washington D.C.’s NFL team. First of all, polls of discrete and relatively small ethnic groups is often difficult in and of itself due to the fact that it’s often difficult to find a sufficiently representative sample. According to current data from the U.S. Census, Native Americans represent about 1.4% of the current U.S. population. That’s roughly comparable to the percentage of the U.S. population that claims adherence to any form of Judaism, another group that has proven difficult to poll accurately due to its small representation among the American population as a whole. Second, this poll was conducted over a period of several months, likely due to the fact that it took that long for pollsters to find a representative sample upon which to base their poll. As a general rule, pollsters try to keep their polls time limited to no longer than a week due to the fact that data that may not be “fresh” is being mixed with more recent data. Finally, there’s the age old pollsters problem that the poll is relying on a respondent’s self-identification as ‘Native American’ and there’s no way to be sure that at least some respondents are taking that designation to mean something other than what the pollsters intend it to mean. Notwithstanding all of this, though, results such as this are so overwhelming in one direction that it’s hard to completely dismiss them, and they are likely to be added to the ongoing debate both in Court and in the media over this issue.

    That’s a block quote from Doug Mataconis at OTB.

    • jim_m

      By that you are refering tp Elizabeth awarren are you not. Fuck you with your bigoted comment.

      • Brucehenry

        “Fick” you too, Jim! LOL.

        Lots of people claim Native American heritage with little to no basis. While it’s not exactly “stolen valor,” it shouldn’t be done. But that’s beside the point. I’m wondering how many of these 504 “self-identified Native Americans” are actual, you know, Native Americans.

        By the way, a lot of these good old boys claiming “Injun blood” for themselves believe it, but I don’t.

        • jim_m

          Reload and read the whole comment. Yes, my cellphone doesn’t like blog posting.

          You dont seem to mind stolen valor when it is Chico.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I’ve read your edited comment and responded. I see how butthurt you got on behalf of a group you don’t belong to, on a thread where the practice of PC crybabies getting butthurt on behalf of a group they don’t belong to is being decried.

            You’re a hoot.

          • jim_m

            I’m just pointing out your outrageous hypocrisy. You won’t dare say a word about fauxcahontas or that scam artist Churchill, but you will slam the people you perceive as lower class whites.

          • Brucehenry

            I AM a “lower class white,” as you remind me nearly every thread.

            Are you referring to that Ward Churchill guy from the 1990s? I heard the name before and know that wingnuts have made him a boogeyman but know nothing else about him.

            As for Warren, I’m about as embarrassed for her as I am for Billy Bob.

          • Commander_Chico

            No valor in weekend warrior shit. Pension is nice, though!

            China is ok, tap water is not potable.

          • Commander_Chico

            No valor in weekend warrior shit. Pension is nice, though!

      • Brucehenry

        Yes I intended to gently mock (if not exactly “demean”) Southern whites, of whom I am one, by that comment.

        But my main point was that some of these 504 may not really BE Native Americans at all.

        But it’s funny that you think readers should be offended by the term “peckerwood,” on behalf of Southern whites, when you obviously think “Redskin” is just peachy.

    • jim_m

      If you actually read this story you will see that it isn’t fake Cherokee people and it took longer to conduct because they did their job to find real native Americans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?platform=hootsuite

  • Wild_Willie

    Peckerwood is a pejorative. Redskins is a description. I am white. My friends are black and brown, etc. Only an idiot can’t tell. ww

    • Brucehenry

      Oh yeah you’re right no one has ever used “redskin” as a pejorative what was I thinking?

      • jim_m

        150 years ago redskins was a pejorative. Are you making the claim the culture and language have not changed in the last 150 years? If so I would ask if you still say that a happy person is gay.

        • Brucehenry

          150 years ago “blackass” was a pejorative — and it still is. As is “redskin.”

          Of course culture and language have changed over 150 years, but in this case not so much, in my opinion.

          I actually agree with Scalia that names for teams like “Seminoles” or “Apaches” or “Vikings” or “Spartans” is not disrespectful, because, as he says, those names are used to suggest prowess and the worthiness of those teams as opponents. But “redskin” is offensive, I think, as offensive as “blackass” would be.

          • jim_m

            Then why is it only offensive to intolerant, white leftists?

          • Brucehenry

            Well I don’t know why these people polled are not offended. I would be. But I actually don’t care what happens to the Redskins name. Not only do I not know why Indians DON’T want it changed, I don’t understand why wingnuts want it NOT to be changed.

            Oh wait, yes I do.

          • jim_m

            Yes I know. You are saying that the people polled cannot be real native americans,because they do not fit the racist stereotype that you have and they actually think for themselves.

            You are a huge racist and you can’t even see it. Everything you have posted is how the poll must be fake because an authentic native American has to think in a certain way.

            You are disgusting

          • Brucehenry

            No actually I just agree with the 10% who don’t like the term. Those people’s opinions are valid too.

          • jim_m

            fine. Don’t demand that I change my life because you are a bigot

          • Brucehenry

            Please elaborate on the wrenching life change you would be forced to undergo if Dan Snyder changed the name of his team.

          • sarahconnor2

            What wrenching life change would you be forced to undergo if someone stands up against PC cr-p?

          • Brucehenry

            Not claiming I would can you read at all?

          • jim_m

            Better yet, why don’t you define for us what protection exists in the constitution that says you have a right to not be offended?

          • Brucehenry

            Never claimed such a right but you know that. Slayer of Strawmen. Dishonest as always.

          • jim_m

            Your entire argument hinges on the notion that offending someone should be illegal.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? How so?

          • jim_m

            Not only is there no constitutional right to not be offended, I can find no moral duty to not offend others.

            People take offense at everything, any moral duty to not offend would of necessity be an impossibility, for as many people who are offended by an action there will be an equal number offended by the reciprocal action or a non-action.

            Minimally, your claim is that the Redskins have a moral duty to not offend people. This is pure bullshit. Otherwise your argument comes down to the fact that you are a whiny pussy and need to be catered to by the rest of society.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know about any “moral duty” but it would be nice if, now that Snyder is aware that many people find the term offensive, he would consider changing the name.

            Instead, he refuses to even contemplate a change and instead calls those who are offended names. This is called “having some kind of nerve” in my book but is par for the course in Wingnuttia, where you live.

            I have repeatedly declared that I don’t care whether he changes the name or not, although I probably would were I Native American. I’m telling you now that I don’t think the government should MAKE him change it either. However, if he doesn’t, and apparently he doesn’t intend to, he must bear the opprobrium attached. This is called “the free market.”

          • jim_m

            Um, actually, the pol showed that precious few give a shit outside the community of self loathing white leftists such as yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually I said “many people,” not just those polled in this poll.

            What kills me is the vehemence with which those who OPPOSE the name change argue. What would be so terrible if it WAS changed? But I know the answer — just like many of the other instances of white people decrying “PC,” they want permission to feel OK about saying offensive shit.

            No skin off my nose. Why are YOU so butthurt? It’s just an argument about the name of a football team — an argument your side has apparently won. Yet you’re still so very upset.

          • jim_m

            Um, yes, many SJW’s desiring to dictate the minutiae of everyone else’s lives.

            What gets me is your obtuseness that people would “Vehemently” object to your demanding that they order their lives because you are a pussy.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, how would you have to re-order your life if Dan Snyder changed the name of his football team? Are you even a Skins fan? Are you even a football fan?

            What dog do YOU, or the other non-Skins fans of the world, have in this fight? Why do you care?

            Because you want permission to be “non-PC.” In other words, clueless or casual purveyors of offensive stereotypes.

          • jim_m

            It’s the tip of the iceberg. This is just one of a myriad of issues that you would force down everyone’s throats because you believe that some minority group ought to be offended (at least those minorities you consider to be “authentic” will believe the way you demand the rest you will claim are insufficiently black, or gay, or hispanic or whatever. You will claim that because you have a bigoted view of other races and they must think the way you demand or else they are race traitors).

            What do you have it this fight? Other than to prove that you can browbeat other people into bowing to your will? Or marginalize 90% of a minority group by claiming (as you have already done on this thread) that if they don’t believe the way you think they ought to (in your bigoted mind) they are not real minorities?

            Why should we give one inch to a vile racist bigot like you that demands that every minority move in lock step with your racist stereotypes? Why must every minority believe and think the way you want them to and if they don’t suffer the slur of being inauthentic?

            You are so fucking racist and you can’t even see it.

          • Brucehenry

            How many strawmen can you pack into one big fat lie of a comment Jim?

            I have repeatedly said that I do NOT have a dog in this fight, but I bet were I Native American I would be uncomfortable with the team’s name being a slur. I wouldn’t have a problem with “Warriors” or “Braves” (the name of my younger daughter’s college teams), but “redskins” would be going too far.

            Is it browbeating to protest the actions of a corporation? So then is Disney being browbeaten every time a group of holier-than-thouers like the AFA threatens to boycott Disney over extending insurance to same-sex spouses of employees? Or when One Million Moms (all 118 of them!) urge a boycott of JC Penney’s because Ellen is their spokesperson, is that being browbeaten?

            People have every right to express their opinion of a company’s actions, and that company has a right to respond as it sees fit. Snyder sees fit to ignore critics of his team’s name, as is his right, but by making that choice he is choosing to endure further opprobrium. Or do you want to make protest against corporate action illegal?

            BTW here is the Wikipedia page on the controversy. You and Scalia may want to pay particular attention to the sections titled “Native American advocates of change,” “In the media,” “other teams that use the name ‘Redskins’,” and “public opinion,” especially the last paragraph, which addresses this poll.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

          • jim_m

            The survey was of native Americans. You immediately alleged that they weren’t “real” Native Americans. This is because you are a racist bigot and you don’t believe that people who hold opinions that fail to fit the bigoted stereotype in your diseased mind cannot be real minorities.

            Case closed. It is the biggest thing I discussed in the last few comments and you have assiduously avoided addressing that truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I noted that many people claim Native American heritage who are not actually Native Americans and implied that the fact that this study apparently relied on “self-identified” Native Americans was ummmm a flaw, as is noted in the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article I cited. (And was noted in the WaPo article about the poll).

            This has nothing to do with what you imagine is my bigoted stereotypical view of what a minorities’ opinion “should” or “should not” be. I never said “real” Native Americans wouldn’t answer that way — I implicitly questioned whether the results might be as valid as Scalia thinks they are if people who only THOUGHT or CLAIMED they were NA were included.

            Which is funny, since your problem with Chico is that he holds opinions that differ from what you imagine “real” veterans must hold. As if you would know what a “real” veteran would think.

          • jim_m

            No. You presupposed that the self-identified native americans had to all be fake because they did not believe the way that you demand that they do in order to fit your predetermined stereotype of what native americans must think in order to be authentic.

            If you cannot see that fact then fine. Go and wallow in your racism some more. It is what we expect of you.

          • Scalia

            I mean, it’s the WASHINGTON POST that conducted this poll, not National Review. If they or Breitbart came out with a poll showing the same results, it would have been immediately attacked because of who conducted the poll. The Washington Post prohibits its reporters from using the term redskin unless the news item is about this controversy. It would seem that they would go out of their way to show that NA oppose that term. The fact that a liberal newspaper reported a poll that goes substantially against what they want to believe is remarkable.

          • Brucehenry

            Well those seem to be valid criticisms, I was just going on my own experience when I mentioned the many peckerwoods I have met throughout my life who have claimed that “Grandma was half Cherokee.”

            How Jim got from that comment to me claiming that ALL those polled were lying fakes is typical Jim.

            (BTW do Jim’s strawman arguments not count as “lying in a discussion”??)

          • jim_m

            Bruce has no problem being the arbiter of who is a real Native American and who is not. He can tell by whether or not they believe in a prescribed set of approved beliefs by the left.

          • Brucehenry

            AAAAAaaaaaaaand you continue to lie by strawman.

            I might remind you of this line by one guy here on Wizbang who calls himself “jim_m”: “And while i agree that most people claiming Cherokee ancestry are wrong, most are just ill informed…”

            Looks like you and I are BOTH self-proclaimed arbiters if either of us is, huh? And, only one of us used the word “most”! Twice!

            This is another of your imaginary “liberals are the real racists” gotchas, Jim, give it up, lol.

            EDIT: And you apparently can tell who is a “real” veteran by whether or not they espouse the sort of war-mongering politics of which you approve. You have demonstrated that for years.

          • jim_m

            I ride Chico because he is a vulgar jerk and admitted sex tourist. I cite not only his attitude but also his preposterous claims to know the disposition of troops, function of global supply chain, and that he has knowledge of special ops and intel to the extent that he acts as though he was a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

            In your case you judge the authenticity of millions of people you don’t even know because you object to how they think. The only thing you have to go on is a person’s viewpoint and with that knowledge alone you decide that they cannot be an authentic minority.

            This I why I say that you have proved yourself a bigot. Because you really have.

          • Brucehenry

            Chico may be a blowhard (in your book) but you have lied many times that he is guilty of “stolen valor” without a shred of evidence to support it, only your disbelief that a “real” veteran would oppose military action in this or that scenario.

            In this thread it is obvious to every reader, even you, what I meant. You AGREED with me that many who claim Indian ancestry are not actually Indians, yet you continue to insist that I am making a claim I never made.

            That is called a “lie,” even if those who claim to have objections to discussing issues “with a liar” suddenly go silent when that is brought to their attention.

          • jim_m

            I agreed that many people who claim it are wrong. Most of those are people who were told so by their parents.

            However, I also pointed out that the poll had quite obviously reached other people and you should read the fucking story already.

            Your claim was that the poll had reached fake indians and that you knew this because people do misrepresent that heritage and that it was obvious because the poll showed results that you believe demonstrate views that you know that indians cannot hold.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, no, I simply pointed out that many people I have known made claims of Indian ancestry which I doubted were correct, and implied that the “self-identification” thingie with this poll MIGHT make it somewhat flawed. Never made the sort of sweeping claim that you are falsely stating I made.

            This is why you are a liar, and oblivious to your own behavior WHICH IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF BEHAVIOR OF WHICH YOU ACCUSE ME so very falsely.

          • jim_m

            Your reaction was that the poll was false because the results were false. You attempted to establish that the results were false because the people were false.

            The primary problem was that you could not believe the poll because it contained results that were different from what you believe. You then grasped at reasons and the first one you landed on was that it got different results from what your stereotype is because the people polled weren’t indians to begin with.

          • Brucehenry

            Except that I never made the sweeping claims you attribute to me — that the “poll was false.” or that “the people were false.” That is a lie, and those squeamish about discussing issues “with a liar” should take that into account.

            I myself have no such squeamishness, and I will continue to point out the fact that you are a lying sack of shit until the cows come home.

          • jim_m

            Your very first post on the thread said : “Could it be that those aforementioned peckerwoods make up some of the 90% of “self-identified” Native Americans in this poll?” Contesting the point that the poll results were wrong because the people polled weren’t actual indians because they gave results you weren’t happy with.

          • Brucehenry

            “…make up SOME of those 90%”

            See how English works, JIm?

            The word “some” qualifies my claim that there COULD be a flaw in this polling. If there IS a flaw, it depends on how egregious a flaw it is as to whether or not “the poll is false.” I never claimed that “the poll is false” only that there may be a flaw in it. Maybe there ain’t — but you and I both KNOW, from life experience, that there are those who claim NA ancestry who are not actually descended from Native Americans.

          • jim_m

            Whatever Bruce. Your first instinct was to claim that Native Americans must think in a specific way or they are not authentic. This is the same as the rest of the left that questions the “Blackness” of Condoleza Rice or Clarence Thomas because they are not lackeys to the left.

          • Brucehenry

            “Whatever” indeed. My original comment was a lighthearted remark about peckerwoods claiming Cherokee ancestry, intended to humorously highlight that some critics and other viewers of the poll, including Mataconis, have pointed out the “self-identification” issue. That’s all.

            No sweeping claims about what “real” Indians should or should not think. No claim that “the poll was false.” Just pointing out one of the caveats that others have pointed to.

            And I find it telling that you first agreed that yes, some people do make false claims to Indian heritage, but hours later must have thought “AHA! Here’s an example of liberals being the real racists!” and decided to come at me with a lot of strawman nonsense, asserting I made sweeping claims I never made.

            Tell me Jim, is it AT ALL possible that some — SOME — of those 504 people polled may have knowingly or unknowingly represented themselves as Native American while not actually being, you know, Native American? Maybe four of them? Two? One?

          • jim_m

            Yes, a lighthearted, 4 paragraph, 374 word essay on why the poll was bogus, claiming chiefly (pun intended) that it hadn’t reached real indians.

          • Brucehenry

            A block quote from Mataconis, then a short paragraph of a comment from me. You just can’t stop lying.

            EDIT: Did you actually count the number of words? LOL.

          • jim_m

            Then learn how to use hypertext tags to show a block quote.

            Simply type the word blockquote between the less than and greater than signs to start it and /blockquote to stop it.

            You are still a racist. You believe that people of a certain race must believe certain things, otherwise they are not authentic minorities.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks I didn’t know how to do that. However I explicitly pointed it out in my own remarks.

          • You expect too much of cheap white bigoted trash.

          • Scalia

            That is called a “lie,” even if those who claim to have objections to discussing issues “with a liar” suddenly go silent when that is brought to their attention.

            The moderators, including Kevin, have discussed this issue, and the majority of us, including Kevin, believe that it’s time to move on. No more posts along this line.

            You are welcome to post on all other topics and debate as before, but this topic is closed.

          • Brucehenry

            OK no problem

          • This moderator agreed that it’s best to move on from this topic… however… this moderator would love to see this “rule” applied across the board… to include applying it to regulars, one of them a moderator, whose comments frequently include nothing more than insults.

            Consistency in the application of these sorts of things is the only way to ensure that the privilege isn’t abused.

          • Scalia

            Hi, Rick. I would rather discuss this via email, but since you posted this here, the only “rule” is that I’ve made a decision not to directly interact with Bruce Henry for reasons aforementioned. We’ve both had our say, so there’s no point cluttering our boards with that (as you agree). Nobody is under any obligation to either agree with me or to act likewise. If you decide to treat another poster or moderator likewise, that’s your prerogative. You have decided to delete posts that I would not have deleted, but, again, that’s your call as a moderator.

            Nothing changes on our boards, except beating this dead horse. As to other regulars, like I said, any moderator has the privilege of deciding whether to interact with others or to close a topic. Rodney has made the decision to delete certain participants from his threads. Although I disagree with that, that’s his call. You have come close to treating Jim the same way, so I don’t see how that “rule” isn’t already applied across the board.

            Perhaps you think that I should react to Rodney & Jim like I’ve reacted to Bruce. If that’s what you’re implying, I can only say that if they are anybody else interacts with me the way I perceive Bruce has, I will react the same way. So, I really think everything’s “across the board.”

          • Rodney’s arbitrary deletion of those he can’t seem to interact with is his choice. Jim and I have, offline, come to an agreement, a truce if you will, on this and I’ve not deleted anything he’s had to say since, something I think Jim gets the credit for.

            I guess my point, inarticulately expressed perhaps, is whether the alleged dishonesty is only grievous when Bruce is interacting with you… is it the dishonesty or is it Bruce’s alleged engagement in it… if the latter, then there would seem to be the need for a third party arbiter since Bruce has denied the dishonesty… if it’s the former than I think the rule would have to be more widely applied… and this makes the rule a bit of a sticky wicket.

          • Scalia

            I believe I answered those questions in my last post. I don’t know how I can make myself more clearer. I politely ask you to take this to email. I’ll be happy to fully discuss this with you offline.

            Regards.

          • jim_m

            Here’s the thing Bruce: With nothing else to go on but a single viewpoint, your first reaction was that the people polled could not possibly be real Native Americans, for the simple reason that they believed something that didn’t fit the racist stereotype that you harbor in your heart.

            It wasn’t just part of a series of comments they made that made you question their knowledge of a culture (as I have done with Chico and his overblown claims to knowledge about all things military), it was a single issue and viewpoint.

            You reject the authenticity of someone’s race because they don’t believe the way you want them to and you have nothing else to go on but a single data point. I have years of Chico lying about military bullshit and claiming that he was everything from special ops to intelligence to head of the quartermaster corps to serving in the Pentagon. Was Chico in the military? Maybe. But he sure as hell wasn’t everything he makes himself out to be if he was.

          • Brucehenry

            Except that I didn’t — I only pointed out (and you agreed) that many who claim Indian heritage are not actually, you know, descended from actual Indians. Many have been told of the “fact” of their Indian heritage by their parents (Kind of like Elizabeth Warren, maybe?). Others just probably like that Indian heritage may make them seem more exotic and have convinced themselves that it is so. Some others are just flat-out compulsive liars.

            But I never claimed that this tidbit invalidated the whole poll. Or that Indians couldn’t possibly NOT be offended by the Redskins name — only that an indeterminate subset of the 504 respondents may not actually BE Native American at all. It goes without saying that many of the respondents, probably most, and MAYBE all, were. I don’t see how anyone but an inveterate liar like yourself can read my original comment any other way, much less my endlessly repeated explanations of it.

            As for Chico, I’ve never seen him make any of the over-the-top claims you say he has made. MORE lies, Jim?

          • jim_m

            Maybe if you spent less time kissing his ass and reading his posts you would know better. There hasn’t been anything of this nature discussed since Benghazi so I can forgive your feeble memory.

          • Commander_Chico

            I never claimed to be anything but an Army personnel clerk and Navy line officer in the reserves. I said I was stationed in London, not the Pentagon, which I have only visited.

            How do we know “jim” is not a woman or a tranny? Your perpetual offense and political correctness points to that.

          • jim_m

            Actually, this is the first time I have ever heard you claim to be anything in particular. You have made all sorts of wild claims as to your knowledge.

          • He also claimed to be counted among the cognoscenti.

          • jim_m

            Feel free to call me what you want. I will then feel free to call uyou a pedophile. And I probably have more evidence of that fact based on your asian sex tourism than you do of yours.

          • Noteworthy at the very least. Clearly the progtard is un- moved by facts. Who’d a thunk it

          • Brucehenry

            Nope, never said “all.” I questioned whether “some” of the respondents may be authentically Native American. I know you can’t read so go back and read it again. Maybe you will be able to see the absence, in my sentences, of words like “all” or “none” or even “most.”

            A similar poll, with similar result, was done by Annenberg in 2004, and faced similar criticism, as is mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

            Of the two of us, Jim, it is you who has presupposed that groups had t think the way you expect them to think, and if members of that group don’t fit your stereotype, then they must not be “real” members. We’ve seen it in action for years and years vis a vis Chico.

          • Scalia

            Precisely. You cannot please everybody, and if you tried, you wouldn’t get anything done. If they changed their name to some animal, some animal rights activist would get upset because it’s just another example of how animals are exploited. If they changed their name to some plant, somebody else would get upset for the same reason. That why, in a free society, we preach TOLERANCE, not acceptance. When the vast majority of NA have no problem with it, it’s time to move on.

        • Scalia

          As the study I linked shows, the term “redskin” originated from Indians in order to distinguish themselves from whites. Moreover, neither the students nor their parents at the majority Native-American schools I cited have any issue with that term, especially since they have the same mascot!

          • Brucehenry

            It hardly maters that Indians in 1675 called themselves “redskins.” After all, I’m pretty sure blacks in 1675 called themselves “ni**ers” and I know that a large subculture of black people even today still use the term to refer to themselves in certain contexts. Doesn’t make the term any less offensive when used by others.

            As for the NA schools, I’d be willing to bet that those teams usually play majority-white teams in sports and so are using the term (misguidedly, in my opinion) as a point of pride in their separateness. If they are OK with it fine, but Dan Snyder is not a Native American.

          • jim_m

            Actually, I think we all know that blacks still call themselves the N word today and hypocriticaly whine when anyone else calls them that.

          • Brucehenry

            Typical wingnut reply. “Why can’t I use the N-word???”

          • jim_m

            No, on the contrary. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy. It is their own usage of the word that keeps it alive in the common usage.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so.

          • Scalia

            Indeed, some of them use that term freely…

            https://youtu.be/iLtCT1DbEAQ

  • jim_m

    Actually, this has been polled numerous times and the results have all been pretty much the same. This is an issue for self loathing white leftists and virtually no one else.

    • Brucehenry

      I bet if you took a poll of Southern whites they wouldn’t be offended by “peckerwood” or “redneck,” either — but YOU sure got bent by it.

      • jim_m

        No. I got offended at your transparent prejudice.

        • Brucehenry

          Sorry, Special Snowflake.

          • jim_m

            You are the snowflake, claiming to be offended for native Americans who you believe too stupid to stand up for themselves, while you criticize white southerners due to your self loathing and give leftist elites a pass for what you condemn lower class whites for doing.

          • Brucehenry

            Read my comments above. I’m not offended for or by anyone, but I think if I were a Native American I would support changing the team name.

          • jim_m

            And by that you devalue the authenticity of real native Americans effectively stating that they are not real because they do not believe the way that your racist stereotype demands that they do.

            And you wonder why everyone calls you a bigot.

          • Brucehenry

            No by that I mean I would probably be one of the 10% that do find it offensive. Remember them?

            EDIT: Weren’t you just saying the other day that being in the majority, even the vast majority, didn’t necessarily make one right?

          • jim_m

            Um, when you are talking about people being offended, when it is a Tony fraction of a tiny fraction of the population, and you are saying that millions of people should change their lives to accommodate 0.01% or less of the population, yes the majority matters.

            This is not about opinions. This is about forcing people to change their lives because a few hundred people out of 316 million have their panties in a wad.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said, it matters little to me whether or not a football team changes its name. But even if it did, I hardly think that millions of people would have to “change their lives” if a name change were to occur.

            Drama queen.

          • jim_m

            No you merely insist that people change what they do because you feel some fake guilt over te color of your skin.

          • sarahconnor2

            Yes, the only people who expressed concern to me over the name (my husband and I are both third generation Skins’ fans), were white liberals riding high on PC. They stopped when I pointed out that it was condescending for people to be “fighting a battle” for a group who didn’t see a problem with the name.

            By the way numerous Native American high schools’ teams are named the Redskins.

          • Bigot

          • bigot

          • jim_m

            Funny that you claim that the poll is surveying “fake” native Americans and that is why it comes out in favor of the Redskins, when the only evidence we have of fake native Americans is your own lefty, Elizabeth Warren, who has for years claimed she is native American and still refuses to admit that she is not, and somehow this lying b*tch is the one offended by the word Redskins.

            Maybe we should see a poll of how many native Americans are offended by little white Irish girls calling themselve native Americans so those little white Irish girls can steal scholarships and jobs intended for them?

            Something tells me that Bruce will defend Warren or at a minimum say it isn’t a big deal to him.

          • Brucehenry

            I already said what I have to say about Warren. If it is true that she gained unfair advantage by claiming Indian heritage then that is something to be ashamed of.

          • jim_m

            If? It has already been effectively admitted by Harvard.

            And BTW, it is called fraud. You believe in letting her off for perpetuating a fraud simply because she is on your side.

          • Brucehenry

            Or, I am not responsible for the actions of Elizabeth Warren. I have never voted for her nor contributed any money to her campaigns. I DO support many of the same causes she supports, just as I agreed with many, or really nearly all, of the positions taken by John Edwards, even though it has come to light that he is actually a huge douchebag on a personal level. (I did vote for and contribute to Edwards’ campaigns.)

          • BIGOT.

          • Brucehenry

            dipshit

          • progtard.

          • Take as much offense as you can bear, and bear it as far away from us as you can get.

  • Paul Hooson

    It’s a funny thing how some groups seem to embrace stereotypes. Jack Benny and Norman Fell both embraced the stereotype of “cheap Jews” as a comedy shtick for example. And, my friend Gilbert Gottfried jokes about playing a “loud obnoxious Jew”, “kind of a stretch” he adds. But, some others were offended by terrible stereotype of JJ Walker, where the nerdy intellectual Steve Urkiel seemed less controversial.

    • Scalia

      What does embracing stereotypes have to do with the Redskins?

      • Paul Hooson

        A lot of my education is in sociology as well as psychology. Culture seems to determine whether one might see something akin to “Redskins” as being either racist or not. I don’t know a great deal about American Indian culture, but I am surprised that such a large percentage of American Indians do not find the term offensive or even racist. By contrast, JJ Walker was once denounced by many African Americans for what they felt was either a racist parody or a bad image for African Americans. Steve Urkiel’s image played much better because he was viewed as very intelligent, just nerdy and funny. His image was not hurtful to many African Americans where JJ Walker’s character seemed to embrace ignorance and a lack of education, which so many African Americans resented as a terrible stereotype.

        In the Jewish community, which I come from, humor is greatly embraced. While Jack Benny and Norman Fell didn’t publicly proclaim their Jewishness from every mountaintop, they still made much of their living from marketing a shtick of playing the stereotype of “cheap Jews”. Some Jews will resent that stereotype, but many others laugh at that funny stereotype,

        Judd Apatow jokes that if you look in the dictionary for the definition of Jew, his picture appears. I seriously doubt that many other ethnic groups would make the same joke, such as African Americans or American Indians. “Redskins” might have found acceptance only because it has been in use for so many years, rather than what it seems to be saying to many. But, at the same time, I think ethnic humor may be more culturally accepted by some groups than others. And, I believe that Jews are the most accepting of making to jokes to nonJews about their culture than other groups may be of any ethnic group.

        • Scalia

          If you read my post, links included, I’m surprised that you’re surprised. One of the teams in a link, not included on my list, were the Fighting Whites or Fightin’ Whities. The team was formed to intentionally insult whites (ahem, to raise awareness of stereotypes) in order to let them know how it feels to have such a mascot:

          The plan to insult whites in the same way the minority students perceived Native Americans being insulted backfired on the group when the team’s popularity skyrocketed. In response to customer demand, the team eventually began selling shirts under both names. The team added the phrase “Fighting the use of Native American stereotypes” to its merchandise to discourage the shirts from being worn by white supremacists, and arranged for CafePress.com to handle manufacturing and sales of the clothing.

          Instead of being insulted, whites were proud both of the team and any products they could get their hands on. So, what was intended as an insult was taken as a mark of pride. Whites aren’t ashamed of their white skin and aren’t upset by a mascot with that name (just like the Irish aren’t upset at Notre Dame).

          Native Americans called themselves redskins, and Native Americans continue to do so (by using the same mascot for some of their schools). You’re surprised because you’ve swallowed the propaganda of the Left. The vast majority of Indians have no objection to that term because they live in the real world. Liberals live in their Neverland and seek to force everybody to live there too. No thanks.

          • Paul Hooson

            I guess I just don’t view the world through some sort of politically tinted prism measurement device as you sometimes do. I never really ever considered what liberals may think when the term “redskin” was used, but wondered what Native Americans may think of the term. I think what many Native Americans think of the term is the most important measurement here. If most Native Americans think that the term “redskins” is acceptable, then I suppose it is and should be acceptable to others. Case closed…

            Football isn’t my game anyway. I’m all about basketball and drag racing. The fact that a single V8 engine can produce over 6,000 horsepower, propel a car at twice the acceleration of a Navy jet for a quarter mile at 333mph and virtually liquidfy tires blows my mind!

          • Scalia

            Politically tinted would describe you, Paul, not me. The fact that you are surprised at what Indians think about this shows that you’re the one living in a cocoon, not me. You see, I grew up around Native Americans, and I know the difference between real racism and race-baiting.

            This “controversy” has been around for a number of years and you’re surprised? The real world isn’t.

          • Paul Hooson

            “Redskins” doesn’t describe me so doesn’t interest me much. My sister lives in Arizona and works in an Indian store in an Indian community, so probably understands that community better than I do. – I’m happy enough to relate to both the Jewish and Irish cultures and live my life involved in business ventures in Portland, Oregon. I live in about a 90% Mexican community where I see zero crime and just hard work and friendly neighbors here. No Republican ran for state representative in my area so the election was between an African American woman and a Mexican woman, where the Mexican woman won the election. A real rarity where I live are Republicans.

          • “I guess I just don’t view the world through some sort of politically tinted prism measurement device as you sometimes do.”

            We are ALL political creatures, in some form or fashion. The problems arise when the politics get in the way of reality – and that’s happening a LOT more these days.

            (Or maybe not – it could be it’s still the about the same, only with the internet it’s a lot easier to see it.)

          • Paul Hooson

            I know I sure agree a lot more with Republicans on tax issues and military spending, defense, etc than Democrats, but I like the social libertarianism in most areas except abortion, where I tend towards the prolife views. With these mixed views, I don’t see the world one single way.

    • pennywit

      I saw Gilbert Gottfried a couple years ago. Didn’t like it. His routine was about 20 percent Catskills and 30-40 percent impressions of people nobody remembers.

  • Par4Course

    The non-native-American Left is outraged on behalf of the 90% of American Indians who don’t give a damn about the Washington football team’s name.

  • sarahconnor2

    Hail to the Redskins!
    Who would have thought that Dan Snyder had bigger balls than Paul Ryan?

    • Scalia

      I’m glad to see your posts here. I wish you would post more often, but you do a great job with the caption contests.

      • sarahconnor2

        Thanks. I guess the Redskins’ finally pulled me into a conversation here!
        We’re season ticket holders-drive down from the Philly area for games.

        • pennywit

          I like the Skins, but I don’t like the ticket prices. Hundreds of dollars to sit up in the nosebleed section in the middle of winter is not for me when my local sports bar, or my living room, gives me a friggin’ beautiful view of the game.

          Also, I don’t like the thought of putting my money in Dan Snyder’s pocket. He’s spent two decades running the football side of things into the ground.

          • jim_m

            I wager if you polled native Americans about ticket prices you would find that 90% of them were offended by the high cost of sporting events.

        • Scalia

          I’m partial to the Lions. A visit to DC was a practically a guaranteed loss until the 27-20 Lions’ win in 2013 (their first ever over there). While growing up with and going to school with NA, we often talked football, including the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry. We never dreamed there would be any kind of controversy with that name. Now, nothing surprises me.

          • pennywit

            You’re a Detroit Lions fan? I’m sorry.

            Of course, I shouldn’t talk. For twenty years, the Detroit Lions and the Cleveland Browns have always come to Fedex Field to feel better about themselves.

          • Scalia

            Yeah, I should be sorry, but a fan is a fan. I’ve tried a few times to replace them, but the heart always goes back. I think they call it Battered Fan Syndrome or something like that.

          • jim_m

            Oh wow. I’m so sorry Scalia. I had no idea.

          • Scalia

            Well, the ’62, ’70 & ’91 teams were pretty good. Other than that, it’s been slim pickins. Our last championship was in ’57. 🙁

  • pennywit

    I’m a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, going all the way back to when the team thwomped the Broncos in Super Bowl XXII. So I have a little bit of a stake in this, though not much. My own thoughts:

    Percentage of Native Americans unoffended. This doesn’t surprise me that much. I suspect the better descriptor isn’t “unoffended” so much as “have better things to do with their time.” And, honestly, don’t a lot of people?

    Should people be offended? I’m not. Then again, as a Philly Eagles fan once said to me, it’s also not his place (or mine) to tell somebody else not to be offended. In modern usage, “Redskin” is a pejorative term. If people are offended, then they have that right, and as a white guy I don’t feel like I have the credibility to tell them they’re imagining the offense … even if I, personally, think the issue is overblown.

    What about that litigation? Complete waste of time. The trademark litigation turns on a fairly obscure bit of the law, and I think the legal team has gone to ridiculous lengths to hunt up a plaintiff with standing. Also, the broadcast-license lawsuit called for the courts to run roughshod over the team’s First amendment rights.

    Should a city refuse to allow a team to move in because of the name? There’s a fine line to walk here. I don’t think a city can credibly deny licenses, etc., to a team based on its name. On the other hand, I’m not aware of any law that mandates a city has to extend tax breaks or go into debt for a shiny new stadium if it doesn’t like a team’s name. So if a city wants to use the team name as a bargaining chip, I’m fine with that.

    Does the team name honor Native Americans? I’d say no. I think it’s there to convey fighting spirit. And honestly, while the name might be offensive, the logo is a very realistic depiction of a Native American man. It’s not like they’re wearing helmets with an offensive stereotype on the side. I also doubt that the team name was originally meant to honor anybody. George Preston Marshall was, by all accounts, a raging racist who wouldn’t sign a single black player to the team for decades.

    Should the team change the name? Honestly, I could root for the Washington Redskins, the Washington Redskin Potatoes, or the Washington Warriors. However, I will never cheer for Daniel Snyder or for the Dallas Cowboys. So if the team wants to change the name, that’s fine with me. And I’d probably even cheer a little bit. And honestly, it’ll be a pure business decision just like everything else a sports franchise does.

    • Scalia

      Well put together, pennywit. You say that in modern usage, redskin is a pejorative term. To some people, yes, but it apparently isn’t a pejorative term to the vast majority of Native Americans (NA). In addition, national public opinion polls range from 60-80 percent in support of the continued use of that name.

      What we have is a vocal minority who perceive it to be offensive and are doing everything they can (as you note, to ridiculous extremes) to compel compliance. Why aren’t other racial groups up in arms over similar mascots? Some years back, I heard an Irish girl get twisted over Notre Dame. I simply replied that she was free to put together an activist group and protest the Fighting Irish, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of support from the Irish community to jettison that label. Ditto here. Tolerance appears to be a forgotten word in the liberal lexicon.

      • pennywit

        Oddly enough, Dan Snyder has a 0 percent approval rating across all groups.

        • Scalia

          Probably well deserved. 😉

          • pennywit

            I have two ambitions if I ever win the lottery.

            The first is to do something to irritate Dan Snyder.

            The second is to buy up all the streets around a local church. They run these ads on the radio that end with the phrase “Not a sermon, just a thought.” I want to buy up all the streets around the church and put up signs that say, “It is TOO a sermon.”

      • pennywit

        Back to seriousness. I am of the opinion that these things are best resolved through stakeholders. If State U. has a potentially offensive mascot or team name, then the impetus to change it should come from faculty, students, and alumni of State U, not from folks from Other State. Similarly, if State U’s mascot is the “Fighting Ethnics,” then I’m more sympathetic to objections from members of that particular ethnic group than to objections originating with white liberals.

        And as far as name changes, I prefer changes by persuasion rather than changes by diktat. That is, make the case to Washington football fans, rather than trying to push trademark lawsuits. Also … it probably helps to be polite to the Skins fans rather than call them blanket racists. Yes, the latter feels good, but it does zilch for convincing people to join your side.

        Incidentally, there’s a local personality who used to go by the performing moniker of Chief Zee. Basically, he’d dress up as a (frankly, stereotypical) Indian chief, do a few things in the stands, and occasionally the Skins would invite him to do something with the team. He also did local appearances.

        Over the last two decades, he got less and less work as Chief Zee because people started to consider his act offensively stereotypical, even if he didn’t intend it as such. IMO, that’s how things should work. A free marketplace of ideas, with some ideas getting less traction as norms change.

  • jim_m

    It’s time to tell the whining pussies on the left to STFU. If and Alaskan high school can call their sports team “The Halfbreeds” nobody has ANYTHING to complain about.