Skip to comments.Despite Liberal Media Push, Poll Shows Vast Majority of Americans Aren't Offended by 'Redskins'
Posted on 05/04/2013 5:47:31 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Try as they might, the liberal sports media's efforts to shame the Washington Redskins into ditching their team name out of political correctness concerns hasn't significantly moved public opinion. A brand new Associated Press-GfK poll found 79 percent of respondents favored keeping the name.
Of course in his story on the poll, AP's Ben Nuckols weighted his piece heavily with Skins detractors, including former Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. "There’s a derogatory name for every ethnic group in America, and we shouldn’t be using those words," the Colorado Republican complained. "We probably haven’t gotten our message out as well as it should be gotten out."
Yet left completely out of consideration is that many Native Americans themselves have no problems with sports teams nicknaming themselves the Redskins.
In 2004 the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 90 percent of American Indians are not offended by the Washington Redskins retaining their nickname. What's more, and this is key (emphasis mine):
Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Anne nberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “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?”
In the April 2013 AP-GfK poll, only two percent of the respondents classified themselves as American Indian in ethnic heritage and AP did not give the breakdown on the Redskins question by racial categories (white, Hispanic, black, etc.). It would be interesting to see the breakdown in the AP poll, which was conducted over five days in mid-April, but that number would be highly inaccurate given the small sample size.
Also of interest in this discussion is the origin of the term "redskin." Last November, Adrian Jawort, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe noted that the historical record doesn't mesh with political correctness advocates' insistence that "redskin" was a racist slur invented by white colonists (emphasis mine):
Claiming “scalps” automatically means “red skins” is revisionist history, to be blunt. It was the Native Americans who first used the term “red” in order to differentiate between indigenous, white, and black people. When not referring to their individual and other tribes collectively, why would they use Indian, Native, or other adjectives to describe their obvious skin differences back then? Ives Goddard is a senior linguist at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of History. Goddard wrote the book, I am a Redskin: The Adoption of a Native American Expression (1769-1826) and notes the earliest uses of “red skin” were in recorded statements from Natives by the French who generally traded amicably with them. The French were careful to denote the “red” distinction was made by Natives themselves. By the time of the Phips Proclamation, according to Goddard, “red” to describe Natives was used “by both French and English…. Although Europeans sometimes used such expressions among themselves, however, they remained aware of the fact that this was originally and particularly a Native American usage.” Also citing Goddard in the recent article, “Before The Redskins Were The Redskins: The Use Of Native American Team Names In The Formative Era of American Sports, 1857-1944,” Professor of Law and historian J. Gordon Hylton writes about the term, “…throughout the nineteenth century, the term was essentially neutral when used by whites, reflecting neither a particularly positive or particularly negative connotation.” Even Sitting Bull once remarked, “I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place.”
Because American Indians are a small sliver of the total population, it is incredibly easy for the liberal media to amplify the voices of left-wing Native American activists and conflate their opinions with everyday Americans who are proud of their Native American heritage. Add on top of that that many liberal sports journalists are liberal and eagerly jump on identity politics bandwagons -- as the Jason Collins hype of late attests. But while those two facts explain the media slant on this matter, they certainly don't excuse it.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
In an effort to remove mentions of Indians from public discourse as the libs so clearly want, the team should be renamed the Washington Homosexuals. We KNOW that homosexuals are a proud people from all their parades and TV shows telling us that very thing. Therefore I suggest we start a campaign to rename the team accordingly and let the NFL one up the NBA.
In completely unrelated news, Astros are threatened by Tigers.
Surprise, surprise. These politically korect basturds need to get over themselves. Grow up and join the rest of the country.
Eventually, when all references to American Indians are no longer in our common lexicon, they will simply but not only be out of sight and out of mind. THey and their territory will likely be moved and seized, at the same time, by our creditors.
It’s called ‘chang(ing) our history,’ just like MO said.
Indians queers are a small sliver of the total population, it is incredibly easy for the liberal media to amplify the voices of left-wing Native queer American activists and conflate their opinions with everyday Americans who are proud of their Native queer American heritage.
I think we can declare the Astros’ bullpen extinct.
The rest of the country is also politically correct.
That’s the predominant religion among Catholics and Protestants.
They were a lot tougher in the first 2 games but 9-0 is a lot to come back from in the 7th inning.
It’s hard to believe there are still people pushing this nonsense. It’s been going on for more years than I care to remember.
AND THE SALIENT POINT IS THIS: The teams named after REDSKINS, BRAVES, and any other “ethnically insensitive” term, were named that way OUT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DECADES AGO!The names themselves are POLITICALLY CORRECT NAMES-—they were meant to HONOR the Native Americans! But the winds of PC shift and change and the new ethos dictates that PC will never be satisfied-—it’s got to keep asserting itself and exercising its power to intimidate.
I’m a redsckin every time I step out in the sun. I outsourced tanning to my kids. They were born with a natural one.
The dirt bags in the NCAA, forced the University of North Dakota to drop the Fighting Sioux nickname. I am not sure if UND did it out of spite, but as far as I know, they never replaced it with another nickname.
The Redskins are my absolute favorite football team for the past 44 years and nothing better change! My son in law gives me problems enough when he says the name should change to the Washington Foreskins....but what can you expect from a stinkin’ Eagles fan!
I think everyone is threatened by the New York Yankees....period. And if they aren’t threatened....they ought to be.
Yankees and Tigers are dead even at 18-11 .621.
I think the Astros just want to get today’s game over with and see the Tigers leave town. It was like they just gave up last night and weren’t even trying to stop the Tigers from scoring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.