Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What empirical evidence do you have to support that belief. If the Oneida tribes could have any poll that showed their point of view I believe they would be touting them across all the major networks, and also reference it in that "powerful" ad you linked.

As for what percentage, I think 25-30% would be enough in my opinion. Basically the so-called super majority used in most legislative actions. Dirtbag said it earlier and I agree, if an unbiased authoritative polling institution issued a comprehensive poll that showed that more than 30% of Native Americans felt the name was a major negative influence, then the team ought to begin the process of changing the name. I definitely don't think policy or especially private business ought to be driven by the thought that if only 1 person is offended, basically that creates untenable conditions, and I am willing to bet that you can find one person (or one sliver subgroup) who is/are offended by any type of naming.

I don't need any evidence (empirical or imperial) to support my belief because YOU'RE the one who stated that most Native Americans are not offended by the name Redskins. I simply challenged your statement. Perhaps you should prove the contention you made.

If Dan Snyder is so sure that the name is not offensive to most Native Americans then perhaps he should hire a reputable polling company to find out the truth. But no, he hired a lobbyist instead.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

I don't need any evidence (empirical or imperial) to support my belief because YOU'RE the one who stated that most Native Americans are not offended by the name Redskins. I simply challenged your statement. Perhaps you should prove the contention you made.

If Dan Snyder is so sure that the name is not offensive to most Native Americans then perhaps he should hire a reputable polling company to find out the truth. But no, he hired a lobbyist instead.

There are several respected polls out there, albeit not recent that clearly support the statement that a vast majority (over 70%) of native americans are either supportive of, or at least not offended by, the name. Further, a respected native american was distinctly involved in designing the logo, and several schools on native american soil continue to use the name Redskins as there school logos. Here is a link to the 2004 Annenberg poll which puts the percentage offended around 10%, less then half of the 24% mentioned earlier. Again, I am not saying that if a study done today came out and the number jumped way up, that the team shouldn't consider changing. But right now, there is no firm evidence that this is the case. Even when they held protests, you didn't see massive turnouts, in fact the Minnesota one was by all accounts very poorly attended.

He hired a lobbyist PR firm because he and the team are subject to a smear campaign, not by people bringing facts and reasoned argument, but simply playing to a base political motive.