90% of Native Americans Not Offended by Washington Redskins Name

Ninety percent of Native Americans aren’t offended by the Washington Redskins name, underscoring how the “issue” has been hyped up by both the perpetually offended media and politicians trying to control free speech.  The Washington Post – a liberal newspaper – conducted a poll of over 500 Native Americans across the country and found that the general population is more concerned about the so-called “racist” Redskins than the group the team is supposedly offending.  Even more, of the Native Americans who identified as being liberal, 80% of them called the name “inoffensive.”  And, giving the poll more credibility, a 2014 ESPN poll found that only 23% of the population supported a name change, and it’s likely only a small percentage of that 23% were Native American.  “The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride. Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree,” team owner Dan Snyder said in a statement. “We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community, and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name.” [1]

Washington’s owner, Dan Snyder, has long resisted calls to change the team’s name, and said the poll backed up his stance.  “The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect and pride,” said Snyder in a statement. “Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree. We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community, and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name.” [4] The Washington Post poll found that opinions among Native Americans towards the team’s name were consistent regardless of factors such as age, income and level of education. Non-Native Americans are, in fact, more likely to favor a name change. A 2014 ESPN poll found that 23% of the US population thought the team should change its name. Barack Obama, the Guardian and the Washington Post itself are among those to have urged Snyder to change the team’s name. [4]  They artificially fueled the “outrage” over the name to make racism seem more commonplace than it actually is so the public would be more likely to believe a lie that someone, such as opposition to the status quo, is racist.  And it also served as a chilling effect on free speech because “political correctness” encourages self-censorship by exploiting the human fear of social rejection.  “When a free society falls under the sway of these manufactured cascades, many people stop behaving as free thinkers,” former intelligence insider Stella Morabito said. “People become less focused on truth and more focused on their social survival, and once people perceive the PC view as dominant, many with opposing views remain silent out of fear of social isolation.”  In other words, people will fear sharing their views and opinions out of fear they’ll be socially outcast like a leper due to not being “politically correct.”  This, of course, suppresses civil debate that awakens reason and causes people to challenge the current political system. [1]

On ESPN’s Around the Horn, host Tony Reali asked his panel whether or not the fact that the supposedly offended Native Americans, being not so offended, changed their views on the issue?

Spoiler alert: it didn’t:

Tony: Native Americans appear far less concerned about the team name than Washingtonians. Israel, Does this new poll change the way you view the debate over the name?

Israel: It doesn’t for me. Let’s just say you go 9%, 10% of native Americans find it offensive and 21% or more kind it disturbing. That’s enough for me. Okay? It could just be that others don’t know the history of it and therefore aren’t offended. But this debate of tradition with the football team vs. Something that could possibly be offensive or is offensive to several people, I don’t even understand why that’s even a debate, why one should carry any weight over the over. And I’ve seen a lot of things online, whether it be from the nation tweeting out a picture of an old flyer basically saying $200 for every r-skin, that is found dead, or you can kill or what have you, so they’re putting bounty on heads. There’s no much history there. Maybe even native Americans don’t know the history. But there are enough that do know the history of that word and find it offensive. The numbers are plenty to say, yes, it’s worth changing the debate.

Pablo: It’s illuminating and edifying. If there was a national survey, because now we’re getting contrary polls and who knows what they would claim empirically ultimately. But if we were to have that big American idol-style vote, that would be edifying and illuminating, yes. My argument has never been it’s 9% or 30%. It’s a matter of principle. We will not turn dictionary defined slurs into mascots. That’s a general broad principle as a policy that I continue to stand on, because number one, it’s very sad when someone like the person who is quoted in that survey, one of the people who said this is our only form of representation, that’s a sad substitute if that is the case. Second thing is, I think our conversation around race is worse when we reduce people to cartoon characters, as a policy. That opens the door to other things but absolutely still stands in this case.

Tony: J.A., how do you consider that this is, say, 9% not offended when polls with a greater population seem to have a different opinion?

J.A: Well, either way, Tony, you want to avoid the tyranny of the majority. That’s something that the framers of the constitution instituted into our democracy. And I think that’s something that should apply here, even if the majority is within the particular group that we’re talking about. If they say they are not offended by the nickname of the team or by the terms. What about those who are? And that’s the bottom line. No matter how large or small the group that is offended, why go through the bother, the expense of offending them when you don’t have to? There’s no need to name the team this way. And you should just take that into account. Would a reasonable person find a way to be offended by this team? If you say yes, get rid of the name.

Tony: So, you don’t care if it’s 9%, if it’s 99%?

J.A.: Also, the percentages ignore the fact that it could still be a large number of people.

Amazing, how the take from Israel Gutierrez –not a Native American– appears to be that the reason why the numbers of offended aren’t higher, is because the Native Americans in question don’t know their own history. In other words, that they happen to be too dumb to know they should be offended. [2] Moral of the story, the Washington Post poll is a shining testament to the fact that the sports media’s jihad against the Reskins has absolutely nothing to do with Native Americans, and everything to do with a social justice warrior vendetta against a Republican owner who donates to GOP candidates and has Fox News anchors in the owner’s box as guests. Nothing more to see here. [2]