Aptorian, on 23 July 2020 - 05:56 PM, said:
I haven't been following that discussion closely but wasn't there a report years ago about Native Americans not giving a fuck about the Redskins brand? Or did something change in the meantime?
'Dear white people, stop telling Native Americans like me whether we're offended by the Washington Redskins
The Washington Post recently published an article which claimed that "the majority of Native Americans still aren't offended by the name of Washington Redskins." The article comes amid ongoing debate over whether the name of the US capital's football team is racist.
Upon reading the poll's findings, we quickly learn that the publication conducted this survey via phone with 500 "self-identified" Native Americans.'
https://www.independ...e-a9058881.html
'many people who do not satisfy tribal requirements identify themselves as Native American [...] This is practiced by nearly half a million Americans [...] self-identification is problematic on many levels. It is sometimes said, in fun, that the largest tribe in the United States may be the "Wantabes".[30]
Garroutte identifies some practical problems with self-identification as a policy, quoting the struggles of Indian service providers who deal with many people who claim ancestors, some steps removed, who were Indian. She quotes a social worker, "Hell, if all that was real, there are more Cherokees in the world than there are Chinese."
'
https://en.wikipedia...-identification
'In 2016, the Washington Post published a poll about whether Native Americans found the Washington Redskins' name offensive. Ninety percent of respondents said they were not offended by the team's name.
[...]
But a new study from academics at the University of Michigan and UC Berkeley contradicts that data. In a scientific survey of more than 1,000 Native Americans, roughly half of the participants said they were offended by the Redskins' name. Moreover, 65 percent said they were offended by sports fans performing a "tomahawk chop," and 73 percent said they were offended by fans imitating Native American dances.'
[...]
[the Post poll] would never be scientifically published. They called people, as part of a larger study, and they had these items [about mascots] in there. One of the things that we know in science is that the questions you ask before and after influence the response. For example, if I asked you a really serious question about people who are dying in your community, and then I say, "By the way, are you offended by Native mascots?" you see how you can really influence people. People have requested to know what the items were and what order they were in. The second issue is that they called people. There's very good data that shows when you do a call versus online, it changes peoples' responses. When you call, people are more likely to give positive and socially desirable answers. And then they only allowed as answers to their question, "are you offended, are you indifferent, are you not bothered?" Native people telling a person they don't know that they're "offended," that's a strong emotion.
[...] We took the same question [the Post asked], but we gave participants a one-to-seven scale. So you can answer, "I'm somewhat offended, I'm moderately offended, I'm extremely offended." We also didn't call them, we allowed them to do it online. There's no stranger or other person you're trying to account for, [worrying] what they're going to think about your response. Many Native scholars have reached out and asked for the [Post's] data. Or, better yet, show us what your questionnaire was, what are all of the items that you asked? They won't share it. None of that.'
https://www.washingt...-redskins-name/
TL;DR the Post poll was pseudo-scientific garbage. A recent peer-reviewed study indicates that about half of Native Americans find it offensive.
This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 23 July 2020 - 06:17 PM