Quote:
Originally Posted by DubaiSis
Shouldn't the fact that I am also offended count for anything?
|
Well, in connection with that thought,
here's an interesting poll conducted by the Washington Post last year, and
a story on it. It's a poll of Washingtonians, and I find these results interesting:
- 61% of those surveyed said they like the team name "Redskins."
- 66% percent said the name should not be changed (50% feel strongly that it should not be changed), while 28% said it should be.
- 55% of those who do not want to see the name changed thought that "redskin" is an inappropriate way to describe an American Indian.
- 82% said a name change would make no difference to their support of the team, and 6% said it would make them more of a fan. 10% said it would make them less of a fan.
I find it interesting that a majority of those who don't want to see the name changed do not think "redskin" is an appropriate way to refer to American Indians. In a
similar poll of Washingtonians commissioned by the Oneida Tribe, 59% of respondents, none of whom were Indian, said that an American Indian would have a right to feel offended if called a "redskin."
This cognitive dissonance suggests to me that holding on to the name "Washington Redskins" has much to do with familiarity, sentiment and tradition, and little to do with actual belief that the name can't be considered offensive.