Vikings Message Board.Com

dead_poet wrote: I'm afraid you need to look outside your group of friends. That's not exactly a representative sample of the beliefs of the Native American community. As an example:

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/na ... ur#3tmwo0v

IMO that couldn't be more biased, first off there is no mention of population size or standard error deviation (Stats 101), second the questions they asked and the way they did. For example if I asked, "Do you think the word redskin is offensive?" appose to " does the NFL team name Washington Redskin offend you?" makes most stats bias. Besides arguing stats and integrity of resources I personally believe if it was a problem you would hear about it, Native Americans are very vocal about what upsets them and I never seen global news on this issue.

allday1991 wrote:IMO that couldn't be more biased, first off there is no mention of population size or standard error deviation (Stats 101),

Population size in what regard? It looks like they surveyed 390 people of various ethnic backgrounds.

second the questions they asked and the way they did. For example if I asked, "Do you think the word redskin is offensive?" appose to " does the NFL team name Washington Redskin offend you?"

I don't know if I see the flaw or bias in their questions.

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word or symbol. (agree/disagree)
The name-symbol Redskins is disrespectful of Native Americans (agree/disagree)
Should professional teams should be allowed to use racial names?
Is it is still racist if Indians use the term?
Is Redskins racist when used by non-Indians?

But that's fine. Here's another recent survey:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html

A large but shrinking majority of Americans say the Washington Redskins should not change their team’s name, according to a poll released Tuesday finding over two-thirds of the public does not think the name is disrespectful of Native Americans.

Support for the Redskins name has fallen substantially from 89 percent in a 1992 Washington Post-ABC News poll and 83 percent in an online Associated Press-GfK survey earlier this year. While clearly outnumbered, the percentage saying the team should change its name has grown from 8 percent in 1992 to 23 percent in the new survey.

The data reflect a smoldering battle over the name’s acceptability even as a growing number of Native American groups, political leaders and media have denounced it as a racial slur.

I personally believe if it was a problem you would hear about it

What? It IS a problem. That's why we're hearing about it!

dead_poet wrote: Population size in what regard? It looks like they surveyed 390 people of various ethnic backgrounds.
I don't know if I see the flaw or bias in their questions.

The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word or symbol. (agree/disagree)
The name-symbol Redskins is disrespectful of Native Americans (agree/disagree)
Should professional teams should be allowed to use racial names?
Is it is still racist if Indians use the term?
Is Redskins racist when used by non-Indians?

But that's fine. Here's another recent survey:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html
What? It IS a problem. That's why we're hearing about it!

390 people is not nearly a high enough population size in fact if you took a college or university stats class you would know that's almost laughable. Standard error is still missing (basically tells you have accurate it is). The survey could be very bias, no information on how they selected the people, where they selected the people from, weather it was random or not etc. Its a problem because 55 senators brought it up, not the native community.

allday1991 wrote:390 people is not nearly a high enough population size in fact if you took a college or university stats class you would know that's almost laughable.

That's fine. Use the ESPN poll. It matters not. Both show that people DO find the name racist, and a growing number at that.

Its a problem because 55 senators brought it up, not the native community.

Senators represent their constituents.

allday1991 wrote:390 people is not nearly a high enough population size in fact if you took a college or university stats class you would know that's almost laughable. Standard error is still missing (basically tells you have accurate it is). The survey could be very bias, no information on how they selected the people, where they selected the people from, weather it was random or not etc. Its a problem because 55 senators brought it up, not the native community.

That last sentence is completely inaccurate. Rather than making a snide comment about taking a college stats class, I suggest you do more research into the history of this controversy. Native Americans have been protesting and complaining about the Washington Redskins team name for decades now. It's not a new development or "a problem because 55 senators brought it up". It's a long-standing issue that's coming to a head.

If you haven't heard about the problem before, it's not because it didn't exist or because it wasn't an issue until recently.

dead_poet wrote: That's fine. Use the ESPN poll. It matters not. Both show that people DO find the name racist, and a growing number at that.
Senators represent their constituents.

And my point is depending on how you conduct the survey you can get whatever result you want. That's why there are these parameters to judge by, all which are left out of all these surveys, which points to one of two things; they don't know how to do a proper survey or its bias. Ever hear the stat 60% of statistics are made up on the spot? The senators brought it up because of the NBA owner issue, not because Native Americans where complaining. So until there is a government census done we wont have the accurate stat.

Mothman wrote: That last sentence is completely inaccurate. Rather than making a snide comment about taking a college stats class, I suggest you do more research into the history of this controversy. Native Americans have been protesting and complaining about the Washington Redskins team name for decades now. It's not a new development or "a problem because 55 senators brought it up". It's a long-standing issue that's coming to a head.

If you haven't heard about the problem before, it's not because it didn't exist or because it wasn't an issue until recently.

It wasn't a snide comment, I simply pointed out I took a college course so to fully understand what I am trying to explain probably wont happen. It took a professor 4 months to teach a class of 30 and some still didn't get it... but sure snide comment. Sure some native Americans will protest like I said someone will always complain its shouldn't be a problem till the majority complain. I have still yet to see actual prove that the major of native Americans think this way.

If it was a snide comment I would of appreciated dead poet to politely tell me so, I felt I was having a harmless debate and just got jumped on, this is why I try to stay away from this board.

allday1991 wrote:And my point is depending on how you conduct the survey you can get whatever result you want.

Well, yeah, obviously. But nothing in the surveys posted leads me to the conclusion that they were biased. Of course, you're free to question them if they don't fit your preconceived narrative.

That's why there are these parameters to judge by, all which are left out of all these surveys, which points to one of two things; they don't know how to do a proper survey or its bias. Ever hear the stat 60% of statistics are made up on the spot?

The ESPN poll was conducted from Aug. 20 to 24 among a random national sample of 1,019 adults reached on conventional and cellular phones and carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. But you can continue to discount every survey that shows that people find the name Redskins racist.

The senators brought it up because of the NBA owner issue, not because Native Americans where complaining.

From the letter:

"“The despicable comments made by Mr. Sterling have opened up a national conversation about race relations. We believe this conversation is an opportunity for the NFL to take action to remove the racial slur from the name of one of its marquee franchises.”

More to the point:

...we have heard from every national Tribal organization, including the National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes, and the Af?liated Tribes of Northwest Indians. These organizations represent" more than 2 million Native Americans across the country and more than 300 Tribes with government-to-government relationships with the United States. These organizations have passed resolutions in support of a name change as they find the Washington, D.C. football team name to be racially offensive. We have heard from tribes across the country, including the Navajo Nation, the largest tribe in the Country, who oppose this name. To understand this viewpoint, we urge you to watch the video, "Proud to Be" posted on the National Congress of American Indians website.

But you can still keep saying that few find it offensive.

So until there is a government census done we wont have the accurate stat.

A worthy read below:

A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

http://truth-out.org/video/item/15773-s ... al-borders

Sherman Alexie:I mean, it's a destructive feeling. Because, you know, a lot of native culture has been destroyed. So you already feel lost inside your culture. And then you add up feeling lost and insignificant inside the larger culture. So you end up feeling lost squared. And to never be recognized, to never have any power, you know, other minority communities actually have a lot of economic, cultural power. But we don't, you know? Not at all.I mean, you can still have the Washington Redskins, you know? You can still have the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians, which is by far the worst. And if you look at Chief Wahoo on their hats and put Sambo next to him, it's the same thing. And, you know, you could never have Sambo anymore.Most, you know, at least half the country thinks the mascot issue is insignificant. But I think it's indicative of the ways in which Indians have no cultural power. We're still placed in the past. So we're either in the past or we're only viewed through casinos.

allday1991 wrote:It wasn't a snide comment, I simply pointed out I took a college course so to fully understand what I am trying to explain probably wont happen. It took a professor 4 months to teach a class of 30 and some still didn't get it... but sure snide comment. Sure some native Americans will protest like I said someone will always complain its shouldn't be a problem till the majority complain. I have still yet to see actual prove that the major of native Americans think this way.

If it was a snide comment I would of appreciated dead poet to politely tell me so, I felt I was having a harmless debate and just got jumped on, this is why I try to stay away from this board.

... and as a moderator, I'm trying to make sure discussions stay civil so this board is a good place for people to hang out and post. If you didn't mean what you wrote as a snide comment, that's fine. I misunderstood you and that's occasionally going to happen online but please be aware that when you post "in fact if you took a college or university stats class you would know that's almost laughable" as a direct reply to someone, the natural inference is that "you" is refers to that person.

Carry on...

dead_poet wrote: Well, yeah, obviously. But nothing in the surveys posted leads me to the conclusion that they were biased. Of course, you're free to question them if they don't fit your preconceived narrative.
The ESPN poll was conducted from Aug. 20 to 24 among a random national sample of 1,019 adults reached on conventional and cellular phones and carries a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. But you can continue to discount every survey that shows that people find the name Redskins racist.
From the letter:


More to the point:
But you can still keep saying that few find it offensive.


A worthy read below:

A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning

Cant deny that there, your research wins.

I guess as myself growing up before actually learning all the cruel things north Americans did to native Americans i knew the Washington redskins, which explains why most the people i know (younger generation) don't find it offensive because the first thing they think of is the football team. Your obviously an intelligent person, do you think once this generation passes and the next line of native Americans take leadership that the name will finally be left alone and lose meaning, or do you think it will be changed before then?

Lets just hope some of the descendants of the people the Vikings used to rape, pillage and murder, don't file a suit against the Vikings.

GBFavreFan wrote: I know you might just be making a joke to make light of everything, but you do realize the difference between naming a team "Vikings" and naming it "Redskins" right? The Vikings are an extinct people and have been for a 1,000 years. Native Americans are still alive and well.

So time is your measurement of what's racist or not, when it was never intended and only a few took offense? We can have a team named Hitlers Thugs when enough time has passed? Maybe 50 more years? When none of the survivors of Holocaust are left? I know this is absurd, but I am trying to make a point. Someone is always, and I mean always, hurt by something. I can take offense at something you might not. Its just absurd.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings


The Old Norse feminine noun víking refers to an expedition overseas.[6][7] It occurs in Viking Age runic inscriptions and in later medieval writings in set expressions such as the phrasal verb fara í víking, "to go on an expedition". The derived Old Norse masculine noun víkingrappears in Viking Age skaldic poetry and on several rune stones found in Scandinavia, where it refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas.[7] In later texts, such as the Icelandic sagas, the phrase "to go on a viking" implies participation in raiding activity or piracy and not simply seaborne missions of trade and commerce.

To those that say how we stole everything from the Indians, do you feel that way about every war ever fought, or every country that conquered another? Or should we have declared war on them after we first started sailing here? How should we have handled it? Or the French and Indian war?

And has anyone talked to the native Indians that live in the state of MN? I have a lot of Indian friends from the Leach Lake and Mille Lacs areas, and they don't feel the name is offensive. A small sampling I know, but it makes more sense then saying the name is only racist, period. Some take pride in the name, and think this politically correct stand, is just that. Politics. One of the friends I have even said he thinks its a lot more offensive to be called Big Chief, or even Chief.

I really am interested to know what those of you think that have native Indians friends, have to say about what your friends say. Or if anyone goes to the casino near Mille Lacs has ever heard the word Redskin meaning anything other then the team. Ask around Garrison or Onamia. It like my taking offense anytime someone jokes about a drunk Irishman, or a Mick, or a fighting irish guy. Plus the USA Senators calling for this, is quite a joke in itself. Can there be 2 bigger idiots then Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid?