Endgame: 61% of Americans, including near-majority of Democrats, don’t think Redskins should change their name

posted at 8:41 pm on September 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Paul Bedard. I’m using “endgame” ironically, of course. The liberal intelligentsia is patient, my friends. They know what’s right for America. If they need to wait awhile until America realizes it too, well, that’s the price of enlightenment.

They convinced the country that there’s an unwritten right to abortion in the Constitution, but somehow the fight over “Redskins” is over? The fight has just begun.

rs

Per the crosstabs, that 70 percent of Democrats who say “Redskins” isn’t offensive is comprised of 49 percent who say it’s definitely not offensive versus 21 percent who say it’s “probably not.” Democrats are also one of only two demographic groups (postgraduates are the other) that reach double digits — 13 percent — who say the name’s “definitely” offensive. Hmmmm. Room to grow?

As for the separate question of whether they should change the name, feast your eyes:

yg2

Again, it’s Democrats in the lead on opposition, albeit verrrrry tepidly. Look again, though, at the numbers for gender and age. Women are less inclined to say the team should change its name than men, and famously liberal younger voters are less eager to see it happen than their elders. Is there an obvious explanation for those stereotype-defying quirks that I’m missing? I’d never have guessed.

Exit question: If you’re part of America’s broad and deep “keep the ‘Redskins’” consensus, what’s better for your cause? That the ‘Skins continue to play like crap, leaving the media with little to talk about except RGIII’s knee and this already-played-out topic, or that the ‘Skins turn things around, leaving the media to concern-troll about how having a Super Bowl contender with this name gives the league a black eye publicly?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Finally had enough of the PC garbage…lets hope the tide is turning on this.

watertown on September 24, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Should ObamaCare change its name?

If the name fits….

Electrongod on September 24, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Yeah, more than 61 percent hate Obamacare and we’re still forced to swallow it.

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

After their performance thus far, Dredskins might be a more appropriate moniker.

TXUS on September 24, 2013 at 8:48 PM

The only people offended are white liberals who decide what minorities should be offended about. Growing up in South Dakota I have a lot of Lakota Sioux friends, not one of them cares about the name.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM

As sick as I am of polls and of hearing what all those idiots out there think, I’m somewhat glad to know that at least over half the country is against this stupid PC speech code nonsense.

Political correctness is about power and criminalizing speech that doesn’t go along with certain groups’ agendas.

bluegill on September 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM

love RG III, but he’s not 1/2 the QB he was last year, thanks to Shanahan risking the franchise QB after he had already shown he had a bad leg. Poor kid, disgraceful coach.

williampeck1958 on September 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Roger Goodell says that if one person is offended it matters. So this poll is irrelevant.

Mark1971 on September 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Should ObamaCare change its name?

If the name fits….

Electrongod on September 24, 2013 at 8:46 PM

DeathCare

, I think, fits quite nicely.

TXUS on September 24, 2013 at 8:51 PM

It was to honor the Indians that they chose the theme and the other Indian names were already taken by other professional sports teams so they went with Redskins.

Buddahpundit on September 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Endgame: 61% of Americans, including near-majority of Democrats, don’t think Redskins should change their name

But can the red man get ahead, man? … [laughter] …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on September 24, 2013 at 8:53 PM

I had never even heard of this team before and I never watch football, but I am disgusted that people are trying to force the team to change its name.

bluegill on September 24, 2013 at 8:54 PM

or that the ‘Skins turn things around, leaving the media to concern-troll about how having a Super Bowl contender with this name gives the league a black eye publicly?

If they go 0-4 next week, that probably won’t happen.

nobar on September 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Super Bowl contender? Really, do you even watch football?

ronval912 on September 24, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Should ObamaCare change its name?

If the name fits….

Electrongod on September 24, 2013 at 8:46 PM

.
“DeathCare,” I think, fits quite nicely.

TXUS on September 24, 2013 at 8:51 PM

.
I’m going to stick with “Government Medical Services“.

listens2glenn on September 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Shouldn’t we find out if anyone in the meat packing industry is offended by the Packers. Surely there are some Somalis offended by the Raiders. I have some friends of Germanic descent who might be offended by the vikings. Isn’t the name Giants offensive to the poor people afflicted with Gigantism or just offensive to short people? We all know Atheists are offended by the Saints.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

I think they should change the name to whatever the local Indian word for “inhuman beasts who live in luxury while gouging the citizens they pretend to be serving” is.

Tzetzes on September 24, 2013 at 9:03 PM

GIVE ‘EM HELL, TED !
.

listens2glenn on September 24, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Where is the outrage for Kansas City Chiefs?

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Didn’t the Vikings pillage and plunder?
Aren’t “Patriots” racists?
Broncos would’ve never been here had it not been for the White man.
Titans are giving homage to Gods…Z’OMG!!

SouthernGent on September 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Where is the outrage for Kansas City Chiefs?

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Buried in the barely readable picture.

nobar on September 24, 2013 at 9:06 PM

We all know Atheists are offended by the Saints.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Not to mention the Anaheim Angels.

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM

love RG III, but he’s not 1/2 the QB he was last year, thanks to Shanahan risking the franchise QB after he had already shown he had a bad leg. Poor kid, disgraceful coach.

williampeck1958 on September 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Me too, and although Griffin heavily lobbied to play under the circumstances, it is the coach who has the responsibility to say hell no, and Shanahan failed not only the team and the owner but Griffin himself by not doing so. I’m still hopeful that the kid will take it easy and let it heal. It would be a terrible talent to waste.

TXUS on September 24, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Wow! They managed to poll over 300 million people????? Oh wait….

jephthah on September 24, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Football used to be a game with some meaning, some tradition and heritage. Now it is nothing more than a silly car wreck quality spectacle meant as filler between commercials … commercials that have as much meaning as the game during the season finale.

In a league that will make rule changes every year just to address a perceived social concern or whiff of opprobrium, does anyone here really think the name Redskins won’t be gone next year?

M240H on September 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM

I’m outraged at the Vikings because they’re representing this state and they suck. The Packers are outraged that they’re stuck in the giant cesspool crap pile known as Wisconsin.

Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Not to mention the Anaheim Angels.

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 9:07 PM

You mean the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.

Mark1971 on September 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Ahme…If just one person objects…..

Our country has become completely pussified.

jukin3 on September 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM

How many Native Americans were polled?

danielreyes on September 24, 2013 at 9:16 PM

Shouldn’t we find out if anyone in the meat packing industry is offended by the Packers. Surely there are some Somalis offended by the Raiders. I have some friends of Germanic descent who might be offended by the vikings. Isn’t the name Giants offensive to the poor people afflicted with Gigantism or just offensive to short people? We all know Atheists are offended by the Saints.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 24, 2013 at 9:00 PM

And, what about people like me? In Chinese astrology, I’m a “Metal Tiger” so, hey, I’m personally offended by the Bengals name.

Then again, why not just give the teams numbers instead of names to pacify the limp-wrists. Oh, wait, we couldn’t do that as that any team named other than “1″, would get their feeeeeliiings hurt.

Effing ridiculous!

TXUS on September 24, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Ahme s/b Ahem.

The one and only reason I can think of pussiffing our nation is so our communist overlords can take over easier and to make the beat male leftist feel like it is a real man and just not a outty on what should have been an inney.

jukin3 on September 24, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Not real smart to remove one of the last reminders of the Native American in the average Americans’ lives. The depiction is respectful and about the only ones who think it is actually racist….are those looking for it to be racist. It portrays a proud and strong image. This PC crap is stupid.

CW on September 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Roger Goodell says that if one person is offended it matters. So this poll is irrelevant.

Mark1971 on September 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Who is Roger Goodell, and would he care that I’m offended by his PC claptrap?

CurtZHP on September 24, 2013 at 9:26 PM

I’m outraged at the Vikings because they’re representing this state and they suck. The Packers are outraged that they’re stuck in the giant cesspool crap pile known as Wisconsin.

Bishop on September 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Shut up and put some fresh line on the tip-ups, sort your jigs, and sharpen the auger.

M240H on September 24, 2013 at 9:26 PM

No matter what anyone says, somewhere, someone will be offended. So you can twist yourself into a pretzel to accommodate. Heck, even more native Americans are proud of the “Redskins” moniker than not.

The Man, the Boy, and
the Donkey
An Aesop’s Fable

A Man and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”

So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”

So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”

Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said:

“Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey of yours and your hulking son?”

The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.

“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:

Moral of Aesops Fable: Please all, and you will please none

Paul-Cincy on September 24, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I’m vaguely against the name — it is tacky. Whatever the origin, these days it’s referring to the African American lady next door as a “negress.”

On the other hand, I’m really against stupidity like this:

Where is the outrage for Kansas City Chiefs?

John the Libertarian on September 24, 2013 at 9:05 PM

“Chief” — and “Indian” and “Braves” and “Seminole.” and “Angels” and “Vikings” and so on — are not a derogatory terms. “Redskin” is.

It’s the difference between the Boston Celtics and the Boston Micks.

Seems like this subject has gotten a lot play here. Are the Redskins the new Sarah Palin?

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 9:57 PM

But what if the government was going to shut down if they don’t change the name? They may hate the thought of changing it, but not *that* much, surely.

Midas on September 24, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Not real smart to remove one of the last reminders of the Native American in the average Americans’ lives. The depiction is respectful and about the only ones who think it is actually racist….are those looking for it to be racist. It portrays a proud and strong image. This PC crap is stupid.

CW on September 24, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Pride is discounted. It’s all about avoiding offense. It’s a sick view.

Paul-Cincy on September 24, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Seems like this subject has gotten a lot play here. Are the Redskins the new Sarah Palin?

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Been under a rock? SI’s Peter King has said he may never use the word again. The PC parade is on the march again, this time against the Washington Redskins.

I’m always amazed at timing with these things. Why now? Does someone call someone and say, “let’s start this thing up”?

Read Rick Reilly’s article. Know what the majority of Native Americans think? Most don’t care.

And as a matter of fact, those that do, many are proud of it.

itsspideyman on September 24, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Been under a rock? SI’s Peter King has said he may never use the word again. The PC parade is on the march again, this time against the Washington Redskins.

I’m always amazed at timing with these things. Why now? Does someone call someone and say, “let’s start this thing up”?

Read Rick Reilly’s article. Know what the majority of Native Americans think? Most don’t care.

And as a matter of fact, those that do, many are proud of it.

itsspideyman on September 24, 2013 at 10:09 PM

I am aware of Peter King (and Slate and others). I’m just surprised that it’s getting so much traction outside the Redskins’ media market. It’s a football team name, for goodness sake.

And while there is some traction to the PC run amok angle, you could have picked a better fight. There is actually no question that “Redskins” is – in every context it could be used since the advent of talkies — a derogatory term, and certainly no one would name a team that today.

Isn’t there some college team out there that is fighting the NCAA, with the support of the local tribe from which they took their name? A much better fight.

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Endgame: 61% of Americans, including near-majority of Democrats, don’t think Redskins should change their name

…well then!…that’s proof that the name has to be changed!
.
.
.
Are the Redskins the new Sarah Palin?

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Are the Redskins the new Sarah Palin?

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 9:57 PM

…are you the new Hot Air A$$?

KOOLAID2 on September 24, 2013 at 10:22 PM

******************* NUTS!! ******************************

canopfor on September 24, 2013 at 10:28 PM

And while there is some traction to the PC run amok angle, you could have picked a better fight. There is actually no question that “Redskins” is – in every context it could be used since the advent of talkies — a derogatory term, and certainly no one would name a team that today.

Isn’t there some college team out there that is fighting the NCAA, with the support of the local tribe from which they took their name? A much better fight.

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Here’s the issue though….not everyone agrees, including Native Americans.

Here’s a quote directly from the article:

“The whole issue is so silly to me,” says Bob Burns, my wife’s father and a bundle holder in the Blackfeet tribe. “The name just doesn’t bother me much. It’s an issue that shouldn’t be an issue, not with all the problems we’ve got in this country.”

And I definitely don’t know how I’ll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School — where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American — that the “Redskins” name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

“I’ve talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it,” says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. “‘Redskins’ is not an insult to our kids. ‘Wagon burners’ is an insult. ‘Prairie n—–s’ is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But ‘Redskins’ is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I’d like to see somebody come up here and try to change it.”

Here’s the thing, these Native Americans don’t beleive it. So who do you listen to? Who’s opinion counts more?

itsspideyman on September 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM

The way the Redskins are playing, Native Americans may ask the team to change its name, not because of political correctness but because they are embarrassed by the team.

bw222 on September 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM

which they took their name? A much better fight.

urban elitist on September 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

There is, North Dakota, “The Fighting Sioux”. Half of the tribes are proud of the name and want it to stay. The other half want it taken off. The NCAA has said they won’t take away their name, but they can’t participate in any playoff games. North Dakota has won 7 previous NCAA championships, and were left with no options. ND voters opted to remove the name from the University.

North Dakota now has….no name. For three years, until they will choose a name. The students still call themselves “The Fighting Sioux”. Free speech ain’t dead anyway.

Great way to fix it….extortion.

itsspideyman on September 24, 2013 at 10:37 PM

I think I heard that the Washington Redskins were originally the Boston Redskins. Much like the Atlanta Braves were first the Boston Braves. Does Boston have an affinity for Indians? One thinks of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party. I was against a name change, but now I’m for it. Bring on the Washington Tea Partiers!

boko fittleworth on September 24, 2013 at 10:53 PM

So, any name that can be bandied about over the airwaves must be fair game for general conversation.

This could get interesting.

Meremortal on September 24, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Endgame: 61% of Americans, including near-majority of Democrats, don’t think Redskins should change their name

Whatdya know, a poll that isn’t full of weasel words done by weasels so that other weasels can spout status quo weasel talking points…

Gohawgs on September 24, 2013 at 11:24 PM

I grew up outside DC but now live in western Washington. There are a lot of reservations (and casinos) around here. I regularly wear my Redskins shirts out in public and have never had anyone so much as glance at me sideways (other than when the Seahawks were playing the Redskins). I don’t think the reaction would be the same if I wore a tshirt with the n-word around.

If the perpetually offended want to get upset over a sports nickname, there’s a great one in the college ranks. Both the name and the logo play on stereotypes that a certain ethnic group may not like. I’m talking about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish of course.

Of course I don’t really think the nickname is offensive. But then again I’m a normal human being not looking to be offended at every turn.

hump1201 on September 25, 2013 at 12:23 AM

The only people offended are white liberals who decide what minorities should be offended about. Growing up in South Dakota I have a lot of Lakota Sioux friends, not one of them cares about the name.

The Notorious G.O.P on September 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM

(and H/T to others on this thread)

Looks like the poll omitted the only cross-tabs that matter.

AesopFan on September 25, 2013 at 12:56 AM

Moral of Aesops Fable: Please all, and you will please none

Paul-Cincy on September 24, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Couldn’t have said it better myself. ;)

AesopFan on September 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM

And while there is some traction to the PC run amok angle, you could have picked a better fight. There is actually no question that “Redskins” is – in every context it could be used since the advent of talkies — a derogatory term, and certainly no one would name a team that today.

urban effetist on September 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM

The State university sports teams from the state O’bama claims to have been born in call themselves the “Rainbow Warriors”. Not a nod to PC, but a proud reference to their past heritage, which included pushing people off of cliffs with spears, and also eating dogs.

Should they change their name as well?

(Starts Poi-Powered Sundial)

PS:

5 Ways to Heal Red Skin.

PPS

F-

Del Dolemonte on September 25, 2013 at 1:50 AM

Jesse Jackson calls hiBlack’ as in ‘black Skin’. Why wouod it be offensive to call a native American ‘red’ or ‘Redskin’? A bit of double standard in my opinion…

mouell on September 25, 2013 at 8:31 AM

I plan on using Redskins for the rest of my life. If the left does actually get them to change the name, I will call them “The team formerly known as the Redskins”. I will never use whatever new name they come up with.

Chris of Rights on September 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Shep Smith calls them “The Washington Football Team.”

Akzed on September 25, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I wonder when the PC people bent out of shape over the Redskins will take a trip to Cleveland, whose American League baseball team is called the Indians. Baseball caps for most major league teams are marked with the initial(s) of the team’s home city (B for Boston, NY for New York, SL for Saint Louis, etc.), but the Cleveland Indians wear caps marked with a red-skinned guy wearing one feather behind his head.

And if you live in Ohio and don’t like the Cleveland Indians, you can always root for the Cincinnati Reds.

Steve Z on September 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM