Paintrain's all encompassing 'discuss all things offseason' thread (Version 2.0)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

What empirical evidence do you have to support that belief. If the Oneida tribes could have any poll that showed their point of view I believe they would be touting them across all the major networks, and also reference it in that "powerful" ad you linked.

As for what percentage, I think 25-30% would be enough in my opinion. Basically the so-called super majority used in most legislative actions. Dirtbag said it earlier and I agree, if an unbiased authoritative polling institution issued a comprehensive poll that showed that more than 30% of Native Americans felt the name was a major negative influence, then the team ought to begin the process of changing the name. I definitely don't think policy or especially private business ought to be driven by the thought that if only 1 person is offended, basically that creates untenable conditions, and I am willing to bet that you can find one person (or one sliver subgroup) who is/are offended by any type of naming.

CRed, with all respect, dominant culture folks simply took land from Indians, killed them off by the handfuls, and then destroyed their remaining cultures, leaving many of their descendents to eke out a bare existence on reservation lands that often are so bad, no one else wants them.

But if only 24% of Indians oppose the vanity of a sports team nickname because they consider it offensive, the name should stay?

I agree with you that there will always be naysayers. But for me, given historical and current situations, the percentage of opposition needs to be much lower than the 24% you propose for change.