Post by movieliker on Dec 15, 2020 20:01:53 GMT
- The authors of the article concluded that "Although most Native American activists and tribal leaders consider Indian team names and mascots offensive, neither Native Americans in general nor a cross section of U.S. sports fans agree". According to the article, "There is a near total disconnect between Indian activists and the Native American population on this issue."[14]
- 80% responded that they would NOT be personally offended if a Non-Native American referred to them as a "Redskin".
- A smaller sample of 340 respondents was asked if the term "redskin" is disrespectful to Native Americans, with 73% responding "No".
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_opinion_polls#:~:text=The%20researchers%20found%20that%2049,%2C%20and%2013%25%20were%20indifferent.
Soon after the SI article, a group of five social scientists experienced in researching the mascot issue published a journal article arguing against the validity of this survey and its conclusions. They state, "The confidence with which the magazine asserts that a 'disconnect' between Native American activists and Native Americans exists on this issue belies the serious errors in logic and accuracy made in the simplistic labeling of Native Americans who oppose mascots as 'activists.'"
I already covered the rest of your points, the polls have proven erroneous, and the various tribal councils and native organizations add up to more than 340 respondents (who may or may not be native in the first place).
You argue this as well as you argue football.
That means nothing. Of course some politically correct, guilty white Americans are gonna argue against it, because it doesn't fit their desired narrative.
If I didn't want you to read the article, I wouldn't have posted the link.
If I argue this as well as I argue sports, I must be winning. Because I've cleaned your clock in every debate we've had on every topic so far.