If you haven’t heard, there has been a simmering controversy over the Washington Redskins name: some people believe it’s offensive and needs to be changed, others believe it’s a harmless tradition.

An ESPN poll conducted in 2014 found that 24% of Americans believe the name is offensive and should be changed, so about 1 in 4. That number grew three-fold over the course of a year.

But this is probably a somewhat average slice of the American public. So how do Native Americans feel?

The only large-ish N poll (504 people) has been conducted by the Washington Post. They found that 9% of Native Americans are offended by the team’s name, and that fewer than 20% would feel offended if a non-native called them a “redskin.”

So this is a pretty surprising result; it’s probably the case that many people outside the Native American community would assume that they’d find the name offensive. And of course, 9% do.

What’s really interesting about this is it brings up a question: who decides what’s offensive? Americans as a whole are almost three times as likely as Native Americans to find the term offensive, and it’s a non-trivial number.

Does the public as a whole get to determine that something is offensive enough, by some consensus, to use popular pressure to get rid of a name?

Let’s say the numbers were reversed: would Native Americans be the folks to ask about whether the name is offensive? Since an overwhelming majority don’t find it offensive, should other Americans back off? Is it condescending to assume a word is offensive to a certain group, or does someone keep the “right” to find a word offensive even if it’s not about them?

Might there be a more objective standard by which to determine whether a word or name for a group is acceptable or not? Is one offended or hurt person enough to demand a change?

Something to consider. Looking forward to your thoughts in comments.

Erik Fogg

Erik Fogg is co-author of ReConsider’s written work, co-host of the ReConsider podcast and author of Wedged: How you became a tool of the partisan Political Establishment and How to Start Thinking for Yourself Again. Erik has a masters degree in political science from MIT and has spent years working with various NGOs, Harvard, MIT, United Nations and various private advocacy groups organizations. He’s ghost-written published books. He’s now running a software startup. Erik grew up in a very red part of Pennsylvania and moved to a very blue part of Massachusetts. Having a foot in both worlds has enabled Erik to see how both sides of the political spectrum caricature the other and has sparked his mission to create a real dialogue that cuts through the noise. Erik podcasts from his office in suburban San Mateo, surrounded by 17th and 18th-century European art, a costume-construction toolkit and table, a VR kit, and a small bed for his Boston Terrier, Oscar.

View Comments

  • There certainly SHOULD be some kind of objective standard. Alas, subjective standards allow people to use issues like this to manipulate people on other issues. It becomes "part of the problem" of whatever problem they can link it to, and while there certainly are potentially offensive icons out there (particularly in the breakfast aisle of the supermarket) the arguments tend to be loudest when they influence other policies, not when the people potentially offended are complaining.

  • I think (as well as hope) that sentiment in non-native americans about the "redskins" name comes from a place of empathy for native americans. In other words, I hope people care about this issue because they understand what it would feel like to be called something unpleasant (if indeed native americans find the term "redskin" unpleasant.)

    So any opposition I would have to the team name "redskins" is based on this actually mattering for the people whom the term describes. If, hypothetically, the name doesn't offend most native americans, then maybe the team's name is not a particularly important issue right now.

    • My intuition would match yours, that non-natives are assuming that it's a hurtful word and are saying, "I don't want a football team with a name that's hurtful." I don't know how much of an element there may be of, "I find this distasteful on principle."

      I also wonder what % of some group needs to find something offensive for it to "pass muster" to become a priority issue. It's all a mess to me.

Recent Posts

Ukraine XI: Asymmetric Momentum

Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…

1 year ago

Ukraine X: The Absolutely Dazzling Counter-Blitzkrieg

The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?

1 year ago

ReConsidering Russia: The Complex History of Russia

Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…

1 year ago

Ukraine IX: Oh HI, MARS

https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…

1 year ago

It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times, Part 2

https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…

2 years ago