Skip to main content

A pointless "Redskins" poll

According to a new survey conducted by NFL Nation reporters, of 286 players whom were asked whether or not the Washington Redskins needed to change their name during the off-season and training camp, while 42% of them said yes (167), 58% of them said no (119).

The reporters also asked 51 Washington Redskins players the same question, of which 26 responded with a no, 1 responded with a yes, and 24 didn't respond at all.

This is a rather pointless poll - especially with regard to the Washington Redskins players. There are approximately 1,696 players in the NFL, so 286 represents just 16.9% of the league. Also, it's not as if this is a general election year and it'd be virtually impossible to ask every person in this country for whom they'll likely vote. There are 1,696 players in the league, so it would be very possible to survey everyone and garner a better idea of how the league's players feel about the matter. As far as the Redskins players are concerned, their owner - Daniel Snyder - has been adamant in his defense of the team's nickname this off-season. He's even gone so far as to say that the name is basically honoring Native Americans. So, of course players on the team aren't going to say the name should be changed, and it's quite telling that nearly half of those surveyed refused to answer the question.

Regardless of the numbers, though, popular opinion doesn't really dictate right from wrong. It can dictate what people feel is right or wrong, but it is not a definitive measure. Back in the day, if a similar poll were released regarding the use of the "N" word, and 58% of the people said it wasn't offensive, that wouldn't make it so. It'd simply show what people thought of it, and as history has indicated time and time again, people's opinions change and evolve. It wasn't too long ago that a large majority of this country disapproved of gay marriage, yet now, a majority of this country approves it. No matter what percentage of players in the league feel that the Washington Redskins shouldn't change their name, that can't detract from the fact that the term "Redskins" is derogatory and shouldn't be used by a large, powerful organization (or any organization) to represent a group of people.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11452022/nfl-nation-confidential-majority-players-support-washington-redskins-nickname

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"