Skip to content

Dan Snyder “gratified” by Native American support for “Redskins”

LANDOVER, MD - JANUARY 10: Fans hold signs in the first quarter during the NFC Wild Card Playoff game between the Green Bay Packers and the Washington Redskins at FedExField on January 10, 2016 in Landover, Maryland. (Photo by Elsa/Getty Images) Getty Images

Dan Snyder is, unsurprisingly, pleased to see that a new poll shows the vast majority of Native Americans do not object to the name of his team.

A statement from Snyder provided to PFT says that the poll released today confirms the team’s longstanding belief that the team name is embraced by the Native American community.

“The Washington Redskins team, our fans and community have always believed our name represents honor, respect, and pride. Today’s Washington Post polling shows Native Americans agree. We are gratified by this overwhelming support from the Native American community and the team will proudly carry the Redskins name,” Snyder said.

The Washington Post‘s poll of a randomly selected national sample of 504 Native American adults asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?” The answer was that 90 percent answered that the name doesn’t bother them. Only 9 percent called the name offensive, with 1 percent having no opinion.

Snyder has insisted that his team’s name will never change. This poll gives him a strong case to claim support from Native Americans for that position.

Permalink 59 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
59 Responses to “Dan Snyder “gratified” by Native American support for “Redskins””
  1. ashburninsider says: May 19, 2016 10:53 AM

    HTTR!!!!!!

  2. snowlock2013 says: May 19, 2016 10:54 AM

    Since when does indifference = support?

  3. ashburninsider says: May 19, 2016 10:56 AM

    Sadly you will probably find more non American Indians saying they are offended by the name. Maybe Mike Wise can now step down off his soap box on this issue.

  4. reluctantgeekness says: May 19, 2016 10:58 AM

    Support or not, that clown wasn’t/isn’t changing the franchises name.

  5. dontbeemo says: May 19, 2016 11:00 AM

    Was it Elizabeth Warren native Americans? Or real ones. and yes, that matters.

  6. The Solar Nanjing says: May 19, 2016 11:00 AM

    Ruh roh… all these offended gringos look awfully silly, now don’t they

  7. excusemewhileiwhipthisoutagain says: May 19, 2016 11:01 AM

    I think these Indians must be colluding

  8. dukeearl says: May 19, 2016 11:04 AM

    Native American indian. I am offended by the term.

  9. crewchief15 says: May 19, 2016 11:07 AM

    How many Transgender are there? .00001% (a guess, but you get my point), yet we need to change the bathroom rules for the whole country, so 9% is pretty high. As always, it only matters when mainstream media say’s it matters!!

  10. laces out says: May 19, 2016 11:08 AM

    but, but, but my feelings…

  11. willycents says: May 19, 2016 11:09 AM

    I am offended by the term “Cowboys”. They in no way act like legitimate cowboys, hard work and high morals.
    Henceforth, I think they should be referred to as the Dallas Sheepherders.

  12. karlpilkington says: May 19, 2016 11:09 AM

    If this was an irrelevant team with an irrelevant owner, people wouldn’t even talk about the team name..

  13. zombiepatriot says: May 19, 2016 11:12 AM

    I’d like to see how one’s status as a Native American was determined. Was it like past polls where a person had the false notion of a Cherokee Princess in their background and therefore felt they had the right to speak on behalf of the true Aboriginal people in what has become ‘North America’.

  14. gauchosporlife says: May 19, 2016 11:14 AM

    …and in the same poll, Native Americans had no issues losing all their land. Ridiculous.

  15. perspective2424 says: May 19, 2016 11:15 AM

    So they asked 500 Native American Redskin fans in they are offended?

  16. vikingsdefineaverage says: May 19, 2016 11:15 AM

    They surveyed 500 people….quite the sample size. ..

    Didn’t say what reservation or where they were located. …

    How much had Snyder donated to that reservation….

  17. Stupid Lions Fan says: May 19, 2016 11:16 AM

    “Random poll” what could go wrong with that concrete evidence?

  18. vikingsdefineaverage says: May 19, 2016 11:18 AM

    karlpilkington says:
    May 19, 2016 11:09 AM
    If this was an irrelevant team with an irrelevant owner, people wouldn’t even talk about the team name..
    ______________________
    The team has won 2 playoff games in the 17 years Snyder has owned the team.

    They are not relevant

  19. nole53 says: May 19, 2016 11:19 AM

    #propaganda

  20. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: May 19, 2016 11:20 AM

    karlpilkington says:
    May 19, 2016 11:09 AM
    If this was an irrelevant team with an irrelevant owner, people wouldn’t even talk about the team name..
    ——————-

    Don’t kid yourself, location, location, location. It’s DC in combination with PC and the media. If the Redskins were 8-8 every single year of their history and owned by shareholders this would still be talked about. Put them in Buffalo or Jax and you would probably be right

  21. packsupersoldier says: May 19, 2016 11:21 AM

    He may be the worst owner in the NFL, but he’s right about this. Kudos to Dan for sticking to his guns.

  22. backintheday99 says: May 19, 2016 11:22 AM

    You wouldn’t buy anything on the Net with a seller rating of 90%. It means a whole lot of issues exist.

    Yet a 90% is a low end ‘A’ in school.

    I think it shows that yes, most people don’t care but a significant amount of people do care.

    Snyder decided on the low end ‘A’ while any non Washington fan with half a brain knows that a 90 does not cut it.

  23. baddegg says: May 19, 2016 11:25 AM

    Oh no…what about my “safe space?”

  24. baddegg says: May 19, 2016 11:27 AM

    backintheday99 says:
    May 19, 2016 11:22 AM
    You wouldn’t buy anything on the Net with a seller rating of 90%. It means a whole lot of issues exist.

    Yet a 90% is a low end ‘A’ in school.

    I think it shows that yes, most people don’t care but a significant amount of people do care.

    Snyder decided on the low end ‘A’ while any non Washington fan with half a brain knows that a 90 does not cut it.

    ——

    So if 10% of people do not agree with buying your product, you should not sell it?

    Your examples are absurd. No businessman would think as you do, needing 100% support to proceed. That’s ludicrous.

  25. gobolts says: May 19, 2016 11:32 AM

    Just to show how insane the left is,

    Tens of thousands of supporters try to get INTO a Trump rally who welcomes them in and people on the left do all they can to block them from getting in

    But when Chuck, a 50-year old dude decides he wants to be a girl for a day, people on the far left do all they can do to make sure he gets into the girls bathroom.

  26. jsuch2 says: May 19, 2016 11:33 AM

    I was Station Manager for United Express in Eureka, CA for a few years in the late 80s – early 90s. The tribal elders for the Hupa Indian tribe regularly flew to DC for Bureau of Indian Affairs meetings. Almost all of them wearing Redskin football jackets. This is more PC crap that the Indians aren’t even stirring the pot. Tired of the crap coming out of DC and both parties. Where is the common sense party? Republicrats!

  27. dickroy says: May 19, 2016 11:36 AM

    Remember majority does not rule in America anymore!

  28. newmancave2016 says: May 19, 2016 11:36 AM

    Welcome to America in 2016. Everything is offensive. Take the following:

    Patriots: Killed thousands of enlisted British soldiers who just wanted to put in their two years and go home to drink tea.

    Eagles: Kill rodents, large and small. Look angry.

    Bears: Are you kidding me? They are godless killing machines!

    Chargers: Run on nuclear power and coal. Insensitive to climate.

    Bills: Named after a violent showman who celebrated killing natives. Ban them!

    Lions: Endangered. Other teams shouldn’t hurt them.

    49ers: Hard drinking, strip-mining lunatics.

    Raiders: Do we even need to tell you the kind of things one-eyed PIRATES did?

    Cowboys: Did you see Tombstone? The Cowboys are FINISHED! You tell them H-e-l-l is comin’ with me!!!

    Packers: Offensive to Vegans.

    Vikings: Just stop there. We all know where you’re going with this one.

    Jets: Pretty non-offensive, as long as you’re not watching them play.

    Dolphins: Representative of man’s exploitation of beautiful sea creatures.

    Steelers: Offensive to everyone outside of Pittsburgh.

    Browns: Clearly racist. Coincidentally named for the color of lake Erie.

    Bengals: Most offensive thing is their playoff record under Marvin Lewis.

    Ravens: Offensive to anyone not wanting to be murdered or knocked out in an elevator.

    Texans: Offensive to Texans.

    Colts: Prioritizes male horses over females, thereby contributing to our patriarchal society. Owner is an addict.

    Jaguars: Offensive to Ricardo Montelban’s estate. KHHHAAANNN!

    Chiefs: Oh boy, not this topic again. Someone get Snyder on the phone and ask him the name of that polling company.

    Falcons: See “Eagles,” but with less overall success.

    Panthers: Alright, you got us. Nothing offensive about them. What? They’re from North Carolina. Oh, sh**

    Saints: We’ll get back to you…there are just too many New Orleans stereotypes and Katrina references to write down at the moment.

    Seahawks: Two words: Richard Sherman.

    Broncos: Not really offensive…Broncos are cool. It’s just that they have to live with the fact that it’s 100% legal for them to smoke the wacky…unless they play for the Denver Broncos.

    Bucs: Guys, guys…you didn’t learn from the Raiders? You had to build a stadium with pirate ship that fires canons? SMDH.

    Cardinals: They are red, which is part of the Redskins name. Shame on you.

    Rams: I’m sure the people of St. Louis aren’t bitter or anything.

  29. jimjets says: May 19, 2016 11:37 AM

    what a complete tool. it’s nice that he’s never ever won anything…although I have to admit I like this cousins kid.

  30. collectordude says: May 19, 2016 11:38 AM

    REDSKINS!!
    REDSKINS!!
    REDSKINS!!
    REDSKINS!!
    REDSKINS!!

  31. trailerparkking says: May 19, 2016 11:41 AM

    I don’t base ANY of my buying decisions based off of internet reviews/ rating. They are all fake and cooked up by the company lol. Kids today base everything they know off of the internet but lack the ability to know what is a legitimate source of information and what isn’t. Unplug, go get stung by bees and climb trees, kiddos.

  32. bluecat013 says: May 19, 2016 11:46 AM

    The efficacy of any poll is on how the question is asked. It’s easy to manipulate answers by asking certain question. I would question any poll that uses a question with an “either/or” response. There’s a lot of in between stuff that is missing.
    Just ask the question, “Would you like to see the name “Redskins” changed?” That is a result I’d want to see.
    That being said, it’s not going to get changed, so I suppose people will have to live with it. On the other hand, my opinion doesn’t really count. I’m a white male, (or a blue feline if you believe screen names) so either way it’s not real high on my list of things I’d like to see changed.

  33. adoombray says: May 19, 2016 11:47 AM

    shame on this site for using such a racist term.

  34. fosback11 says: May 19, 2016 11:49 AM

    Unfortunately for the Washingtonpost – a liberal news outlet – the results was not what they were expecting!!

  35. Bob says: May 19, 2016 11:49 AM

    “I don’t base ANY of my buying decisions based off of internet reviews/ rating. They are all fake and cooked up by the company lol.”

    It’s a Washington Post poll. And the Post is a pretty liberal paper. It’s significant that the poll results are what they are, and that the Post didn’t somehow doctor them to fit a nice, neat liberal narrative.

  36. bluecat013 says: May 19, 2016 11:50 AM

    Oh, and Dan; the poll doesn’t say a damn thing about “supporting” your teams name.

  37. gadgetdawg says: May 19, 2016 11:51 AM

    Something tells me most Native Americans have more important things on their plate than a football team’s name.

  38. camdenyard says: May 19, 2016 11:51 AM

    Lots of things in this country have been changed because 9% of the population objected to it.

  39. captainwhodat says: May 19, 2016 11:53 AM

    hell, I’m (as someone who rooted for the Colts in the 50’s) offended by Indianapolis using Colts but I got over it…

  40. boysroll says: May 19, 2016 11:54 AM

    who cares…they haven’t won anything in 30 years and continually finish last every year. with the rest of the nfc east improved from last year and healthy and Ezekiel Elliott( aka AP guy is a beast), mcfadden and al morris leading our running attack predict a couple SB’s over the next 5 years.

    boys
    giants
    eagles
    deadskins

  41. jag1959 says: May 19, 2016 11:57 AM

    newmancave2016 says:
    May 19, 2016 11:36 AM
    Welcome to America in 2016. Everything is offensive. Take the following:…………
    ___________________

    Giants fans are offended you left their team out of the discussion

  42. davikes says: May 19, 2016 12:09 PM

    “bluecat013 says:
    May 19, 2016 11:46 AM
    The efficacy of any poll is on how the question is asked. ….”

    True, and you can bet that Post worded the question as much as possible to get the result they were looking for. Imagine the looks on their faces when they got the opposite.

  43. 2016StockMarketCrash says: May 19, 2016 12:10 PM

    Good Dan, now please give our native American friends tickets to home games so at least some folks show up. 🙂

  44. kennylc2015 says: May 19, 2016 12:12 PM

    My apologies for being a nerd here but I would like to see their methodology. No offense to them, but the writers at the Washington Post are writers, not researchers. If you are going to publish the results of a study, then you must publish your methodology as well.

  45. timothy131 says: May 19, 2016 12:18 PM

    polls dont mean squat this is just bogus bullhocky from a rich dude

  46. brendafortheboyz says: May 19, 2016 12:21 PM

    Am far from a ‘Skins fan (note user id); however, for this very brief moment, justice has prevailed over the PC police, for once!! So….. HTTR….:)

  47. thingamajig says: May 19, 2016 12:29 PM

    backintheday99 says:
    May 19, 2016 11:22 AM
    You wouldn’t buy anything on the Net with a seller rating of 90%. It means a whole lot of issues exist.

    Yet a 90% is a low end ‘A’ in school.

    I think it shows that yes, most people don’t care but a significant amount of people do care.

    Snyder decided on the low end ‘A’ while any non Washington fan with half a brain knows that a 90 does not cut it.

    But if it were the other way around and 90% found the name offensive, you’d demand and expect the Redskins to change their name by tomorrow.

  48. sactogary says: May 19, 2016 12:34 PM

    May 19, 2016 12:12 PM – kennylc2015 says: My apologies for being a nerd here but I would like to see their methodology. No offense to them, but the writers at the Washington Post are writers, not researchers. If you are going to publish the results of a study, then you must publish your methodology as well.

    C’mon Kenny, don’t be so lazy. Click the link in the post above, which takes you to a previous PFT post. Click the link in THAT post which takes you to the WP article. There’s a link in the article which explains the methodology and shows the survey script.

    The actual primary question is the exact same one from the 12-year-old study, and seems biased in favor of the opposite result. The options are: 1) Do you find the name offensive, or 2) doesn’t it bother you?

  49. eagles512 says: May 19, 2016 12:56 PM

    So when people are proven wrong, they then attack the poll. Pathetic. Just let it go.

  50. charger383 says: May 19, 2016 12:59 PM

    90% might be a low end A. (I was proud of my 90’s)

    But 10% is much closer to Zero than passing

  51. raaz227httr says: May 19, 2016 1:07 PM

    HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!

  52. mrwhite07 says: May 19, 2016 1:15 PM

    I am a full blooded Native American (Hopi, Sioux, Yavapai, and O’Odham) and I can honestly say that not a single member in my family has ever been offended by the term, “Redskin.” There is nothing wrong with the term. So we have red skin who cares!!! Leave the name alone and you people that are offended need to get over it and remove that stick from a certain place! And before anyone thinks I’m a redskins fan…I’m not! I actually hate the redskins, but love that their owner makes crap deals that keeps his team in the dumps lol

  53. trollaikman8 says: May 19, 2016 1:53 PM

    If you say so, Mr.White.

    6-10 again, chief.

  54. asgrimsnorrison says: May 19, 2016 2:58 PM

    I was once part of an online Minnesota Vikings fan club (on a mailing list) back in the 90s that sent an award to the team every week for the player we thought played best. We called it the “Thor the Thunderer” award, someone printed out a certificate and sent it to vikings headquarter in Winter Park, asking that they present it to the player.

    We got a reply back from someone in winter park stating that while they appreciated the award, it was offensive to Christians on the team as it used the name of a pagan deity.

    okay…. so we renamed it the “Viking Pillager” award and sent that in next week.

    We got another reply stating that while this was better, this violent connotation along with things that historical vikings did while pillaging was also offensive, and couldn’t we focus on something not offensive about the team, like the team colors maybe.

    So we renamed it the “Purple Helmet” award and we never heard back from them again.

  55. kpweaver27 says: May 19, 2016 3:13 PM

    It’s a dangerous thing, to cite that a majority of people feel a certain way, and declaring that thing to be causally acceptable. Kim Jong Un was elected with 100% of the vote, after all. A majority isn’t moral justification. Almost everyone is a minority in some regard: race, religion, age, etc. It’s very easy to complain about people being P.C., but I find the same people who complain about people being too easily offended are the ones posting about the things that offend them.

    It has already been said, but a sample size of 500 people with no parameters other than ‘random’, that does not really move me. It seems to be a popular, yet fairly disgusting thing, for those in a majority and a controlling power, to sound the Beacon of the silent majority-as if they’ve ever been silent- and try and convince the rest of the majority that they are, in fact, being marginalized. Snyder has dug his heels in defiance for one reason: he can. He has more people on his side, and the people on the other side have little recourse other than saying “really? Redskins? Still going with that?”

  56. ppletr says: May 19, 2016 4:18 PM

    Poll was conducted by WaPo as liberal as it gets therefore, it gives validity to the results. If anything they would try to skew it against the name. Just sayin’

  57. defscottyb says: May 20, 2016 12:11 AM

    Hail To The REDSKINS!

  58. grumpyoleman says: May 20, 2016 12:43 PM

    I wish most of PFT was part of that 1% at least.

  59. dcterrain says: May 20, 2016 6:16 PM

    Quick get the diapers. Here come the CryBullies again. Secure your wallets and purses and get ready for the Wambulance!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!