The poll is likely accurate, more or less I would imagine. That still does not mean the term is not racist - even if 0% found the word offensive.
Maybe I am too simple minded, but this kind of argument has NEVER made sense to me. If a term is considered "racist" by the general population, but later it is found out that 0% of the minority group (that the racist term was for) couldn't care less about the term..how is that racist?
On another note, I've never understood how referring to someone as a color is racist in the least bit. I'm brown. I'm Indian (India). Call me brown, call me brownskin, call me chocolate. I don't care. It's a proper description of how I look. It's when you somehow negatively spin it that it becomes racist like saying I look like the color of crap (ugh). A football team being called the Redskins doesn't seem like negative spin to me, but I'd have to know more about the history of the term before I can be fully confident about this. Is it that Native Americans aren't actually "red"? Sorry if anyone is shaking their head at this post, I'm genuinely curious. Terms like wetback, nigger, curry, and the Cleveland Indian logo are clearly racist to me, but I don't see it with redskins.
I read a little bit about the history of redskin to see how it is a slur, and some historians believe the history of the term comes from the skinning of Native Americans for bounties. If that is true, then yes, redskin is a terrible term and the owner of the Redskins should be embarrassed. The thing is, though, I've read a couple conflicting articles about that even being the first use of the word and that redskin has always been a term used. so ::shrugs::, does anyone know the actual history of the term and why it should be deemed a slur?
I'm not really arguing with anyone so please excuse my ignorance. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone..honestly trying to learn about this (if I'm wrong).