- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Should be interesting to see how (or if?) the league as a whole responds.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration because it considers the team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans,” reports the Washington Post.
[snip]
The victory won’t have any immediate impacts on the Redskins organization, or owner Daniel Snyder’s decision to keep the team’s name. The Redskins will appeal the ruling, but should the ruling be upheld, it would mean that the Redskins would lose its federally trademarked protections.
As explained by USAToday.com last month, “The effect would be large because federally registered trademarks keep others from selling items with the team’s logos, although even then the team could try to keep unauthorized merchandisers from using the marks through common law and state statues.”
Adds Trademark law experts Christine Haight Farley: “I think it is entirely possible for a court in that circumstance to say, ‘You’ve come to a court of equity with unclean hands and we are going to deny you your remedy.’ We don’t really know what would happen.”
The Redskins’ trademark attorney sent out an email in response to this basically saying this has happened before, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the Redskins and they expect the same to happen. A piece from the email:
When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.
Why?
As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans…’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [Board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:
It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.
The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”
I don’t care how you slice it, the term Redskin is a negative term towards a race of people. No one in their right mind would walk up to a Native American(that they are not good friends with) and say “Hey Redskin, how you doing?”. Just my opinion, but the more Dan Snyder and Co. try to fight this in public and make foolish arguments the more backlash there will be against the skins.
I expect it to take coorporate backlash against him to finally push him to change the name. Plus, think how much freaking money he’ll make off the name change and all the merchandising that goes with it. Just don’t hire the ACC marketing dept to create the logo.
Even a Dallas Cowboys fan would have to agree that the current administration in DC is the worst EVER!
If we were to remove all offensive logos and degrading mascots in sports, our children wouldn’t be so interested in American history.
-Daddy, who is that guy_”
-You see son, way back when…Sports fans know about the trail of tears before they enter tour 4th grade.
I don’t remember kids being super interested in American history anyway.
Besides, we’re down to two offensive logos I can think of, the Redskins name, and Chief Wahoo.
Multiple colleges have changed their team names to be less offensive.
It was more of a joke.
Can’t trust the internet and sarcasm.
Federal judges have upheld the rights of the American Nazi Party to march and express views several orders of magnitude more offensive than having Redskins as a mascot. Politically unpopular speech is exactly the kind of speech the Founding Fathers intended to protect with the First Amendment. There are multiple public high schools in the heart of Indian Country in Oklahoma who have “Savages” as their nickname. Government funded institutions so if they’re really serious about this they will cut off funding to these institutions before they go after the Redskins.
My Libertarian streak is getting wider as time goes on.
For the record I despise both the Cowboys and the Redskins.
. Politically unpopular speech is exactly the kind of speech the Founding Fathers intended to protect with the First Amendment.
That’s not the argument, though we’re not really arguing, here. We all know that the team has the right to call themselves whatever they want. The point is that the Skins, as a public business, should do what is ethically and morally correct. Just good business practice. They have the Constiutional right to call themselves the Washington Negro’s but I doubt they would do that either. Just because one group of people have a much higher political clout than the other, does that mean that one group of people is more important than the other. I suppose to some yes but to me no.
I suppose I just have more empathy towards the Native American tribes. They got totally screwed over by us Whiteies many times over the years and even to this day it’s ok to make fun of them in movies but god forbid if you make fun of an African American in a movie.
I wouldn’t change the name and wouldn’t care what the PC police thought. Cowboys, Vikings, Raiders, Patriots, Texans, 49ers, Steelers, Saints, Buccaneers, Chiefs, etc all refer to people and are potentially offensive.
If there ever was a case of sure fire mockery of something billions of people worldwide hold dear to their heart, its the Saints.
potentially offensive..
Really? Potentially offensive? Walk up to ANY Native American and call them a Redskin and let me know what they say.
It truly is a despicable nickname, and I’ve felt that way long before there was any notion of this thing called PC.
It would be so easy for Snyder to man up, and do the noble thing…Drop SKINS and replace with CLOUDS.
Tailor made…keep a well known logo and honor a great American leader at the same time. Who could bitch about that? ( Dumb question.)
I think the Oglala nation would get behind that,and Snyder is hailed an admirable man for once.
Why is it despicable? Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Vikings, Fighting Irish, are they despicable? What about Saints making a mockery of the Christian faith?
Native American? If you were born in USA, you ARE a native American.
The term is most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League football team. The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when the team left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name “Redskins” was chosen to honor William “Lone Star” Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, because his mother was Sioux. Dietz’s true heritage has been questioned by some scholars, citing a birth certificate and census records that his parents were white.[56] There were four Native Americans on the original Redskins team of 1933.[57] In 1937 the team moved and joining Capitol Hill as the second football team of Washington, D.C., became the Washington Redskins.[58]
A 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.
Why is it despicable? Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Vikings, Fighting Irish, are they despicable? What about Saints making a mockery of the Christian faith?
Native American? If you were born in USA, you ARE a native American
I mean no offense but that is some crazy logic. You can’t ask why one word is despicable just because another may or may not be. That’s the same as asking why Negro, which can be used to describe a group of people, is despicable because you wonder if “Chiefs, Braves, Indians, Vikings, Fighting Irish, are they despicable?”. One term has no meaning on the other. One term can be derogative while another may not be.
But to your question, Chiefs and Braves could be considered inappropriate. I wouldn’t go up to a Native American and say “Hey Chief”. Indians=obviously not. Vikings, how can that be despicable when that is the proper name of a group of people. Fighting Irish, I’m Irish I can say that it don’t bother me but I suppose it may bother someone, somewhere.
I just have to ask though. What’s so freaking wrong with changing a name? It’s not the end of the world. Wouldn’t this world be a better place if we all did care about what the other person thought. Instead of how we want them to feel.
BTW, this statement, “Native American? If you were born in USA, you ARE a native American.” Now I’m beginning to think you are just arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Who are the Redskins? I kid, I kid…
GREAT tastin’ tators. Add butter, little olive oil, garlic, and onions. Man good eatin’.
You are missing the point NAV. The point is not to go up to so someone and call them a “name”. When approaching ANYBOY other than a child it should be Sir or Ma’am. We are talking about a team name. It can be argued that the team name is not out of mockery but out of respect.
I reject the perpetual victim status of minority groups. We are all individuals and are all equal in the sight of the laws of the USA and in sight of God. It really does not matter who your parents were. If you were born here you are a native. Everyone has the same opportunity.
Would you support a team name mocking another religion besides Christianity? Do you know why “Fighting Irish” while being derogatory is not offensive? Because Irish don’t evaluate their self worth based on a team mascot. It’s pathetic and ridiculous.
Everyone has the same opportunity.
Some of us, myself included, would disagree with that. We’ve still got a long way to go there. There’s certainly been major progress but still a ways to go.
You are missing the point NAV. The point is not to go up to so someone and call them a “name”. When approaching ANYBOY other than a child it should be Sir or Ma’am. We are talking about a team name. It can be argued that the team name is not out of mockery but out of respect.
I reject the perpetual victim status of minority groups. We are all individuals and are all equal in the sight of the laws of the USA and in sight of God. It really does not matter who your parents were. If you were born here you are a native. Everyone has the same opportunity.
Would you support a team name mocking another religion besides Christianity? Do you know why “Fighting Irish” while being derogatory is not offensive? Because Irish don’t evaluate their self worth based on a team mascot. It’s pathetic and ridiculous.
Is that you Dan Snyder?
The thought experiment of calling someone a name is a test. The test is, “would it be offensive or derogatory?” For the term redskin, unless you’re referring to the aforementioned potatoes, the answer is unequivocally yes.
This isn’t some slippery slope that ends with us only naming teams after inanimate objects, although that would be hilarious.
The Washington Love Seats vs. the Dallas Pepper Mills…
My Libertarian streak is getting wider as time goes on.
Join us when you tire of the rhetoric from team politics.
As per a name, to paraphrase a Spearshaker, a Redskin by any other name will still finish last in the NFC East.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
