Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know what I find more laughable, the idea that people on a college athletics message board are qualified to dictate what is/is not offensive to others or shouting down others because their opinion of what is offensive differs from theirs. Some of you guys need to give it up; you aren’t going to change the opinion of your opposition and the adolescent debate tactics and trolling of some are growing tiresome.
Social norms change and evolve. Because you can’t see it or accept it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
As Wulfpack has alluded to, the real issue here is Snyder’s lack of foresight. The name change is inevitable. There is a growing push for the change in the public and in the media. Why not be proactive and garner some goodwill and positive PR. The fans aren’t going anywhere. So long as they retain the colors and general look of the logos fans will stick by the team.
[blah blah blah. You are all immature because you are arguing this. Here is my arguement.]
LOL!
I’ve never heard the term used for other than a football team. I DO NOT think it is derogatory under any circumstances. Many tribal Americans self identify with that term. That is what the point of the High School is. Why be intentionally obtuse? Aren’t you man enough to concede a point? Gee whiz. Forget the trademark, that’s for the courts to decided. Do you want them to change the name or not?
Why would the Choctaw self identify as “red people”?
The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people. Choctaw Chief Allen Wright suggested the name in 1866 during treaty negotiations with the federal government regarding the use of Indian Territory, in which he envisioned an all-Indian state controlled by the United States Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Equivalent to the English word Indian, okla humma was a phrase in the Choctaw language used to describe the Native American race as a whole. Oklahoma later became the de facto name for Oklahoma Territory, and it was officially approved in 1890, two years after the area was opened to white settlers
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Who are you to say what is and what is not offensive to anybody? Stop acting as if the “protected” groups are more important than anyone else. They aren’t.Who said protected groups are more important than anyone else? Do you find Indianapolis offensive? The Braves? Chiefs? Reds? Oklahoma? Any of those? Would you use them in a sentence with no reservation (ha) in 99% of circumstances?
Just curious, because we’re still trying to treat literally everything as equivalent to the word redskins, which, again, and again, everyone has admitted, no, they wouldn’t use it to refer to Native Americans.
There is a clear, discernible difference between a word you would say under any circumstance, and a word you wouldn’t say under some circumstances. Why is this so hard to comprehend.
Again, the name isn’t being taken away from the Redskins, only a level of trademark protection. They’re still free to call themselves anything they want.
Have you thought it’s because “redskins” was never ever widely used as a derogatory term? If it was derogatory why does a tribal american high school use the term? Can you find me any instance from all history where a purposely derogatory name was used for a mascot? This whole thing is BULLCRAP
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Then just do away with team names and monikers then if it means nothing. Address each team by city name and hope the Indianapolis team doesn’t get sued by the pc patrol for offensive tribal word associations.Back to slippery slope, everything is offensive on the same page. Well done people! We’ll crack this nut eventually….
Who are you to say what is and what is not offensive to anybody? Stop acting as if the “protected” groups are more important than anyone else. They aren’t.
Then just do away with team names and monikers then if it means nothing. Address each team by city name and hope the Indianapolis team doesn’t get sued by the pc patrol for offensive tribal word associations.
No way this man is going to go from owning the Redskins, to not owning the Redskins because of your gang.
I didn’t say that would happen, not sure where you got that. I’m only talking about the name. At some point, the pressure to change it will prevail. There will be a tipping point as the pressure continues to mount.
My gang??? Not sure where that is coming from either. I’m only making assumptions (informed) on what I see clearly taking place, just as I did with the Paterno/Sandusky/PSU and Sterling issues. It was pretty clear to me what was going to go down. I feel the same way in this situation.
The name is the whole thing. Its not the Redskins anymore once the name changes.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>StateRed44 wrote:</div>
Would we ask the Brits if they wanted the 13 colonies back? Read your post 2x and I can’t tell what point you think you are making.If you want to head down that path, we’re about to hit some semi-esoteric philosophy on the concept of ownership, that I don’t think anybody is willing, or prepared to address.
The Native Americans were here ten thousand years before the British arrived. There’s no way to get from giving the Native Americans their land back, to giving the British back the colonies. Mostly because it’s the same turf, and the Native Americans have a much older claim.
You just did that with your tribal americans owning the entire continent thingy there. You have to have an established government to properly own anything. Rule of law and all. That’s something these stone age guys never had. Along with the wheel.
lol, keep dreaming
It’s gonna happen, brotha.
No way this man is going to go from owning the Redskins, to not owning the Redskins because of your gang.
If I were asked if you might get the point before I posted it…
I woulda said, “I doubt it.”
Think, man.
Just spit that crap out dude. Quit being coy, it’s a waste of time. Why don’t you give your house back to some tribe? Think about that. I don’t know what “white culture” you are talking about because I am not a part of your PC gang. I would not consult anyone about God given rights.
^<br>
Paki,we live in a time where folks have a difficult time separating historically, and morally correct, from the battle cry of “politically correct.”Independant thought and conviction is surely bound to get one placed in some group or another.
Do you ever ponder why it is that when white culture gets to consulting Native Americans, it is usually regarding a team nickname or mascot?
When a particular tribe of a particular Nation gives positive feedback, we give a resounding, “See! It’s OK.”
What if that tribe were asked if they wanted the Black Hills, or Tampa back?
Masked bigotry is alive and well folks, as Wulfpacker has already pointed out.(If not…apologies to who did)<br>
Some folks don’t even bother to mask it. This coming from someone who has a hard time with white loafers,Panama hats, and pink houses.Would we ask the Brits if they wanted the 13 colonies back? Read your post 2x and I can’t tell what point you think you are making.
This means that the Wolfpack still will only have ten scholarship players eligible next season and looks very thin at the point guard position.
And yet Tyler Lewis and Rodney Purvis transferred out to play PG at other schools. What were they thinking?
Not sure with Lewis, he got many crunch time minutes and blew it over and over. Purvis thinks he needs to play point to be in the NBA, but he can’t start here, so not sure what he’s thinking either.
look, I don’t know how obtuse you like to pretend, but EVERYBODY except the most extreme PC turds use REDSKINS to talk about the pro football team in DC
He’s an excellent coach. A notch above anybody we’ve ever had other than the big 3. He may yet do something real big with this group within the next 2 years.
Stan, say hello to the Red Mesa High School (drumroll) REDSKINS!.
Welcome to Red Mesa High School
Red Mesa High School is located in Red Mesa, Arizona, which is about 25 miles southwest of the Four Corners. The school is located on the Navajo Reservation and is a public school. We have nearly 100% Navajo students are coming from low-income families. The students are bussed in everyday from as far as 60 miles away. We have approximately 196 students, ranging from freshman to seniors.
Would you NOT call these guys Redskins out of your PC philosophy?
Can you explain why you think this name is offensive? Be specific. Also why is courage, valor, sportsmanship, teamwork etc deemed offensive to you?
Is this name offensive? Oklahoma. The state’s name is derived from the Choctaw words okla and humma, meaning “red people”.
Why or why not?
I’m convinced this scandal is going to be the death of the NCAA.
It should be the death of the APR.
I believe that is the Redskin’s attorney statement.
The big deal is you are confiscating private property based on nothing but undocumented hurt feelings.
Here you go Stan:
“We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.
‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
-Washington Post, April 3, 1999‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
-Washington Post, October 2, 2003We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.
As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.
This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.
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.”
also, these folks or their ancestors carried their butt over here just like everyone else…Nobody was placed here by God or evolved here. Tribal American is more like it.
Or see how brainwashed and sensitive they are by calling them “Indian”. Good luck getting Cleveland to change that name.
No, the test is whether you would refer to the Washington pro football team as the Redskins. That is the only issue at hand. Personalization and name calling is NOT the issue. This is a historical team name of 80 years.
Why is your little example different than walking up to an Indian and calling them “Chief”, “Brave” or “Warrior”?
And the court has struck down your second arguement, correct?
