Slashdot Mirror
Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks
BillCable writes: Politico reports, "In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the 'Washington Redskins' team name because it was found to be 'disparaging' to Native Americans. 'We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be canceled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,' the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote. The panel voted 2-1 in favor of the decision." Perhaps this move will speed up the inevitable name change, which was expected within the next few years."
-nt
Everything is on schedule. Snyder will change the name..."reluctantly". And in exchange for a free new stadium.
Or else.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
As much as they should change their names, should the USPTO allowed to cancel trademarks which they don't like? What about free speech?
From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time.
That took 10 years
Nobody has a right to be un-offended.
If these idiot judges can di that, then next thing you know they will be saying we are not allowed to say anything negative about Islam. and have no doubt, that is exactly where this is headed.
I hope somebody tar and feathers these judges.
Get 'em while they're hot. Official (looking) Redskin Jerseys.
We will also make complete Redskins uniforms for you little league team.
Call Q.T. Industries - Beijing.
They just need to become the Washington Redskin Potatoes. Problem solved, and with a little butter and some salt, you've got a hearty side dish.
If it were a "positive" trademark instead of "disparaging", it'd be allowed?
Seems a clear-cut violation of free speech rights to me.
And no, you do NOT have a right to not be offended.
Liberals are always talking about live and let live. they get all upset when people dont respect their lifestyle. but at the same time they attack those who they disagree with
I am of native descent. The onodaga tribe in NY is where I live. Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins. We are more offended by the liberal white man pretending to be offended in our name. I am sure there are other natives who disagree with me but what happened to live and let live. If you dont like it, root for the other team! simple as that! I am more offended as a native by the cowboys (americas team) and the yankees than I am the redskins or braves
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you don't do it by a overarching law, you can create pressure by making the business lose a lot of money.
I guess the billionaire owner of the Redskins isn't part of the oligarchy that runs america:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
I vote for the Washington Inoffensives. But I thought the Bullets should be renamed the Fluffy Bunnies. Nobody pays attention to me.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
not all speech is free. you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box. incendiary or hateful speech is prohibited by any number of state and local ordinances, and various equal rights legislations. fact is, and you can ask multiple schools about their athletic departments, the native American population has had enough, as other people of color have, and they are using all challenges possible to douse the loaded stereotypes. the Washington NFL team has got to change, and the screws are tightening under their thumbs.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
TMZ/ESPN stories obviously matters to those American nerds and geeks to be featured here, your Kernel driver debugging will have to wait.
Counterfeited is now an option. Personally, I think a name change like Virginia Moonshiners would be cool.
May I suggest the new name to be the Washington Indians? Their mascot could be a man from India in a business suit wearing a Native American headdress.
I'm part "Native American", enough to join the tribe if I wanted. But I refuse to be associated with a people who are so thin-skinned that they get offended at the drop of a hat. Yes, "redskin" WAS a term of derision, but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of, a word of honor.
If we have to change the name of the Washington Redskins, I say we change all the names of things in this country that have native origins. Just think of how many states, cities, counties, rivers, mountains and such have native-derived names. Fuck it! Change ALL of them!
i do not give a fuck.
This is not the first time this has occured. Last time, the federal circuit overturned the PTAB's decision as they had determined that the plantiff's had waited too long before filing as the Redskin's trademark had been around for years.
I would presume that the NFL would wind up making a similiar argument during an appeal as this trademark has existed for years.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Bye-bye Braves too. Jeez.
How about the red, yellow, white, black and multi-hues of brown skins? Seriously people, will somebody shutdown the extreme PC idiocy that has infested our society?
At least they removed the "Boston" slur.
Not sure if "Atlanta" is any better.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
In order to eliminate the trademark infringement the team should just change their mascot to be a redskin potato.
(I stole this from elsewhere but I thought it was funny)
http://www.warpaths2peacepipes...
Protection: Paint was commonly used to protected the skin from insects, the sun, the wind and the cold. Red ochre was in plentiful supply so this was the most common application, hence the term 'Redskins'
They should just replace the picture of an indian with a picture of potatoe skins, died red.
Of course, I don't think it will make the Native American's happy, but it should negate the legal issue.
Apparently the PTO did not mind trademarking the symbol for Pi, so maybe they should call themselves the Washington Pi's from now on.
That patents must not disparage? A lot of patented work is far more cut a dry disparaging others than this.
Also when they were filed obviously they were not meant to disparage. There were/are a baseball team, and a baseball team would not call themselves a disparaging name.
Do the Michigan State Spartans disparage Spartans? Not really.
So a team named the redskins does not disparage native americans.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If the name Redskins was "disparaging". They wouldn't be naming their team after them
while
I just read what I think is the law, and I can't find a section that says a mark is cancellable because it's 'disparaging." What am I missing?
So much like the Native Americans?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
The Washington Lysol® Drinkers.
No laws have changed, but what was once perfectly acceptable — indeed, a registered trademark — no longer is. And the other way around.
"Redskins" are just a name, but there are worse signs of the changes... For example, University of Hawaii recently prohibited a student group to hand-out copies of the Constitution. The administrators' reasoning was: "This isn’t really the ’60s anymore" and "people can’t really protest like that anymore".
Obviously, the First Amendment has not changed in 50 years, it is just being reinterpreted. And so is the understanding of "disparaging".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
'The Blackskins'?
Seems pretty racist.
Braves doesn't seem racist to me, although it may be sensitive (and the iconography associated seems pretty racist - and I'm a Braves fan!)
These types of things are very subjective though; ergo, it is likely better to err more toward the side of those who feel slighted.
Loading...
The right to free speech is not quite as strong when applied to commercial speech. Trademark cancellations specifically target commercial speech.
http://i.imgur.com/Ol9HO.jpg
You're not going far enough. It was a hate crime for them to have granted it in the first place. If the CONservatives didn't rule this country, there would be PTO employees put in prison. The people that granted it need to be put away for life, and every single one of them, that knew about it later but didn't revoke it, also need prison time. I'm sure these racists number in the hundreds in just that one organization. Putting these racist white men in prison and firing them from their powerful jobs by the hundreds at a time is the only way we are ever going to start real change in this country. Instead, the Republicans will protect these racists and no one wil
Braves doesn't seem racist to me, although it may be sensitive (and the iconography associated seems pretty racist - and I'm a Braves fan!)
FWIW, it is pretty racist.
However, considering all the bullshit the federal government has put the various tribes through the past few centuries, I highly doubt a racist sports mascot would be the biggest bitch native tribes have with 'the white man's society,' for lack of a better term.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The general counsel for the Onondaga Nation is rather offended by it:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
Your "spiritual leader" is no fan of it either:
http://www.syracuse.com/kirst/...
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're full of shit. What's up with your spelling of "onodaga" anyway?
They determine membership in their government by race. That too should be outlawed and all treaties null and void, they are in violation of many non-discrimination laws. And yes, I am Sioux Indian!
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
“This decision is a step forward for Indian Country & for all Americans who champion tolerance.”
Since when does tolerance == anti-bigotry? It seems to me like they're not being very tolerant of bigotry. Has this now become one of those words that doesn't really mean what it really means, like "organic" or "chemical?" I mean, I'm pretty tolerant of people of different races, sexual orientations, nationalities, etc, but I'm intolerant of bigots, assholes, idiots, liars, people driving slow in the left lane, and a variety of others. So, I don't consider myself tolerant, but I do consider myself to be anti-bigotry, and I'm having a bit of a tough time reconciling these terms.
A quick google reveals that the owner of the team has donated 97% to the GOP. This is another retaliation using federal agencies to intimidate political enemies. Today the Redskins, tomorrow the "tea party" or any other name that the liberal democrats deem hostile (at their choosing) to their cause. "Racism" was just a shell covering their true motive.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Except the term redskin isn't referencing their skin color.
I can understand some native americans being upset about this kind of names, and I can also understand others (posting above) saying they don't care. What I find strange is that people usually want to name their teams something positive and powerful (other than frat league when you name your team the Nads so that people can cheer Go, Nads!). The various Indian-themed sports team names were all intended to be powerful positive *winning* labels, not insults, to the teams they were being applied to; and by inference positive references, not insults, to their namesakes. Consider how strange it is to name your new team after what was once considered a hated enemy - who lost! Clearly the might and power of that enemy is being honored to some degree. (Though George Carlin might compare it to suburbs where we cut down all the trees and then name the streets in their memory.)
You realize that the case in which "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" came up in the justice's opinion was overturned almost fifty years ago?
I don't mind you bringing up the rest of your opinion, especially as there seems to be an objective trend of chilling free speech in the US, but please try not to further your argument by invoking invalidated information.
Trademarks have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Trademarks are not and have never been First Amendment speech. The entire constitutional basis of a trademark is the Commerce clause and Congress and its delegated authority can regulate trademarks as they please.
What is it referencing then?
Loading...
And soon, the team will be named "The Washington USPTO asshats"
This is going nowhere. Some activists did the same thing in 1999 and a court of appeals overruled the board in 2003. There is nothing new here (which the board's dissenter noted). The court of appeals will rule that the complainants did not have standing to bring the trademark challenge.
My rant was against reinterpretations of what's past and (seemingly) settled. The revisionism, if you will. Without anything in the law changing one bit, certain things become illegal (or "disparaging").
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In a related story, the federal government has given notice that the state of Oklahoma must change its name because it is "disparaging" to Native Americans.
http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Oklahoma/Oklahomanameorigin.html
That's great, but Trademark law is not based on the First Amendment so what you brought up basically has no relation to the case at hand. Trademark law statute explicitly allows for the refusal or revocation of disparaging trademarks. This has been part of statutory law for decades.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
Now that the USPTO has shown it can cancel intellectual property, how about canceling some patents?
We could start with the software patents and continue from there.
The blow is to the NFL not the Washington Redskins. What many people don't know (and apparently Harry Reid) is that revenue generated by licensed merchandise for all teams is pooled and divided out among the teams. It's NFL money not Redskins money.
I'm going to get a create a team.
The drunken Irish!.. no, the fighting Irish!.. no, the wife beating Irish!.. no, the out breeding their resources Irish!.. That one is too long. The Fighting Irish it is!
Now I'm going to make the logo a small Irish man who is drunk and looking for a fight.
Don't worry it'll work, no one is going to complain. If I call them the Drunken Irish the Irish and college students will rush to my door to buy team shirts.
Oh hey, how about the Smokin' Rastas? I'm thinking the player number "420" is going to be hot with the college crowd.
This whole thing is insulting on so many levels I'm not even sure where to begin.
Let's start with the name - Redskins. If you are offended by the name then don't go to any of the games or buy any of the merchandise. Problem solved. No need for lawsuits or public flogging.
Secondly, does anyone really believe that this is the most pressing issue facing the native american community? Is it even in the top 100? I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of native americans couldn't give a shit either way what the football team is called.
After all that the native americans have gone through - having their land stolen from them, herded on to reservations like cattle, etc. - this is how we make good on all that? By changing the name of a fucking football team? Give me a break.
Dallas BovinPersons? Geez...
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
I think the only fair way to resolve this dilemma is to give Britain the last laugh and rename the team the Washington Redcoats
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
whitey, crackers, or The N Word. So it's not the same. There is only one live US trademark with some form of the N word - the rest are no longer active - so it seems the consistency is there on the part of USPTO. Did you expect an instrument of the US government to continue to approve of something that a class of people find derogatory? White people don't get to overrule what other groups want to be called. Each class gets to decide. And if members of that class are not internally consistent, I may never understand it, neither may you, but that's not a pass for others to do the same. How much Al Jazeera America have you watched? Known Islamic radicals John Siegenthaler, Nicole Mitchell, Michael Eaves and Ray Suarez notwithstanding, are they really that polarized? OK seriously, you may be conflating Islamic point-of-view with pro-Islam warmongering ("jihad"). Telemundo presents media from a Latino point of view, but I don't think anyone is suggesting they are promoting some sort of violent Latino takeover.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
of cold water to the face. Maybe they'll wake up.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Good!
The relation I alluded to was based not on the First Amendment, but on our reinterpretations of the laws and words. The similarity, in my opinion, lies in the changing of our understanding of what constitutes "disparaging" in one case and what "Freedom of Speech" is in the other.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
admirable about American Indians; given that sports teams are named after clever/powerful/admirable persons/animals like:
Packers, Oilers, Chargers and Steelers - for the men working in the meat packing, oil, electric and steel industries
Patriots, Aztecs, Chiefs, Red Skins - for fierce and skilled warriors
Bears, Tigers, Eagles, Dolphins, Lions, Ravens, Jaguars, etc - named for animals that are intelligent, fast and/or fierce
The "Indian" names were in the same spirit as the "Patriots" ... NOBODY names their team for somebody they think is weak or stupid or "bad". There's no team named "the NAZIs" (even though some might consider them smart/fierce warriors), nobody names a team "the sloths" or "the butterflies" or "the wimpy kids". Apparently, according to American Indians themselves, they are no longer a people to be admired and do not want to be equated with "patriots"; this team is now better-off ditching the name.
Incidentally, I refuse to call American Indians "Native Americans" - that's a political scam. They did NOT evolve here on this continent as a separate species native to this place, they immigrated just lake everybody else, and there's even evidence they massacred and replace the first humans who got here (google Kennowick man) If American Indians are indeed "native" to this continent then they evolved separately from everybody else and are not, strictly speaking, human. I do NOT believe that, but if they want to assert it and prove it, it would be perfectly fine to treat them badly and name teams after them for (then-legitimate) racial/specist reasons (at least in some warped alternate reality where people name teams after people/animals they DO NOT admire...) This nonesense about calling them "Native Americans" is purely political and intended to convey the idea that they have a unique claim to the land that nobody else on Earth has to their lands. There were clearly first people to make it to France and to England (and to EVERY other spot on Earth other than where the first "man" evolved), but you do not have groups in these countries called "Native English", "Native French", "Native Swiss" etc (as an "ethnic" rather than "legal/citizenship" status) who are presumed to have some super-claim to those lands.
To honor all of the people who knit red sweaters... the Washington Redskeins.
It's Al Jazeera, and it's infinitely better than any US-based news channel.
...and then software patents please!?
My great grandfather was Mohawk. I typically say I'm part Mohawk, not indian or native American.
What is going on is the idea that a race of people were/are in the process of genocide against the native population of a continent for over 500 years. The whites have dehumanized the various peoples to the point where individual customs and ways are nothing more than trendy new-age fads. Rather than a proud people, the whites depict them as mascots and comic book characters. When they take offense to being dehumanized, they are told to get over it.
The whites did not win the Americas (stupid name), it was the european diseases that did. If the natives were not in decline because of new diseases, the europeans would never have token hold. The whites merely capitalized on continent wide pandemic that they brought here.
So, if the people who had democratic representation and centralized trade routes BEFORE the magna carta, whos only offense is being in the way of white european aggression, say stop dehumanizing them, maybe it would be a good gesture.
On a technicality, which means in a sense, it's an even worse decision.
At least the courts that decided Dredd Scott, Plessy and Lochner had the moral fortitude to make a decision, rather than pass the ball under an excuse of judicial economy.
Are any Native Americans actually bothered by the term? Or did we decide that this was offensive because we like to declare things offensive?
They're fighting this on the grounds that it should never have been granted because it was disparaging at the time it was granted, not that it is no longer okay, that it wasn't okay when it was made.
The white guy doesn't get to decide if Nigger is a bad word.
So saying "Redskins got a raw deal historically" is bad, but saying "all Native Americans are lazy drunks who can only make money from casinos" is okay?
"Experts, though, are quick to point out that business ramifications could be minimal. Even without trademark protection, the club can make a strong argument for presumptive ownership through common law based on their longtime use of the name, which dates back to 1933. ÃoeThey didnÃ(TM)t surrender their common law trademark rights,Ã says Mark Sommers, a trademark attorney with Finnegan in Washington, D.C. Think of a common law marriage, where long term couples are still subject to alimony and other legalities even if they never legally married. With product names and logos, common law is largely rooted in consumer protection, the idea being that Ãoeyou donÃ(TM)t want the public to be confused as to the origin of the name,Ã says Sommers, who believes the Redskins would have a strong common law case."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2014/06/18/washington-redskins-business-unlikely-to-suffer-from-trademark-loss/
So if, after years of appeals, they did wind up losing the registered trademark, it would just mean somewhat more work for the team's lawyers to defend the team's common-law trademark. Their existing property rights did not disappear because of the PTO action.
Now the government dictates everything including what we name our sports teams. Epic Fail.
But there is no reinterpretation. The clause about not allowing disparaging copyrights is more than a century old, has plenty of case law behind it and this is not the first time that has been used to deny or revoke a trademark.
WRT the Black Hawks, I'd say that up to the Sauk, since Black Hawk was their leader at one point.
They wouldn't necessarily object. For example, the Seminoles officially sanction Florida State University's use of their name. Having a sport's team named after you needn't be insulting; since sports teams emphasize hard work and skill, some take the naming as an honor.
However most Native Americans object to "Redskin" -- which I can certainly see as being interpreted as an insult.
SV: Who get's to decide? Native Americans, that's who (not you).
It was overturned on a technicality because the one who brought the suit were not the ones that should have done it. This is not the case this time so it is unlikely to be overturned.
Where I come from in northern Michigan there are tons of Native Americans. I call all my native friends just "Natives". It's only two syllables, it's factual, and it's respectful. The Washington Redskins could keep their logo, and number of syllables just by changing to "Washington Natives". Is this too obvious or something?
The Washington Redskins should sue the patent office for issuing invalid patents in the first place and allowing them to build a business on invalid patents which were then revoked. It is obviously a case of negligence in the first place that is causing the financial damage now of having to rebrand. :p
From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it.
It got reversed because of unreasonable delay by the plaintiffs - the Laches doctrine. Here, the plaintiffs are 18 and filed suit as soon as they were able. When it goes to appeal, the court may or may not toss it based on the merits, but they most certainly won't reject it for the same reason as last time.
Next the US PTO needs to strip Notre Dame University of its disparaging trademarks. As an American partially of Irish descent, I have always been greatly offended by the "Fighting Irish," and their despicable mascot, which are both horrible and inaccurate stereotypes. Apple should be next, as the word "apple" is far too common to be limited solely to an electronics manufacturer who has never actually sold any fruit. Finally, I would like to request that Pizza Hut no longer be allowed to use "Pizza" in their trademarks, as they do not sell actual pizza.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
They can't. The plaintiffs were specifically chosen as people who had recently turned 18 and were still eligible to challenge.
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Since the Seminole Tribe (I think I'm supposed to capitalize 'tribe') has fought on the team's side to keep the name.
On the other hand, I think William of Orange's descendents should quietly ask Syracuse University to pick a different color, I hope they suggest yellow.
See my comment below re: FSU Seminoles. In fact, the tribe has, I believe, always sided with the university.
We now live a country where one's property can be stripped away just because someone else doesn't like it.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
And since you are so smart maybe you could understand that he used an actual 1st Amendment issue to illustrate a different situation where the only thing that changed is interpretation and then he mentioned that, likewise, the meaning of disparage (a reference to the trademark law) has also changed.
or maybe you really aren't quite as smart as you think.
Ok, I am invoking "Godwin's Law", let's move on. I can't believe the Washington Redskins was meant as an insult. Who would do that to their team, but we have gotten deep in to political correct in this country. (Boy it is a good thing we don't have gender modifiers on most of our nouns. There would be a battle.)
And most people here were left scratching their heads.
DO a quick search for Harry Connick Jnr and Black Face Skit. Australia had a show called "hey hey it's Saturday" which was a silly variety show. They had a reunion show and got back in one of the more popular skits from 20 years ago. It was a group of guys doing a jackson 5 impersonation. They were white and wore black face paint. Harry Connick Jnr went nuts as saying it was the most racist thing he had ever seen. Everyone else was completely caught off guard by his reaction.
But that said you can buy "Red Skins" a pinky / red chewy lollie and another thing called chickos which are black jelly babies (they are a kinda chocolate flavour). Now I knew the Chickos ones were walking a line, as my wife is english and she couldn't believe they were called that. But I had no concept that "red skins" was considered derogatory...
That said we did have one sweet that got its name changed - we used to have these white sugar tubes with a red tip that were called "fags". That is the colloquial for a cigarette here but also an abusive terms for a homosexual male. So now they are called "fads"
So before, ONLY the washington redskins could use this marks, but now EVERYONE can use them, now their protection is removed. This helps the supposed problem?
The Uni of Hawaii case is not as simple as you would like to think. The handing out of the constitution happened on private property and they have a say on what can and can not be done on their property. It's up to the students and general public to show to the university administration that they don't tolerate this.
You are allowed to say anything you like, but come yell inside my house and I'll kick your ass good.
They could name themselves the "Plantations" after the famous Presidents that owned nearby farms. Or how about the "Grand Masters" to show the Masonic influence. How about the "Klansmen" to show respect to Scottish people? I'm just trying to put some ideas out there that aren't offensive terms for other races....
I'd read a short article about the history behind the reason so many sport team names have/had Native American influenced names. At some point a person or small group of people all decided that these names would be good for their sport teams. How'd that come about, what were their influences? Was it John Wayne and western movies/TV? Or was it before TV with those cowboy short stories they had romanticizing the west? It'd be kind of silly to keep defending a name like this if it came from watching an episode do Howdy-Doody.
I'm of nordic descent, and I find the MN Vikings a hideous embarrassment to the historically mighty and ferocious "viking" concept.
Can I have their name changed too?
-Styopa
New Name Idea: Washington Casino Owners
Stop modding people who dont understand the first amendment and trademark law "insightful"
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Henceforth the "Washington Redskins" shall now be known as the "Washington Murdering Heathen Savages".
Call them the "Blacksmiths" and send them out with hammers. Tackle at your own risk.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
>>Just because an African American became president doesn't erase centuries of wrong doing or change the fact that certain words with historical links to those times are still used widely by racists
Why do you ignore his being half Irish and the centuries of maltreatment they've endured? Only a wee bit o' terrorism got their freedom, even, much
like Moses.
Coming soon to your town, the official thought police. Those with "incorrect" thoughts will need to report to the nearest train station with warm clothes and a shovel. Yes, folks, this is the new, better Amerika - that you voted for.
Poltiical ideological loons I hope you're happy, this is exactly the ivory tower you said you wanted to live in. The Christian Theocracy you told us the other guys wanted... might have turned out to be an improvement, but we'll never know.
... with all fraternities and sororities using the term "Greek"...
This guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inacurate. (from THHGTTG)
Redskins fans are no longer able to scalp tickets.
Seriously...if you name yourselves after the native americans, you should expect the government to take your shit away from you without your permission.
It was not disparaging in 1932, when the trademark was granted. If it became disparaging now, we must've slowly changed the meaning of some words.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why? Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive, and to what degree? Unless you're making a case that it's obscene - which would be quite the challenge, since the community standard includes a lot of people wearing team colors/logos for the 'Skins - it "offending you" isn't the basis for anything; and it certainly doesn't offend me.
As a Native American I do find the term Redskin obscene and after 40 years of fighting this type of racism I am glad to see this day. What are you saying here that you a white person gets to decide what is offensive to me? Yes I know where the term originated from a time when murdering my family was a profit making business. $10 for every male “redskin” you brought in and $5 for every woman's or child's “redskin” you brought in. How would you feel if I got paid to kill your children? Back then $5 was a week's pay.
As a Native American I have especially took it as a slap in the face that the center of US Government (Washington DC) would name their team “Redskins” after trying to kill us off and stealing everything we had. Gee thanks for the “honor”!
The term “Braves” I never had much complaint about but I do find the wearing of face paint and feathers and acting like a fool offensive. You have no idea of the meaning of the paint or the feathers. If your a Christian how would you feel if you saw me pissing on a cross with your Jesus on it?
Think about this I live in the same area of the US that my family has been on for the last 20,000 years or so yet when I go an get a drivers licenses the form has “White” “African-American”, “Hispanic”, and “Other”. I have to check “Other”. The first person on this land and I am the ”Other”
IT'S A GOOD DAY TO BE INDIGENOUS!
Native America
Fighting Terrorism Since 1492
Life was very different in 1932, when the team was founded. Buying "Looney Tunes" cartoons of that era today, you get a video of Whoopi Goldberg apologizing — on behalf of Warner Brothers — for the "racism" of some episodes.
It was not an "oversight", that the trademark was granted — it really does mean, the term was considered quite acceptable back then.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is a classic example of folks getting offended about the idea of people getting offended. Native Americans used to be called 'Indians' and now are beginning to be referred to a 'First Nations'. 'Indians' is a word that seems to be socially unacceptable now, but it's got nothing to do with the word being in any way derogatory. Indians (from India) are still called 'Indian'. (Interestingly enough, 'Indians', i.e. folks from India, experience a remarkable amount of discrimination - due to the caste system - in their country that has nothing to do with race.) 'Native American' is just a different term to refer to 'Indians', but either of these terms aren't inherently discriminatory. They just have baggage. According to Steven Pinker (a Harvard College Professor), the politically correct terms for black-skinned Americans started out as whatever it started out as, but eventually landed up being 'Negro', then 'black', then 'African American'. Okay. Well, the politically correct term for 'slum' was proceeded by 'ghetto', then by 'inner city' then again by 'slum'. Which are correct? I think there is no such thing. Which are offensive? Well, that depends on who hears it.
I used to get offended when people called me skinny.
My sister was born in the US, but only a few years after moved to South Africa (with the rest of us). Technically she's an American who grew up in Africa... If she refers to herself as an American African or an African American in Africa people nod and carry on. She would never dream of referring to herself as 'African American' in the US because people are (irrationally, IMO) sensitive to this term.
In Africa, people are explicitly referred to as either black, white, coloured (partially white/black), Chinese or Indian. No one cares or thinks twice about it. That's just how it is/they are.
Some African Americans refer to each other affectionately as 'nigger', as in " 'sup nigger!', etc. Is this wrong? Well, no. Anyway, who cares since it's not coming from folks who can be held accountable for racism since they're black (oops!) anyway.
I don't think the problem lies with the terminology - unless, of course, it's clearly intended to be insulting. If it is, it's usually not difficult to tell.
It's interesting that, in South Africa, whites are blatantly the minority - 7 million out of a population of 53 million. They don't go around fussing about the use of the word 'minority' to refer to them as if it's an insult. This is because that's exactly what they are. It accurately describes their demographic. Using the same term to refer to African Americans & folks of Mexican or Native American origin is a blatant no-no.
How terminology is perceived is up to individuals. It's understandable that people do get offended by words, but that doesn't make their reaction right or the folks who used the word(s) racist or evil. And legislating supporting these kinds of reactions just seems ridiculous.
Of course, racism is unacceptable. So is classism, sexism and all sorts of other ism's. But the issue of individuals' interpretations of how they personally relate to specific terminology is a personal matter. Although these perspectives are certainly valid and understandable, it makes no sense that they are considered 'right' or are legally upheld.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the school pays them to use the name.
Would it be ok if they changed their logo to a potato?
(A red skin potato, of course.)
It's for sure the trademarks office isn't going to issue it to any other, so there's no danger of trademark dilution.
Yet again, the white man steals from the red man. What's that? Oh, well that's different then. Never mind.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
One of the major signs that someone knows nothing about Natives is when they refer to themselves as "part Native American". None of us use that term and most Natives don't care about the name because we don't really care what Americans think of us.
What should count is how the name/image/patent/trademark/whatever has an effect TODAY, and should be reinterpreted, or changed or deleted. If there was a team called the Niggers would you be arguing the same point?
Tradition makes no sense. It is an ossifying force in a dynamic world that always results in conflict.