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."

Comments

Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Anonymous Coward]

-nt

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Aaden42]

Who gets to decide? Appointed bureaucrats at the US Patent & Trademark Office. That’s who.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive, and to what degree?

Haven't you been paying attention? The way it works is as simple as the minds that think this way. These are the general rules:

1. If you reference a group and their skin color is darker than yours, it's offensive.
2. The degree of offense is determined by how many shades darker their skin is than yours.
3. No claim of offense is ever illegitimate. You are to never request proof that any real harm was done. That would be insensitive.
4. Even if a minority says they hate all whites, they are never racist. If a woman hates all men she is never sexist. But everyone is equal.
5. Even though an individual can hate themselves genuinely, a black person can never be accused of hating blacks. The n-word is perfectly ok for them no matter how it is used.
6. Intent is never considered. Rather you will be judged according to a list of words. This way we discount your humanity and at the same time we know exactly how much to hate you.
7. Individuality is to be ignored. Only group identity matters.
8. The narrative that every non-white is a poor oppressed victim is never to be questioned. They are never to be held accountable when they make bad choices. Judging them by the same standard you would use to judge whites would be racist. Somehow.
9. No one belonging to any minority group should ever be encouraged to think about just how insulting and patronizing all of this is. The message that they cannot make it on their own without lots of favoritism and special treatment is a statement of their equality. Somehow.
10. No one, and I mean no one, who a) claims offense and b) is non-white should EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be told to grow up and get over it.

Supplemental rule concerning women:
1. If a woman is offended by anything a man says, the degree of the man's guilt is inversely proportional to how attractive the woman is. If she's a butt-ugly masculine bulldyke looking woman, that makes the man a real asshole.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, the term "Red skin" was coined by Native Americans, to distinguish between "white skin" and "black skin" people who they met. Of course, scholoarship means nothing when drumming up Faux Outrage in support of some "oppressed people", while ignoring the real oppression (still ongoing) they experience on their "reservations"

But yeah, keep promulgating the misinformation because the low information voters LOVE IT!

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[lister king of smeg]

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?"
---Stephen Fry

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually the only question here is what the term "redskins" means in means in historical context.

No, that question is barely relevant. The question is whether the term is regarded as offensive NOW. Historical discussions (some would say unfortunately) are rather irrelevant, because people tend not to care much about history. Your post seems to be an example of this.

Historically it has been a derisory term, and no-one can really deny that native Americans were derided with it while being oppressed in other ways.

Nope -- historically, it originated as a translation of terms that Native Americans (or American Indians, if you prefer) used for themselves.

And, I sincerely doubt that even when the sports team named themselves "Redskins" that they wanted to insult themselves with a derogatory term. They presumably meant it as a term to honor the heritage of a strong people (who, by extension, apparently might win at sports competitions). Mostly, the rather novel "offensiveness" of this term was generated after mid-20th century concern about "color" terms regarding race... educated folks stopped using it, leaving it only the choice term of jerks and bigots. It's kind of like "white flight," except in language.

It's like we generally don't refer to black people as "coloured" any more, because historically it has very negative connotations. Signs with "no coloureds" and the like.

Wrong again! In the mid-1800s, the word "black" became to be seen as an offensive term, since people generally don't actually have black skin. So, "colored" originated as a polite term which more accurately designated the various skin tones of real people. (It lives on in respectable names of black organizations, like the NAACP, "National Association of Colored People" -- it obviously wasn't offensive back then; it was the most proper term to use.)

"Colored" gradually gave way to "Negro" ("United Negro College Fund"), which was taken to be a more scientific description of race. Since all the educated folks stopped using the term "colored" (not for any particularly offensive reason), it was only left for hicks in the South -- hence it came to be associated with segregation and eventually became offensive. (Not because it was deliberately used as a slur, but because it became outdated except in regions populated by folks who couldn't keep up with new terms, and often tended to have worse views on race.) Meanwhile, the 1960s saw a decline of "Negro" and a new interest in rehabilitating what had been an offensive slur for over a century: "Black" became the new preferred term of the anti-establishment "Black Power" groups. With "negro" seeming old-fashioned, and some remaining hatred of the old "black" slur, other folks kept searching for something else -- hence "African American."

And so it goes. In any case, "colored" used to be a respectable term historically. Then it got on the "euphemism treadmill" as educated folk keep fleeing away from previous terms, leaving them only used by uneducated folk, which results in the sentiment that these previously acceptable terms must be offensive.

You can try to play the victim card all you like, but only simple minds are unaware of historical context.

Hilarious. Read some history of these terms, if you want (but obviously haven't). Historical context is precisely an argument AGAINST these sorts of politically-correct arbitrary linguistic arguments. Often the history of these terms is much more benign that you might think.

But none of that really matters -- history is irrelevant in arguments like this. The point is some people find these terms offensive NOW, and if enough people (or enough of the "right people," whomever we think should arbitrate such things) find them offensive, educated folks should change their usage. Language is all arbitrary and a social construct after all -- if its connotations cause enough offense that it ceases to be useful for communication, it needs to change.

Re:My two cents

[squiggleslash]

There's no free speech issue here. The Redskins can call themselves whatever they want. What they can't do, necessarily, is count upon the full force of government to help them out if they want to prevent other people from using the same term in connection with their business, if they choose to use a particular category of name, as they are doing.

It's just a Trademark. That's all.

Re:My two cents

[mellon]

Trademarks are a constitutionally permitted infringement on free speech. Refusing to alllow a trademark can't possibly infringe on free speech: it does the exact opposite.

Re:My two cents

[mellon]

All rights you have are always subject to the will of the government. That's why it's so important to have a constitution where those rights are specifically laid out, and why it's so important for citizens to participate in civic discourse and not just expect the thing to run itself.

Re:First Amendment implications?

[mellon]

How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.

Re:My two cents

[Hevel-Varik]

This the Government using its ever increasing means to enforce thought crime. Heresy. Name has been around since 1933. This a means to an end and the end isn't trademark law and you know it. It's a bunch of assholes in a office using the trademark authority of the United States of America to enforce against heresy. You are just spouting talking points.

Re:Big fuss over nothing

[CanHasDIY]

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.

RTFS - it's not the tribes who are complaining, it's the federal government. Specifically, the Patent Office.

As a similarly-ancestored individual (my great-grands were both Blackfoot), I'd like to point out that this is the same federal government that broke all treaties, took our lands, destroyed our crops, herds, and way of life, displaced, separated, and outright murdered our families... and they think we give a shit about sports team names?

That is fucking offensive.

Re:First Amendment implications?

[Desler]

It's not an Equal Protection issue. Trademarks only exist because Congress passed laws to create them under their Commerce Clause authority. They are not a right.