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
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
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.
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
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?
Counterfeited is now an option. Personally, I think a name change like Virginia Moonshiners would be cool.
Nobody has said the team isn't allowed to use the marks. That would certainly violate the First Amendment.
They just can't sue anybody else for using them.
Nobody has a right to be un-offended.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur. No one is stopping them from continuing to use the name, and now they can't stop anyone else from using it also.
So why are you so mad about it? Freedom has increased, yet you're the one offended.
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!
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.
This is not a free speech issue. You are allowed to say and write "redskin" anywhere you wish. You just can't trademark it.
It's amazing how many rabid free speech advocates on this site have no clue about what free speech actually is. I'm going to assume that most of them are in 9th grade.
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.
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'
Apparently the PTO did not mind trademarking the symbol for Pi, so maybe they should call themselves the Washington Pi's from now on.
Freedom of speech! Freedom of speech! I don't know what it means, but I'll bitch about it on the internets, yup!
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
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"
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.
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
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the reason for the nullification of the trademark was a method to hurt them financially for using the name. The trademark office, working for the government, shouldn't violate the first amendment either. Trademarks are a form of speech since they are words or groupings of words which are granted exclusive use-rights...and if they're not considered such, they should be.
Nobody has a right to be un-offended.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur. No one is stopping them from continuing to use the name, and now they can't stop anyone else from using it also.
So why are you so mad about it? Freedom has increased, yet you're the one offended.
What racial slur?
Oh, you think the name that the Navajo high school in Teec Nos Pas, Arizona call itself is a "racial slur"?
Wow. What color is the sky on you planet?
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?
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
Okay... why not?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Equal Protection.
Hell, if someone wants to trademark a swastika, they should be perfectly able to. The market will decide the rest.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It's a equal protection issue. The government is arbitrarily deciding what is "good" speech from what is "bad" speech. In this case it gives what it deems "good" speech protections under trademark law.
It starts with the Redskins. What happens when it denies a trademark to a maker of a product because while that product may be legal, its deemed "bad" by government bureaucrats? Cigarettes? Soda? Fast-food?
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...
Trademarks are not free speech and never have been. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and its statutes. Trademarks fall squarely under the Commerce clause not the First Amendment.
And soon, the team will be named "The Washington USPTO asshats"
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.
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.
It's a equal protection issue.
Case law citations?
The government is arbitrarily deciding what is "good" speech from what is "bad" speech.
Trademarks are not speech. Never have been.
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.
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.
It's not. These people are just completely ignorant of both statutory and case law around trademarks. Trademarks are not First Amendment speech. Never have been never will be. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and the Trademark Act. Congress could revoke every single registered trademark if they wanted to be simply abolishing the Trademark act.
As I posted in another part of this discussion thestatutes on trademarks has allowed for both the refusal of trademarks that are disparaging.
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...
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."
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.
If you were a decent human being you'd know that it's the intent behind the words as much as the words themselves, you redneck honky. That high school filled with Navajo CAN use the term Redskin, just as it's quite acceptable for one black person to call another "nigga". You try it. It doesn't work for you. That's because it's up to the person being derided to decide if something is offensive. It's NOT up to the ignorant racist prick doing the deriding.
I'm quite fine with making Redneck jokes with my family. I'd actually be offended if someone else called my family rednecks in a derogatory manner.
This is common sense, and you should know this sort of empathic human social skill by this point in your life.
It's Al Jazeera, and it's infinitely better than any US-based news channel.
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.
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 market can't decide. In granting the trademark, the government has given the owner a monopoly on the use of the mark. Government-granted monopolies are the antithesis of the free market.
The equal protection clause might apply here, but if it did it would apply in the sense of removing the trademark, not in the sense of allowing it. Trademarks are by definition favoring the registrant over all others. Doesn't get much more unequal than that.
You could turn it around and say that everybody is entitled to a trademark and that denying anyone a trademark violates the equal protection clause, but again if that's so, trademarks already do this: you can't trademark just anything, and the government decides what's trademarkable and what isn't.
So the bottom line is that if the equal protection clause applies, the way it applies is that it eliminates all trademarks, including the Redskins trademark.
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.
So you think it's perfectly fine if the Federal government allows a trademark for a dating service called "Republican Connection", but prohibits one called "Lesbian Connection", because the word "lesbian" is offensive to someone? Or allows a trademark for a cemetary called "The Arms Of God", but denies one for "Atheist's Rest" on the grounds that a specifically atheist cemetary is an offensive concept?
Sure. Trademarks are not a right and they are only granted at the behest of the framework that Congress created.
Is there any line, or can the Government capriciously grant or deny any trademark for any reason because "[trademarks] are not a right"?
The USPTO can do whatever it wants within the statutory framework laid out by Congress.
I'm not saying that "Redskins" would fall under an equal protection jurisdiction, but your response seems to slew too far in the opposite direction.
My response aligns with 100+ years of statutory law and much case law.
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).
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
This is not a free speech issue. You are allowed to say and write "redskin" anywhere you wish. You just can't trademark it.
Yes, you can. This decision explicitly doesn't revoke the team's right to use the trademark "Redskins". It removes it from the USPTO primary registry, but it doesn't revoke the trademark (in other words, what was an (R) is now a (TM)).
rage, rage against the dying of the light
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?
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
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.
Call them the "Blacksmiths" and send them out with hammers. Tackle at your own risk.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
You bought a Nigger(TM)! *cut to shot of electric battery-powered lawn mower*
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Regardless....not a free speech issue.
... 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.
I'd think this is closer to the 5th Amendment, being a taking of property (which it became the moment we decided to grant trademarks in the first place).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
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.
Why does everyone seem to think Obama is African-American? We have yet to elect an African-American president - and may never at this rate. Obama's mother is American. His father is African. That makes him the first African American president, with nothing at all in common with African-Americans. Historically, culturally, or genealogically
Why does everyone overlook that?.
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.
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.
I propose a new bill.
Doesn't Infringe the First Amendment Copyright Act: Whereby the government will only grant copyright to works of art that endorse the ruling party.
Still think it's not a free speech issue?
I stole this Sig
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur.
No, of course. That's why we did away with all those slur-based team names (ethnic or otherwise). We no longer have the Philadelphia Niggers, the New York Kykes, the Boston Cocksuckers, or the Baltimore Imbeciles.
Wait, what's that? Team names don't generally carry negative connotations? Nobody names their team after something undesirable? The term Redskin is intended to be virtuous, not a slur? How can this be?!
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
That high school filled with Navajo CAN use the term Redskin, just as it's quite acceptable for one black person to call another "nigga".
Question: Can the sentence "Obama is the finest nigga this country has seen in ages, and I pray that my children grow up to be just like him" be uttered by a non-black person without being (being, not seeming) racist? It's evident from the context that the statement expresses positive sentiments regarding Obama, and that the mention of race isn't really relevant to the sentiment being expressed. However, it's evident that there are those among us that claim outrage over any mention of race (positive, negative, or neutral), and I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about whether or not it is possible to be offended by that statement (as it's evident that people can get offended by anything), but whether or not the statement is itself inherently bigoted or offensive in any concrete way. Is the use of a racially-charged word, even in an entirely positive context, still "racist"? If so, why?
Disclaimer: Please don't turn this into a referendum on Obama. I don't vote for republicrats and can name countless black people that I think are better people than Obama.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.