PDA

View Full Version : Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team



Big_E
06-18-14, 12:08 PM
In Landmark Decision, U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/us-patent-office-redskins_n_5507079.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

effdamets
06-18-14, 12:17 PM
"Yankee" is a derogatory term for a northerner used by people from the south, no?
Maybe the Steinbrenners ought to be nervous....

RhodyYanksFan
06-18-14, 12:37 PM
This is crazy. I guess I'm just ignorant or evil because I don't see the big deal with their name. To force them to change like this is wrong IMO. However I'm guessing Snyder is somewhat happy in that now every fan will have to buy new merch.

effdamets
06-18-14, 12:38 PM
What about the Braves? Or Indians? Or the Cowboys?
Where does it end?

HerbieLee20
06-18-14, 02:44 PM
And the Phillies? Although the Ph replaces the f, female horses everywhere should be insulted, as should their owners even more!!

Cool Papa B.
06-18-14, 03:23 PM
This is crazy. I guess I'm just ignorant or evil because I don't see the big deal with their name. To force them to change like this is wrong IMO. However I'm guessing Snyder is somewhat happy in that now every fan will have to buy new merch.

I guess if you aren't native american it might be hard to understand why that term is so derrogatory.

Actually I'm not native american either, but I definitely understand the outrage.

RhodyYanksFan
06-18-14, 04:15 PM
I personally think

http://www.thelogomix.com/files/u2/Cleveland-Indians.png

is way more derogatory than

http://wikicheats.gametrailers.com/images/thumb/9/92/Madden_NFL_09_Redskins_Logo_Large.png/380px-Madden_NFL_09_Redskins_Logo_Large.png

JL25and3
06-18-14, 04:27 PM
Chief Wahoo is definitely a problem and should be replaced. But there's absolutely no excuse for the NFL having a racial slur as the team name. They wouldn't accept having a team called the N*****s, or the K*kes, or any other directly, unambiguously derogatory term. The Washington NFL team should have been forced to change its name long ago.

spanky185
06-18-14, 04:53 PM
Will the baseball team in Atlanta let them go back to being the Braves?

ymike673
06-19-14, 10:45 AM
I understand why it was done but why is there no huge protest again the "Chief Wahoo" trademark. A lot more offensive than the Redskins logo.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 10:59 AM
I understand why it was done but why is there no huge protest again the "Chief Wahoo" trademark. A lot more offensive than the Redskins logo.
There have been plenty of protests against Chief Wahoo. In any case, the problem with the Redskins isn't the team logo, it's the team name, which is (a) more offensive, and (b) far more prominent. I can read about the Indians all season without ever encountering Chief Wahoo, offensive as he is.

When it comes down to it, what do the names or logos of any other team have to do with it? Are we really to tell a group of people what they should or shouldn't be finding more or less offensive? The only thing that matters is this: the Redskins name is an unambiguous, unmistakable racial slur. It is offensive in its own right, and should not be acceptable to the NFL, much less the patent office.

effdamets
06-19-14, 11:09 AM
I don't understand.... The name wasn't a "racial slur" for 81 years and now it is?
I can't wait to see what happens with this, especially if the Washington football team changes its name....

The Washington Pigskins? Oh wait - that would be insulting to swines everywhere.
The Washington Paleskins? Nope, not that either.

I just find it very interesting that people would be insulted because of the name of a sports franchise. I'm Italian and if the team name was the Washington WOPs, I wouldn't be insulted.
But I guess that's just me.

RhodyYanksFan
06-19-14, 01:40 PM
Seems like the word is offensive only once enough lawyers convince enough Indians they can make money off Snyder for being offensive.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 02:14 PM
I don't understand.... The name wasn't a "racial slur" for 81 years and now it is?
I can't wait to see what happens with this, especially if the Washington football team changes its name....

The Washington Pigskins? Oh wait - that would be insulting to swines everywhere.
The Washington Paleskins? Nope, not that either.

I just find it very interesting that people would be insulted because of the name of a sports franchise. I'm Italian and if the team name was the Washington WOPs, I wouldn't be insulted.
But I guess that's just me.
It was always a racial slur. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. In fact, part of the patent office's finding was that it was a derogatory term at the time that the trademark registrations were applied for - the first one in 1967.

I can tell you, I'd be really damned upset if they changed the name to the Washington Kikes. I'd be even more upset if someone told me to lighten up and stop making a big deal out of it.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 02:15 PM
Seems like the word is offensive only once enough lawyers convince enough Indians they can make money off Snyder for being offensive.
They're not making any money off this. And as I said above, it was always offensive. When they talk about "redskins" in old Westerns, they're not using it as a term of endearment.

Big_E
06-19-14, 02:42 PM
Claiming the name "Redskins" honors Native Americans, would be like the Cowboys deciding to honor the Mexican population in their state by changing their name to the Dallas Wetbacks.

Or Detroit, which has the highest population of African-Americans of any US city (pop over 100K) honoring them by changing the name of the Tigers to the Detroit N*ggers.

THEBOSS84
06-19-14, 03:40 PM
It was always a racial slur. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. In fact, part of the patent office's finding was that it was a derogatory term at the time that the trademark registrations were applied for - the first one in 1967.

I can tell you, I'd be really damned upset if they changed the name to the Washington Kikes. I'd be even more upset if someone told me to lighten up and stop making a big deal out of it.

Why is it a racial slur? If they made a team called the Whiteskins, I won't take offense to it, I promise.

Yankee Tripper
06-19-14, 04:01 PM
Why is it a racial slur? If they made a team called the Whiteskins, I won't take offense to it, I promise.
I'm not sure if this is serious but if they change the New York Knicks to to the New York Niggers I'm pretty sure there would be some upset folks.

THEBOSS84
06-19-14, 04:05 PM
I'm not sure if this is serious but if they change the New York Knicks to to the New York Niggers I'm pretty sure there would be some upset folks.

Of course they would, but I'm pretty sure Redskins isn't as harsh as a racial slur as the N word.

To be honest, I don't know the back-story to the term Redskins, but I doubt it's so bad if it stood this long.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 04:14 PM
Why is it a racial slur? If they made a team called the Whiteskins, I won't take offense to it, I promise.
And you'd be OK with the Kikes? You wouldn't have a problem if they adopted "Arbeit macht frei" as the team motto?

spanky185
06-19-14, 04:28 PM
the thing i don't like about everyone focusing on the team name (or team names in general) is that there a lot bigger issues facing American Indians in this country, and while they are working hard to fix things for themselves, everyone else is going "omg NFL team name!"

JL25and3
06-19-14, 04:40 PM
the thing i don't like about everyone focusing on the team name (or team names in general) is that there a lot bigger issues facing American Indians in this country, and while they are working hard to fix things for themselves, everyone else is going "omg NFL team name!"
Might as well get people to pay attention to one thing. The issue of the Redskins' name doesn't really prevent anyone from focusing on other issues as well, and if that disappeared, people wouldn't suddenly start worrying about South Dakota's massive violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Soriambi
06-19-14, 04:50 PM
To be clear, this does not mean that the Redskins need to change their name, even if the Patent Office's action holds up in court (which it didn't years ago when they decided the same thing, though that was due to a standing issue, not on the merits. From what I've read, patent lawyer people seem to think it's far more likely that this one will stick.) What it means is that the Redskins will be able to make a lot less money, as every Joe Blow in the country will be able to legally sell Redskins merchandise without the permission of the team.

Yankee Tripper
06-19-14, 05:48 PM
Of course they would, but I'm pretty sure Redskins isn't as harsh as a racial slur as the N word.

To be honest, I don't know the back-story to the term Redskins, but I doubt it's so bad if it stood this long.
Debating the severity of the slur? Really?
Maybe there are far fewer american indians to complain about it that african americans.

THEBOSS84
06-19-14, 05:52 PM
And you'd be OK with the Kikes? You wouldn't have a problem if they adopted "Arbeit macht frei" as the team motto?

I would not like Kikes - is Kikes to Jews what Redskins is to Native Americans?

THEBOSS84
06-19-14, 05:58 PM
Debating the severity of the slur? Really?
Maybe there are far fewer american indians to complain about it that african americans.


Five years ago, you never heard much about how terrible the Redskins name was. Nowadays people are much more sensitive, so this has become a big issue.

Yankee Tripper
06-19-14, 06:04 PM
Five years ago, you never heard much about how terrible the Redskins name was. Nowadays people are much more sensitive, so this has become a big issue.
I'm guessing 60 years ago you rarely heard how bad the term nigger was either. I guess it is all relative.

Personally I don't care but a group of individuals does find this term very offensive and it's not like sports franchises haven't changed their names before.

Soriambi
06-19-14, 06:28 PM
Maybe there are far fewer american indians to complain

Wonder why that could be.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 09:03 PM
Five years ago, you never heard much about how terrible the Redskins name was. Nowadays people are much more sensitive, so this has become a big issue.
Native American groups have been protesting the name since 1968, at least. I think that as time has gone by, more and more people have come to realize that, yeah, they're absolutely right.

I don't think it's a question of people being overly sensitive. I think the name is genuinely inexcusable.

Soriambi
06-19-14, 09:13 PM
Native American groups have been protesting the name since 1968, at least. I think that as time has gone by, more and more people have come to realize that, yeah, they're absolutely right.

I don't think it's a question of people being overly sensitive. I think the name is genuinely inexcusable.

I think there's been stuff contemporary to the name being chosen in the '30s that indicated that it was questionable even then. Needless to say I'm with you fully on this one. I don't think the fact that the Indians have an absurdly racist logo means that the Redskins should be excused.

Sam18
06-19-14, 09:41 PM
Holy sh*t there are some ignorant ass white people in this thread :lol:

kan_t
06-19-14, 10:10 PM
The Patent Office did the same in 1999 and the court overturned it in 2003. Unless there is any new strong evidence (which I didn't see it so far), I don't see how the court ruling will be different this time.

Soriambi
06-19-14, 11:10 PM
The Patent Office did the same in 1999 and the court overturned it in 2003. Unless there is any new strong evidence (which I didn't see it so far), I don't see how the court ruling will be different this time.

As I said above, that time the court overturned it without reaching the merits, finding that the folks who brought the complaint before the Patent Office lacked the legal standing to do so. It seems that might not be an issue this time, as I'm sure they probably carefully considered that court decision before deciding who would bring the action this time.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 11:22 PM
The Patent Office did the same in 1999 and the court overturned it in 2003. Unless there is any new strong evidence (which I didn't see it so far), I don't see how the court ruling will be different this time.
To reiterate what Kevin said: an important part of the 1999 reversal was that the plaintiffs could have objected in 1967, when the trademark was first granted. This time they've collected a younger group of plaintiffs, so that point's been overcome.

JL25and3
06-19-14, 11:22 PM
Holy sh*t there are some ignorant ass white people in this thread :lol:
Well said, young brown person.

GordonGecko
06-19-14, 11:29 PM
Five years ago, you never heard much about how terrible the Redskins name was. Nowadays people are much more sensitive, so this has become a big issue.

That's because Native Americans keep getting calls and visits from hysterical white reporters repeating "why aren't you offended???"

JL25and3
06-19-14, 11:36 PM
That's because Native Americans keep getting calls and visits from hysterical white reporters repeating "why aren't you offended???"
/sarcasm, I truly hope. Otherwise, this post is just stupid.

GordonGecko
06-19-14, 11:40 PM
/sarcasm, I truly hope. Otherwise, this post is just stupid.

Sort of, but a genuine sentiment. About 4 years ago natives polled 90% not offended by the redskins team.. Now 67% poll offended, what happened in 4 years? IMO it's been a big P.C. campaign

JL25and3
06-20-14, 12:00 AM
Sort of, but a genuine sentiment. About 4 years ago natives polled 90% not offended by the redskins team.. Now 67% poll offended, what happened in 4 years? IMO it's been a big P.C. campaign
One of the things that happened in four years may have been better polling. Polls that involve self-identification as Native American frequently run into difficulty, especially when sports fans may lie because of some irrational attachment to a team name.

This process has certainly not been one where white people convinced Native Americans that they should be upset about the team name. Native American organizations have been protesting for decades. What's changed is that white people have finally begun to listen to them, not the other way around.

ojo
06-20-14, 12:07 AM
Well said, young brown person.

Actually, judging by the balance here in opinions, I'd say this is one damn well enlightened sports message board...Probably due to the northeastern persuasion..

You can go elsewhere and find a 5:1 flip on this issue...

spanky185
06-20-14, 02:12 PM
Might as well get people to pay attention to one thing. The issue of the Redskins' name doesn't really prevent anyone from focusing on other issues as well, and if that disappeared, people wouldn't suddenly start worrying about South Dakota's massive violations of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

while you're (sadly) right about people not suddenly paying attention to other things, I do think this masks them. But hopefully i'm wrong and this will be the start of something more.

Cool Papa B.
06-21-14, 09:10 AM
Holy sh*t there are some ignorant ass white people in this thread :lol:

If you think it's that bad here try listening to sports radio. It's amazing how badly informed and misguided some peoples views are.

JDPNYY
06-21-14, 09:23 AM
I really don't understand why they don't change the name. It's offensive. Period. Change it.

Big_E
06-21-14, 10:13 AM
Sort of, but a genuine sentiment. About 4 years ago natives polled 90% not offended by the redskins team.. Now 67% poll offended, what happened in 4 years? IMO it's been a big P.C. campaign

What happened in the last 10 years to drive acceptance of same-sex marriage through the roof? People finally realize discrimination is wrong, bigotry is wrong, and the tide turns.

JL25and3
06-21-14, 05:31 PM
I really don't understand why they don't change the name. It's offensive. Period. Change it.
That pretty well sums it up. I just don't see where the gray area is.

Mr. Mxylsplk
06-21-14, 06:24 PM
That pretty well sums it up. I just don't see where the gray area is.
Well, there's some gray area.

http://mr-nethead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Washington_Redskins_Helmet_improved_thumb.jpg

Soriambi
06-21-14, 07:40 PM
That pretty well sums it up. I just don't see where the gray area is.

Well, I understand why they don't change it. Because the owner doesn't want to. That's easy enough to wrap your head around, even though one might wonder why he's so fanatical about it. I wonder if he'll stick to his guns even the ruling is upheld and it starts costing him and the league money.

JL25and3
06-21-14, 11:03 PM
Well, I understand why they don't change it. Because the owner doesn't want to. That's easy enough to wrap your head around, even though one might wonder why he's so fanatical about it. I wonder if he'll stick to his guns even the ruling is upheld and it starts costing him and the league money.
I get that. I just don't get why there's any debate apart from him.

RhodyYanksFan
06-23-14, 09:22 AM
Well, I understand why they don't change it. Because the owner doesn't want to. That's easy enough to wrap your head around, even though one might wonder why he's so fanatical about it. I wonder if he'll stick to his guns even the ruling is upheld and it starts costing him and the league money.

At this point you would think he'd be into the idea. Say it wasn't your idea while you make millions of fans buy all new merchandise with your new team name/logo on it.

GordonGecko
06-23-14, 09:29 AM
What happened in the last 10 years to drive acceptance of same-sex marriage through the roof? People finally realize discrimination is wrong, bigotry is wrong, and the tide turns.

Thanks but try again. Unless you can show me the polls where 90% of LGBTs where saying they weren't being discriminated against :dunno:

GordonGecko
06-23-14, 09:30 AM
What happened in the last 10 years to drive acceptance of same-sex marriage through the roof? People finally realize discrimination is wrong, bigotry is wrong, and the tide turns.

Thanks but try again. Unless you can show me the polls where 90% of LGBTs were themselves saying they weren't being discriminated against :dunno:

spanky185
06-23-14, 10:29 AM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

article is from before this ruling, but I find it interesting that high school teams use the name with pride (1 has been around even longer than Washington's use of the name)

GordonGecko
06-23-14, 10:47 AM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/redskins-name-change-not-easy-sounds

article is from before this ruling, but I find it interesting that high school teams use the name with pride (1 has been around even longer than Washington's use of the name)

Great article, the takeaway line for me is:
"Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you."

Which is what I saying on the previous page tongue in cheek about white reporters badgering natives about why they aren't offended until they were.

You can't just whitewash everything based on political correctness

JL25and3
06-23-14, 10:57 AM
Great article, the takeaway line for me is:
"Too late. White America has spoken. You aren't offended, so we'll be offended for you."

Which is what I saying on the previous page tongue in cheek about white reporters badgering natives about why they aren't offended until they were.

You can't just whitewash everything based on political correctness
Again, this has been a protest led by Native American groups since the late 1960s. It's not that they only started protesting when white reporters raised it as an issue; it's that you never paid any attention until white people cared. And what on earth does changing the name of a football team have to do with "whitewashing" anything?

Even if only some Native Americans are offended by the name, isn't that reason enough to change it? What is the purpose of continuing to offend them? I mean, it's Snyder's right to do so if he wants, but why does he want to be a dick? Names are changed all the time. Just do it.

If this is all about PC, why does even Charles friggin Krauthammer agree that the name should be changed?

And why is it important for you to defend Snyder, and to buy uncritically into his bullsh1t? Citing a poorly-conducted 10-year-old poll (http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/) as if it's gospel truth is nothing but a big lie.

GordonGecko
06-23-14, 11:06 AM
Again, this has been a protest led by Native American groups since the late 1960s. It's not that they only started protesting when white reporters raised it as an issue; it's that you never paid any attention until white people cared. And what on earth does changing the name of a football team have to do with "whitewashing" anything?

Even if only some Native Americans are offended by the name, isn't that reason enough to change it? What is the purpose of continuing to offend them? I mean, it's Snyder's right to do so if he wants, but why does he want to be a dick? Names are changed all the time. Just do it.

If this is all about PC, why does even Charles friggin Krauthammer agree that the name should be changed?

And why is it important for you to defend Snyder, and to buy uncritically into his bullsh1t? Citing a poorly-conducted 10-year-old poll (http://ipclinic.org/2014/02/11/11-reasons-to-ignore-the-10-year-old-annenberg-survey-about-the-washington-football-teams-offensive-name/) as if it's gospel truth is nothing but a big lie.


You can find a small group who are offended by just about everything. In American history the term "red skin" by and large has not been used as a slur but instead just a label, albeit mostly founded on ignorance (originally used by some native tribes themselves BTW), but nonetheless a legacy label which I don't think we should start re-using in common dialogue but that since has been the name of the team for so long and because it's not in the same universe as using the N word or similar should just be left alone. You can't just erase history all over society purely on P.C.

I don't particularly like Snyder but I can't defend the way his trademark is getting railroaded by a lobby of do-gooders. BTW, if you're going to advocate to "cleanse" this purpoted slur then you also have rename the entire state of Oklahoma, and there's probably a whole laundry list of gray area names & labels to follow. Let's just change everything to Mickey's Magical Unicorn Kingdom then maybe everybody will happy

spanky185
06-23-14, 11:18 AM
You can find a small group who are offended by just about everything. In American history the term "red skin" by and large has not been used as a slur but instead just a label, albeit mostly founded on ignorance (originally used by some native tribes themselves BTW), but nonetheless a legacy label which I don't think we should start re-using in common dialogue but that since has been the name of the team for so long and because it's not in the same universe as using the N word or similar should just be left alone. You can't just erase history all over society purely on P.C.

I don't particularly like Snyder but I can't defend the way his trademark is getting railroaded by a lobby of do-gooders. BTW, if you're going to advocate to "cleanse" this purpoted slur then you also have rename the entire state of Oklahoma, and there's probably a whole laundry list of gray area names & labels to follow. Let's just change everything to Mickey's Magical Unicorn Kingdom then maybe everybody will happy

The use of "magical" would offend me.

JL25and3
06-23-14, 11:30 AM
You can find a small group who are offended by just about everything. In American history the term "red skin" by and large has not been used as a slur but instead just a label, albeit mostly founded on ignorance (originally used by some native tribes themselves BTW), but nonetheless a legacy label which I don't think we should start re-using in common dialogue but that since has been the name of the team for so long and because it's not in the same universe as using the N word or similar should just be left alone. You can't just erase history all over society purely on P.C.

I don't particularly like Snyder but I can't defend the way his trademark is getting railroaded by a lobby of do-gooders. BTW, if you're going to advocate to "cleanse" this purpoted slur then you also have rename the entire state of Oklahoma, and there's probably a whole laundry list of gray area names & labels to follow. Let's just change everything to Mickey's Magical Unicorn Kingdom then maybe everybody will happy

The "legacy" of the team name is nonsense. It's just a friggin football team. It's not a part of the grand sweep of history.

The name is offensive. People seem to be making up arguments as to why it's not offensive, but it is. It's also entirely gratuitous, with Dan Snyder's perceived profits being the only reason it continues to exist. I don't suggest that everything that offends anyone should be changed, but this is obviously offensive - even if there are more offensive words in the language - and Dan Snyder's bank account isn't worth offending even one person for, much less a people.

And no, you don't have to change everything. Just change the name of the damn football team.

GordonGecko
06-23-14, 12:03 PM
The "legacy" of the team name is nonsense. It's just a friggin football team. It's not a part of the grand sweep of history.

The name is offensive. People seem to be making up arguments as to why it's not offensive, but it is. It's also entirely gratuitous, with Dan Snyder's perceived profits being the only reason it continues to exist. I don't suggest that everything that offends anyone should be changed, but this is obviously offensive - even if there are more offensive words in the language - and Dan Snyder's bank account isn't worth offending even one person for, much less a people.

And no, you don't have to change everything. Just change the name of the damn football team.

The name is offensive basically because white people have recently decided they think it should be.

What if a lobby of confederate descendants came in and started to take offense to the Yankees team and wanted to change that. That's potentially millions of offended people, so we should wipe out 100 years of tradition?

And this isn't about profits for Snyder. He wins from every direction on this. If he changes the name, he gets to sell double the merchandise for his entire fanbase to re-brand. If he keeps the name, he gains legions of new sympathizers to buy his merchandise to defend the cause. Even if the trademark ruling is upheld, that means opportunists of every corner with a printing press will flood the market with 5 times as much merchandise and that'll increase his team's visibility even more. The core fanbase will still mostly be buying gear with the NFL logo which could not legally be included by any of those entrepreneurs.

JL25and3
06-23-14, 01:47 PM
The name is offensive basically because white people have recently decided they think it should be.

What if a lobby of confederate descendants came in and started to take offense to the Yankees team and wanted to change that. That's potentially millions of offended people, so we should wipe out 100 years of tradition?
No, and no.

I'm always impressed with the ease with which white men can dismiss all claims of offensiveness with "liberal political correctness," "overly sensitive," etc.

GordonGecko
06-30-14, 02:41 PM
I'm always impressed with the ease with which white men can dismiss all claims of offensiveness with "liberal political correctness," "overly sensitive," etc.

I guess George Will fits the bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/files/2014/06/bigwill_01.jpg&w=180&h=180


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html

THEBOSS84
06-30-14, 02:53 PM
I guess George Will fits the bill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/files/2014/06/bigwill_01.jpg&w=180&h=180


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html



People offended by this might be similarly distressed if they knew that “Oklahoma” is a compound of two Choctaw words (http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Oklahoma/Oklahomanameorigin.html) meaning “red” and “people.”

Interesting...

JL25and3
06-30-14, 04:15 PM
Interesting...
Ah, so George Will is playing Gotcha! now. How far he has fallen...

If you have to translate a term to demonstrate its offensiveness, it's probably nowhere near as offensive as the English equivalent. And where does he get off telling me, or anyone, what I logically have to be offended by? I went through this long ago in the Christmas thread, where people kept telling me that if I was offended by A, I had to be offended by B. The fact is, it's enough to be offended by A.

Big_E
06-30-14, 04:25 PM
What Will leaves out...


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma

THEBOSS84
06-30-14, 04:38 PM
I'm not telling anyone they can't be offended by the name "Redskins". I know people who would never watch another Mel Gibson movie again because of what he said about Jews. I am not one of those people. It takes a little more than that to rile me up. To each his own I guess. I was curious from the beginning as to why there was an outcry NOW, when the team has been around for years.

JL25and3
06-30-14, 04:47 PM
I'm not telling anyone they can't be offended by the name "Redskins". I know people who would never watch another Mel Gibson movie again because of what he said about Jews. I am not one of those people. It takes a little more than that to rile me up. To each his own I guess. I was curious from the beginning as to why there was an outcry NOW, when the team has been around for years.
I know you're not, but I think George Will wants to.

Again, the outcry didn't just start recently.

THEBOSS84
06-30-14, 04:49 PM
I know you're not, but I think George Will wants to.

Again, the outcry didn't just start recently.

The outcry may not have started recently, but the national attention sure did.

Yankee Tripper
06-30-14, 04:54 PM
I'm not telling anyone they can't be offended by the name "Redskins". I know people who would never watch another Mel Gibson movie again because of what he said about Jews. I am not one of those people. It takes a little more than that to rile me up. To each his own I guess. I was curious from the beginning as to why there was an outcry NOW, when the team has been around for years.
Times change.
Segregation was around for decades before some decided it was wrong.
Gay marriage was illegal in every state and failed to pass on ballots very recently but now is legal in more states than not if I remember right.
The term nigger was offensive as long as I can recall but negro was a very common term when I was growing up, why is that offensive now? I don't know, I just know it is so I don't use it.

JL25and3
06-30-14, 05:33 PM
The outcry may not have started recently, but the national attention sure did.
That's been happening over time. It's reached critical mass over the last couple of years, but I was aware of it long before that.

dabomb2045
06-30-14, 08:24 PM
If you are gonna change the Redskins name, then change every other team name in the pros, college and high school that offends a group of people. My high school's mascot was an Indian. Gotta change it.

JL25and3
06-30-14, 08:26 PM
If you are gonna change the Redskins name, then change every other team name in the pros, college and high school that offends a group of people. My high school's mascot was an Indian. Gotta change it.
No, you don't. You just have to change the Redskins' name.

dabomb2045
06-30-14, 09:18 PM
No, you don't. You just have to change the Redskins' name.

Why just them? Shouldnt the Cleveland Indians be changed? Or do they and Chief Wahoo not count for some reason. How about the Chicago Blackhawks? Shouldnt we also ditch the "Fighting Irish" name for Notre Dame? Everyone knows Irish people get drunk and fight alot.

Soriambi
06-30-14, 09:58 PM
Why just them?

I think John might have misspoke or misunderstood there, because I believe he indicated otherwise earlier regarding similar team names. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd be very surprised if he's suggesting that the name Indians and Chief Wahoo should stand while Redskins should not. Of course the Indians name should have been changed, and Chief Wahoo should have been gone long ago. Chief Wahoo's clearly worse than any given team's name. Just because there's not as big a media fuss over Chief Wahoo doesn't let the Redskins off the hook, though. Why can't we change multiple names that are offensive?

I'd say that teams like the Blackhawks (named after a specific Native American with local roots, Wikipedia informs me) and Braves and Seminoles have better arguments for keeping their names. At the very least they're not slurs or considered derogatory terms. I'm less sure if they have a good argument, but it's certainly a better one.

dabomb2045
06-30-14, 11:42 PM
I honestly have no issue if names are changed. I am just trying to figure out why the uproar is only about the Redskins and not other team names that are clearly offensive. I just think if you change one, then you have to change them all.

Soriambi
06-30-14, 11:56 PM
I honestly have no issue if names are changed. I am just trying to figure out why the uproar is only about the Redskins and not other team names that are clearly offensive. I just think if you change one, then you have to change them all.

Agreed on anything that's considered a slur or derogatory term. My guess is the Redskins are probably the poster children of this because the NFL's bigger than anything else. Why the Indians and Chief Wahoo especially haven't gotten more attention during this debate is unclear to me, but I don't think that question is particularly relevant to the Redskins issue. Like I said, "they're doing it too!" isn't a great argument in this case, even though it may be accurate.

JL25and3
07-01-14, 06:49 AM
I honestly have no issue if names are changed. I am just trying to figure out why the uproar is only about the Redskins and not other team names that are clearly offensive. I just think if you change one, then you have to change them all.
Is anyone actually offended about the name of your high school football team? I didn't think so. Of people do - and very possibly if they don't - yes, the name should probably be changed. Why does anyone need a name that's going to offend people?

"Indians" and "Braves" are not great ideas, but they're not as directly offensive and derogatory as "Redskins." Chief Wahoo should be changed without anyone having to say so. The Fighting Irish? I'm offended by that drunken, pugnacious little leprechaun, but the Irish essentially chose that one for themselves, and seem to take pride in it rather than offense.

But it's not necessary to change every nickname that you or I think might possibly give someone offense, whether it actually does or not. I do think that any team that uses a group stereotype as its name, mascot or logo should probably reconsider on its own whether that's appropriate; and if the group complains about it as genuinely offensive, the presumption should be to change it. Why not?

But in the meantime, there's an obviously offensive name at which Native Americans are legitimately taken offense. All the other names don't matter. The question is whether the Washington NFL team should change its name, and the clear answer is yes.

False1
07-01-14, 11:00 AM
The Fighting Irish? I'm offended by that drunken, pugnacious little leprechaun, but the Irish essentially chose that one for themselves, and seem to take pride in it rather than offense.I have very little knowledge beyond wiki-ish searches on the topic around the origin of the term and a few articles, so I don't profess to have a real informed opinion on this matter. And frankly, it's probably hard to do so in the fullest sense unless you are Native American and have lived with the burden of stereotypes and biases specific to that culture. I did find it interesting though from the article linked above that one of strongest proponents of changing the name of the NFL team lives on a reservation where Native Americans picked and retain the name "Redskins" for their local high school team. Is it possible, as you've inferred above with Notre Dame, that some (most?) actually take pride in this term rather than offense, but as society is won't to do these days the loudest voice in the room is the one claiming they are aggrieved?

JL25and3
07-01-14, 11:10 AM
I have very little knowledge beyond wiki-ish searches on the topic around the origin of the term and a few articles, so I don't profess to have a real informed opinion on this matter. And frankly, it's probably hard to do so in the fullest sense unless you are Native American and have lived with the burden of stereotypes and biases specific to that culture. I did find it interesting though from the article linked above that one of strongest proponents of changing the name of the NFL team lives on a reservation where Native Americans picked and retain the name "Redskins" for their local high school team. Is it possible, as you've inferred above with Notre Dame, that some (most?) actually take pride in this term rather than offense, but as society is won't to do these days the loudest voice in the room is the one claiming they are aggrieved?
As has often been noted, there are ways of talking that are acceptable within groups that are not acceptable from outsiders. That works at all sorts of levels; a woman can accept and enjoy being called "Sweetie" or even "Sugartits" by her husband, not so much so by her boss. Danielle and I use the term "M.O.T" from time to time, but I'd find it most presumptuous if used by someone who wasn't M.O.T.

People want to use stereotypes of themselves as mascots or whatever, that's one thing. People really shouldn't be using stereotypes of other people as mascots, especially ones that are considered derogatory when others use them. If a substantial group is offended, I don't see why the default position should be to allow the offense. Some don't take offense, fine. Plenty do.

fredgmuggs
07-01-14, 04:25 PM
Is anyone actually offended about the name of your high school football team? I didn't think so. Of people do - and very possibly if they don't - yes, the name should probably be changed. Why does anyone need a name that's going to offend people?

"Indians" and "Braves" are not great ideas, but they're not as directly offensive and derogatory as "Redskins." Chief Wahoo should be changed without anyone having to say so. The Fighting Irish? I'm offended by that drunken, pugnacious little leprechaun, but the Irish essentially chose that one for themselves, and seem to take pride in it rather than offense.

But it's not necessary to change every nickname that you or I think might possibly give someone offense, whether it actually does or not. I do think that any team that uses a group stereotype as its name, mascot or logo should probably reconsider on its own whether that's appropriate; and if the group complains about it as genuinely offensive, the presumption should be to change it. Why not?

But in the meantime, there's an obviously offensive name at which Native Americans are legitimately taken offense. All the other names don't matter. The question is whether the Washington NFL team should change its name, and the clear answer is yes.

Don't get me started on Notre Dame's Touchdown Jesus. That's quality work turning the sacred into a football mascot.

JL25and3
07-01-14, 05:38 PM
Don't get me started on Notre Dame's Touchdown Jesus. That's quality work turning the sacred into a football mascot.
Holy crap, I never knew there was such a thing. Makes the drunken bar-fight leprechaun look positively dignified.

Soriambi
07-02-14, 09:42 AM
Holy crap, I never knew there was such a thing. Makes the drunken bar-fight leprechaun look positively dignified.

In fairness, the posture and location were coincidental and the name just caught on. It's a mural on the side of the library depicting Jesus preaching to some of the world's greatest minds. From the Stadium, though, you couldn't see the whole mural, just Jesus signaling a touchdown, and the name quickly took hold. It was never intended to be football-related.

montrealer
07-02-14, 10:35 AM
Start eliminating all old white men starting with Fox News Sunday.........and then Bill O'Riley and Hannity just for the sanity of Americans........

Not sure what to do with Ann Coultard........

JL25and3
07-02-14, 10:57 AM
In fairness, the posture and location were coincidental and the name just caught on. It's a mural on the side of the library depicting Jesus preaching to some of the world's greatest minds. From the Stadium, though, you couldn't see the whole mural, just Jesus signaling a touchdown, and the name quickly took hold. It was never intended to be football-related.
It's at Notre Dame, and it's not intended to be football-related? Right.

Soriambi
07-02-14, 12:19 PM
Start eliminating all old white men starting with Fox News Sunday.........and then Bill O'Riley and Hannity just for the sanity of Americans........

Not sure what to do with Ann Coultard........

Jake, you're on the forums, this isn't your to do list. We do appreciate your concern for our sanity, though.

JL25and3
07-02-14, 12:30 PM
Start eliminating all old white men starting with Fox News Sunday.........and then Bill O'Riley and Hannity just for the sanity of Americans........

Not sure what to do with Ann Coultard........
We should be able to deport Ann Coulter as an alien - the extraterrestrial kind. The hands are a dead giveaway.

GordonGecko
07-02-14, 04:47 PM
We should be able to deport Ann Coulter as an alien - the extraterrestrial kind. The hands are a dead giveaway.

lol - Googling "why is ann coulter so angry" yields hours of free entertainment


"I’ve held off on writing about soccer for a decade…But enough is enough. Any
growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation’s moral decay."

el senora esta muy loco

fredgmuggs
07-02-14, 05:23 PM
In fairness, the posture and location were coincidental and the name just caught on. It's a mural on the side of the library depicting Jesus preaching to some of the world's greatest minds. From the Stadium, though, you couldn't see the whole mural, just Jesus signaling a touchdown, and the name quickly took hold. It was never intended to be football-related.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3148/2927131779_96921b446e_z.jpg

Coincidental? Yeah, right.