Patent office cancels Redskins trademark

[Sho'Nuff]

So as long as we're using an appropriately archaic slur it's OK? Has "spearchucker" fallen far enough out of favor that I could name a team that? How about "zipperhead" or "wop" or "slope" or "sambo?" That seems like a preposterous justification for keeping an offensive name.

No - what I'm saying is that if a racial term has evolved over time to have a non-racial meaning, its contextually appropriate use would and should be fine. If I call a javelin thrower (perhaps regardless of his race) a "spearchucker" it is probably fine. If I use it in a derogatory way towards a person of African descent, it is not. To say otherwise is to ignore the forest for the trees. Or to assert that people are too stupid to understand the difference.

But really, my problem with it isn't about the speech or using offensive terminology or what have you. It's the fact that a bunch of people have come together many times over the past decade to ask the team to change the name because it's offensive, and the team has always adopted this attitude of "if you don't like it, fuck you." That's unconscionable to me personally. If I owned a team and I named it the "Wogs" cause I thought it was a funny word and a group of people came to me and said, "Actually, that's a very offensive term," I'd change it. I don't understand the argument that "yeah, I may be offending you, but I don't care," when there are plenty of names to use that would not offend people. That's just being a straight-up asshole for no reason. What possible justification is there for keeping the team name outside of an appeal to tradition?

Money for one. Marketing (also money) for another. Team pride is another consideration.
The standard should not be that if some people are offended, trademark protection is not permitted.

An article I was reading earlier on the subject raised a good point. Basically, it asked if the journalists and talking heads defending the name would feel comfortable going up to a family of American Indians and addressing them as "redskins." If you aren't willing to say it to an American Indian's face, then you acknowledge that it's a slur, and I would guess that most people would agree that we probably shouldn't be using slurs as team names.

See this is my point. Calling American Indians redskins is a slur, because the context in which the term is used is derogatory. Calling a football team "redskins" is not a slur, becuase IMO the context in which the term is used is not derogatory.

It's time to move beyond this absurdity.

I agree. The parties challenging the mark should get over it and move on.

 

[Phoenix86]

How many professional sports team names are meant to belittle the team?

How many professional sports team names are meant to inspire the team?

 

[nehalem256]

An article I was reading earlier on the subject raised a good point. Basically, it asked if the journalists and talking heads defending the name would feel comfortable going up to a family of American Indians and addressing them as "redskins." If you aren't willing to say it to an American Indian's face, then you acknowledge that it's a slur, and I would guess that most people would agree that we probably shouldn't be using slurs as team names. To which end, I would be fine with every one of those teams you mentioned changing their names/mascots if they are legitimately offending people. It's time to move beyond this absurdity.

That's a silly for 2 reasons.

(1) Would you go up to say south Chicago and walk up to some young black men and say "What up black guys?", unlikely. Does that mean the word black is now a racial slur?

(2) At the same time these same exact young black men may very well greet his other friends with "What up my niggas?". Does that mean that the n-word is therefore not a racial slur?

 

[Miramonti]

That's a silly for 2 reasons.

(1) Would you go up to say south Chicago and walk up to some young black men and say "What up black guys?", unlikely. Does that mean the word black is now a racial slur?

(2) At the same time these same exact young black men may very well greet his other friends with "What up my niggas?". Does that mean that the n-word is therefore not a racial slur?

Good point. Change the team from the "Redskins" to "Blackguys."

 

[Rakehellion]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/re...t-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

 

[Blackjack200]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/re...t-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

Nice. That article had a little more bite than most Onion pieces.

 

[purbeast0]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/re...t-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

do you know of any hebrew schools that have a beloved patriot as their mascot?

because there is at least 1 native american school that has a beloved patriot as their mascot, and i linked it above in this thread.

 

[Blackjack200]

no, i don't think things should change just because 1 person is offended by it. our country is already turning into a bunch of pussies and this is further proof of it.

"WAH IM OFFENDED IT MUST CHANGE!"

i also think it is lame how this forum went full on retarded over the "s" word and banned anyone using it.

It's revealing that you chose the word 'pussy' to characterize our culture as weakening and losing courage and conviction.

You think that using racial slurs and offensive language is evidence of toughness and strength? I think it takes a lot more courage to stand up for what you believe is right.

I personally would never call someone a 'beloved patriot', even if the Native American community used it, I would never use the 'N' word, even if black people use it.

I'm not here to police the behavior of others, but I personally would be embarassed to be a Redskins or Indians fan.

do you know of any hebrew schools that have a beloved patriot as their mascot?

because there is at least 1 native american school that has a beloved patriot as their mascot, and i linked it above in this thread.

Is that why one is okay and the other is not?

 

[purbeast0]

It's revealing that you chose the word 'pussy' to characterize our culture as weakening and losing courage and conviction.

You think that using racial slurs and offensive language is evidence of toughness and strength? I think it takes a lot more courage to stand up for what you believe is right.

I personally would never call someone a 'beloved patriot', even if the Native American community used it, I would never use the 'N' word, even if black people use it.

I'm not here to police the behavior of others, but I personally would be embarassed to be a Redskins or Indians fan.



Is that why one is okay and the other is not?

no one is using it as a racial slur. it's a team name. no one is going around calling native americans redskins in a derogatory way.

do you think the saying "beloved patriot in the armor" is racist?

do you think the cleaning product "beloved patriot n' span" is racist?

should we ban those words too?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No - what I'm saying is that if a racial term has evolved over time to have a non-racial meaning, its contextually appropriate use would and should be fine. If I call a javelin thrower (perhaps regardless of his race) a "spearchucker" it is probably fine. If I use it in a derogatory way towards a person of African descent, it is not. To say otherwise is to ignore the forest for the trees. Or to assert that people are too stupid to understand the difference.

Redskins hasn't evolved to have a non-racial meaning though. Yes, it's the name of a football team now, but that football team still equates the name "Redskins" with American Indian imagery; their mascot is clearly a caricature of an American Indian (unless you assert that the dark-skinned man with straight black hair in a ponytail wearing feathers is not meant to evoke American Indian imagery, in which case, bullshit).

Money for one. Marketing (also money) for another. Team pride is another consideration.
The standard should not be that if some people are offended, trademark protection is not permitted.

Money isn't a decent reason to leave an offensive trademark in place. And, hey, these are football fans we're talking about. If the team changes its name to ANYTHING else, do you know how many new jerseys they're selling? Thousands, maybe millions. I can't seriously believe that you'd argue that changing the name is somehow going to damage the brand. The Houston Oilers may have lost fans in Houston when they moved to Tennessee and became the Titans, but lo and behold, when a new team was established in Houston they managed to be successful in spite of not being called the Oilers. The success of a team has literally NOTHING to do with what their name is; it has to do with where they're located. No one gave a shit about the Lakers when they were in Minneapolis; they moved to Los Angeles and became the most popular team in basketball. Clearly that wouldn't have happened if they'd been forced to change their name.

See this is my point. Calling American Indians redskins is a slur, because the context in which the term is used is derogatory. Calling a football team "redskins" is not a slur, becuase IMO the context in which the term is used is not derogatory.

That's not the distinction used by the Patent Office; take it up with them. Per their rules, if the term is disparaging in any context, it can't be used. And, honestly, this again makes no sense. If I name my cat "ni**er," I may not be using it in a derogatory way (because my cat is awesome), but that doesn't make the word not a slur. "No, no, no, it's cool guys, it's just the name of my cat!" Doesn't work that way.

I agree. The parties challenging the mark should get over it and move on.

Or the team could get over defending a name by citing "a proud tradition and history" or whatever bullshit. It's not like this is the name of the institute that cured polio; it's a football team. It's entertainment. It's something that a lot of kids look up to. This could be a wonderful opportunity to teach a valuable lesson about how to get along with each other by compromising. Instead, one side has doubled down on teaching the message that it's OK to use racial slurs as long as the group you're disparaging doesn't have the political clout to effectively stop you.

 

[Blackjack200]

no one is using it as a racial slur. it's a team name. no one is going around calling native americans redskins in a derogatory way.

do you think the saying "beloved patriot in the armor" is racist?

do you think the cleaning product "beloved patriot n' span" is racist?

should we ban those words too?

But the team name is clearly referring to native americans. Are you disputing that?

And if it is referring to native americans, then everytime it is used in reference to the team, it is also being used as a racial slur. Do you dispute that as well?

 

[nehalem256]

But the team name is clearly referring to native americans. Are you disputing that?

And if it is referring to native americans, then everytime it is used in reference to the team, it is also being used as a racial slur. Do you dispute that as well?

"beloved patriot" was used throughout the English-speaking world (and in equivalent transliterations in Europe) throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a common term of reference for indigenous Americans. However, the more commonly used term from early colonization through the twentieth century was "Indian", perpetuating Columbus' belief that he had found the Indies

A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of beloved patriot were significantly more frequent than positive usage.[13] However, the use of the word Indian in a similarly selected set of books was nearly the same with more frequent negative than positive contexts, [13] suggesting that beloved patriot was not a derogatory term, but that most portrayals of Native Americans were negative in general.

Group identity for Native Americans only emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, in the context of negotiations between many tribes signing a single treaty with the United States, where Native American Chiefs referred to themselves and the tribes they represented, with words translated into English as "red skins".[16] Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

Doesn't seem to be a racial slur to me.

Do you have any evidence of it being used as one in the last 20 years?

 

[purbeast0]

But the team name is clearly referring to native americans. Are you disputing that?

And if it is referring to native americans, then everytime it is used in reference to the team, it is also being used as a racial slur. Do you dispute that as well?

yes, i dispute that because it's not being used as a racial slur.

again, this native american school has a beloved patriot as their own mascot.

http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/

are they referring to their own mascot of a native american school as a racial slur towards native americans?

 

[Blackjack200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

Doesn't seem to be a racial slur to me.

Do you have any evidence of it being used as one in the last 20 years?

Language evolves. A hundred years ago the word "negro" was a common word for black people and was not considered offensive. Today it is. You can choose to ignore the changing social norms and insist on using archaic language, in this wonderful country we are mostly free to do what we want, and others can have their opinions on those choices.

 

[Blackjack200]

yes, i dispute that because it's not being used as a racial slur.

again, this native american school has a beloved patriot as their own mascot.

http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/

are they referring to their own mascot of a native american school as a racial slur towards native americans?

And in the South some high schools have segregated proms. What's your point?

 

[purbeast0]

And in the South some high schools have segregated proms. What's your point?

way to dodge the question :thumbsup:

 

[purbeast0]

Language evolves. A hundred years ago the word "negro" was a common word for black people and was not considered offensive. Today it is. You can choose to ignore the changing social norms and insist on using archaic language, in this wonderful country we are mostly free to do what we want, and others can have their opinions on those choices.

and that is the whole issue here - higher powers are trying to take away the choice from dan snyder to keeping his own team name and his own opinion. the "others" are trying to make the choice for him.

 

[zinfamous]

1) The Cleveland Indians (coupled with a caricature of a native american)

2) The Cleveland Browns

3) Chacago Blackhawks (particularly when you compare the Hawks logo to the Skins logo)

4) Atlanta Braves

5) Notre Dame Fighting Irish

6) Kansas City Chiefs

all of these have been answered over and over and over and over again:

1) Never interpreted as derogatory. Only the logo is derogatory and yes--plenty of people fight over that one. Saying that no one does is being ignorant of history.

2) I don't know about the Browns. Doesn't it reference their stupid dog faces that the fans wear? Basically, not familiar with any controversy there: real, contrived, or legitimate.

3) It is the name of an actual tribe, not a racial slur. And, iirc, a rather proud nation that had embraced the name. The logo, like the Redskins logo, isn't offensive. (like the Seminoles--the name is fine, only the depiction of the mascot has sparked controversy before)

4) Again, a proud connotation. Braves = warriors. No one has ever complained about that, and for good reason.

5) Because all Irishmen are drunken barfighters? No offense there.... sneaky

6) see 3 and 4.

 

[lupi]

Hail to the Redskins!

 

[zinfamous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)#Historic_use

Doesn't seem to be a racial slur to me.

Do you have any evidence of it being used as one in the last 20 years?

I like how you try to keep arguing this idiotic premise based on your continual misreading of that passage you cite over and over:

"While beloved patriot is known to be a slur, and derisive; we don't particularly call it a slur because all terms used in reference to Native Americans at that time were derisive."

nehalem: therefore, it is not a slur.

You're such a putz.

 

[Blackjack200]

way to dodge the question :thumbsup:

Your question was poorly worded and not at all clear, and nothing in the page you linked to refers to their mascot.

What if they referred to their mascot as RedskinMcWOPspickike? What would that prove?

 

[bradley]

Why do some of you need to resort to name-calling (the very thing you claim to be against) in order to emphasize your point?

I believe this article makes a very valid commentary.

While We’re Objecting to the Word ‘Redskins,’ Shouldn’t Oklahoma Change Its Name, Too?
http://www.ryot.org/shouldnt-state-oklahoma-change-name/427581

 

[nehalem256]

I like how you try to keep arguing this idiotic premise based on your continual misreading of that passage you cite over and over:

"While beloved patriot is known to be a slur, and derisive; we don't particularly call it a slur because all terms used in reference to Native Americans at that time were derisive."

nehalem: therefore, it is not a slur.

You're such a putz.

Who is it known to be a slur by? Do you have any evidence of it actually being used as one?

1) Never interpreted as derogatory. Only the logo is derogatory and yes--plenty of people fight over that one. Saying that no one does is being ignorant of history.

Butt if Indian and beloved patriot are equally derisive shouldn't they be equally opposed?

 

[purbeast0]

Your question was poorly worded and not at all clear, and nothing in the page you linked to refers to their mascot.

What if they referred to their mascot as RedskinMcWOPspickike? What would that prove?

http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com/redskins_news

 

[Blackjack200]

and that is the whole issue here - higher powers are trying to take away the choice from dan snyder to keeping his own team name and his own opinion. the "others" are trying to make the choice for him.

Genuinly curious; do you object only to their finding that the Redskins is an offensive trademark, or do you object to the broader concept of revoking (or not granting) trademarks for offensive or disparaging terms or phrases?

I know how I feel about the first part, but not sure about the second, just haven't seriously considered it...