ghostguy123
Footballguy
But one person equals 5 million. So if 4 people complain, then that really means 20 million are complaining.
Love our society these days. Sqeaky wheel gets the greese
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do you think Snyder should change the name of the Redskins? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter DBIsports
- Start date
Love our society these days. Sqeaky wheel gets the greese
msommer
Footballguy
That's because it would be a waste o grease the wheel that doesn't squeak - technically speaking
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Phil Mushnick's column this past Sunday. I thought it was pretty good.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
FunkyTeaParty
Footballguy
They should keep it so that organization has to have that embarrassment of a name follow them around forever.
Swing 51
Footballguy
Roger Goodell defends Redskins nickname in a letter to Congress By Cindy Boren, Updated: June 12, 2013
At a Super Bowl press conference in February, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell deftly handled a question concerning the political correctness of the Washington Redskins’ nickname, saying he understood both sides of the issue.
The matter continues to make headlines, though, with 10 members of the Congressional Native American Caucus urging owner Daniel M. Snyder and Goodell to change the name in a letter last month. Snyder has not responded to the letter, but has said that “the Redskins will never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER. You can put that in capital letters.”
Goodell was more expansive and equivocal in a June 5 letter to the caucus members. He outlined the history of the Redskins’ nickname, writing, “Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.” Goodell also cited Native Americans and polls in support of the nickname.
“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” he writes. “For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.”
Goodell notes that the issue is “complex” and “reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time.”
“[W]e hope that there is no doubt that the team understandably is proud of its heritage and the culturally rich community it serves, and its fans understandably are highly attached to that history and the team’s history.
“The National Football League takes seriously its responsibility to exemplify the values of diversity and inclusion that make our nation great. To that end, please be assured that we are committed to working with the team, this Caucus and others to continue to reinforce the many positive attributes represented by the team’s name and marks.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), co-chair of the caucus, called Goodell’s letter “another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Dan Snyder and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that ‘Redskin’ actually ‘stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect’ is a statement of absurdity.”
McCollum asks: ”Would Roger Goodell and Dan Snyder actually travel to a Native American community and greet a group of tribal leaders by saying, ‘Hey, what’s up, redskin?’”
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) said in a statement that Goodell had “missed the point” about the nickname. “You cannot have it both ways. Whether good intentioned or not, the fact of the matter is that the term ‘Redskin’ is a racial slur that disparages Native Americans. It is time for the NFL to stop making excuses for itself and fully embrace its so-called commitment to diversity.”
Here’s the full text of Goodell’s letter (via IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com):
Thank you for your letter of May 13 regarding the Washington Redskins name and marks. The National Football League fully respects the views of the Caucus and other Members who have expressed interest in this matter and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
In our view, a fair and through discussion of the issue must begin with an understanding of the roots of the Washington franchise and the Redskins name in particular. As you may know, the team began as the Boston Braves in 1932, a name that honored the courage and heritage of Native Americans. The following year, the name was changed to the Redskins, in part to avoid confusion with the Boston baseball team of the same name, but also to honor the team’s then-head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz. Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.
The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.
Importantly, this positive meaning is shared by the overwhelming majority of football fans and Americans generally, including Native Americans. (Attached as examples are recent remarks from Chief Steven Dodson, an American Inuit chief and resident of Prince Georges [sic] County, Maryland, and recently retired Chief Robert Green of the Patawomeck Tribe of Virginia.) Indeed, the most recent detailed survey of Native Americans, conducted by the independent and highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that fewer than 10% considered the name objectionable. Among the general public, an Associated Press survey conducted just two months ago found that only 11% felt it should be changed.
Public opinion aside, the Washington Redskins name has been confirmed in a legal context. When the matter was considered by the D.C. federal district court, the judge ruled against the plaintiffs and recognized that the name was been used by the team in a respectful manner. As I understand it, this ruling reversed the decision that informed the basis for the registration denials mentioned in your letter.
As you correctly recognize, the issued raised with respect to the Washington Redskins name are complex and we respect that reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time. But we hope that there is no doubt that the team understandably is proud of its heritage and the culturally rich community it serves, and its fans understandably are highly attached to that history and the team’s history.
The National Football League takes seriously its responsibility to exemplify the values of diversity and inclusion that make our nation great. To that end, please be assured that we are committed to working with the team, this Caucus and others to continue to reinforce the many positive attributes represented by the team’s name and marks.
Thank you again for your interest.
Sincerely,
Roger Goodell
At a Super Bowl press conference in February, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell deftly handled a question concerning the political correctness of the Washington Redskins’ nickname, saying he understood both sides of the issue.
The matter continues to make headlines, though, with 10 members of the Congressional Native American Caucus urging owner Daniel M. Snyder and Goodell to change the name in a letter last month. Snyder has not responded to the letter, but has said that “the Redskins will never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER. You can put that in capital letters.”
Goodell was more expansive and equivocal in a June 5 letter to the caucus members. He outlined the history of the Redskins’ nickname, writing, “Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.” Goodell also cited Native Americans and polls in support of the nickname.
“The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context,” he writes. “For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.”
Goodell notes that the issue is “complex” and “reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time.”
“[W]e hope that there is no doubt that the team understandably is proud of its heritage and the culturally rich community it serves, and its fans understandably are highly attached to that history and the team’s history.
“The National Football League takes seriously its responsibility to exemplify the values of diversity and inclusion that make our nation great. To that end, please be assured that we are committed to working with the team, this Caucus and others to continue to reinforce the many positive attributes represented by the team’s name and marks.”
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), co-chair of the caucus, called Goodell’s letter “another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of Dan Snyder and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that ‘Redskin’ actually ‘stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect’ is a statement of absurdity.”
McCollum asks: ”Would Roger Goodell and Dan Snyder actually travel to a Native American community and greet a group of tribal leaders by saying, ‘Hey, what’s up, redskin?’”
Rep. Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) said in a statement that Goodell had “missed the point” about the nickname. “You cannot have it both ways. Whether good intentioned or not, the fact of the matter is that the term ‘Redskin’ is a racial slur that disparages Native Americans. It is time for the NFL to stop making excuses for itself and fully embrace its so-called commitment to diversity.”
Here’s the full text of Goodell’s letter (via IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork.com):
Thank you for your letter of May 13 regarding the Washington Redskins name and marks. The National Football League fully respects the views of the Caucus and other Members who have expressed interest in this matter and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns.
In our view, a fair and through discussion of the issue must begin with an understanding of the roots of the Washington franchise and the Redskins name in particular. As you may know, the team began as the Boston Braves in 1932, a name that honored the courage and heritage of Native Americans. The following year, the name was changed to the Redskins, in part to avoid confusion with the Boston baseball team of the same name, but also to honor the team’s then-head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz. Neither in intent nor use was the name ever meant to denigrate Native Americans or offend any group.
The Washington Redskins name has thus from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.
Importantly, this positive meaning is shared by the overwhelming majority of football fans and Americans generally, including Native Americans. (Attached as examples are recent remarks from Chief Steven Dodson, an American Inuit chief and resident of Prince Georges [sic] County, Maryland, and recently retired Chief Robert Green of the Patawomeck Tribe of Virginia.) Indeed, the most recent detailed survey of Native Americans, conducted by the independent and highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center, found that fewer than 10% considered the name objectionable. Among the general public, an Associated Press survey conducted just two months ago found that only 11% felt it should be changed.
Public opinion aside, the Washington Redskins name has been confirmed in a legal context. When the matter was considered by the D.C. federal district court, the judge ruled against the plaintiffs and recognized that the name was been used by the team in a respectful manner. As I understand it, this ruling reversed the decision that informed the basis for the registration denials mentioned in your letter.
As you correctly recognize, the issued raised with respect to the Washington Redskins name are complex and we respect that reasonable people may view it differently, particularly over time. But we hope that there is no doubt that the team understandably is proud of its heritage and the culturally rich community it serves, and its fans understandably are highly attached to that history and the team’s history.
The National Football League takes seriously its responsibility to exemplify the values of diversity and inclusion that make our nation great. To that end, please be assured that we are committed to working with the team, this Caucus and others to continue to reinforce the many positive attributes represented by the team’s name and marks.
Thank you again for your interest.
Sincerely,
Roger Goodell
The Commish
Footballguy
So he's using context as his support of the team? Interesting. Who'd have thought to ever do something like that?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
As if your bizarre "Washington Redskins" is different from "Redskins" argument wasn't enough evidence that you've lost the ability to think about this rationally, allow me to point out that you now seem to think Roger Goodell agreeing with you is a GOOD thing.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm not making an argument other than to use context in your daily life. This situation is no different. I know you want to ignore that message because it doesn't allow you to get all bent out of shape, but that's really all I'm saying. I'll agree with anyone who suggests using context. If that includes Goodell, so be it. I know if I get a response it will be some smartassed retort, but I don't really expect much different given you believe (or at the very least side with those who believe) "Washington Redskin" is meant to only refer to the hunted Indians.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Context is fine. The football teams is using the word to describe Native Americans. That's the context. If they were using it to describe potatoes, that would be a different context. In this context it's a word used to describe Native Americans. The question is whether that's an appropriate thing to do.
To answer this, try this experiment: go to your nearest reservation and refer to the people you meet there as "redskins," and see what happens. Maybe greet passersby with "hey, redskin!" Or see if you can get a radio ad and get your message out to all those "redskins" over the air and see what happens. Hell I'll even pay for the ad. If you don't have a reservation nearby (or even if you do- can't hurt to gather more info) come on up to DC and give it a shot in the Native American museum. If they're all cool with it, so am I.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's funny you should ask me to do this scenario. I was in Cherokee just two weekends ago. I struck up a conversation with a blackjack dealer. He didn't get it. He learned the history of the term in high school and he understands "Washington Redskins" is the name of a team and nothing more. He doesn't think it's a big "F you" to Indians. A local joined the conversation and thought along similar lines blaming the "PC Police" for the "controversy" and that he thought it was clear there was no intent to offend. It's anecdotal....take it for what it's worth.It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
McGarnicle
Footballguy
I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Actually, they weren't named after a bird. They were named after a color. Although I can't imaging naming a football team the Redskins were about the color of a potato or onion, I don't think it's intention is to be offensive, which is probably why they aren't going to change it. And I'm glad.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
The color was named after the bird...so indirectly, they were named after a bird.Actually, they weren't named after a bird. They were named after a color. Although I can't imaging naming a football team the Redskins were about the color of a potato or onion, I don't think it's intention is to be offensive, which is probably why they aren't going to change it. And I'm glad.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
OK, if you're gonna act this dense I think we're done.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Enough words have probably already been written on this issue, but this EdgeofSports piece for Grantland is great: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9376010/rename-washington-redskins
The Commish
Footballguy
Their mascot is a cartoon Indian. I don't disagree. I'm not saying Redskin can't be applied only to the team. I fully understand (now) the term, what it's meant in the past, how it's changed etc. So I know what it CAN mean depending on the individual. We are talking about it in the context of the "Washington Redskins". In that context it's about the football team....nothing more. I'm confident the anecdotal evidence will be dismissed as well. That's how the FFA rolls.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Would you be OK if the Spurs changed their name to the San Antonio Wetbacks? Sure, wetbacks can't be applied only to the team, and I know what it CAN mean depending on the individual. But we are talking about it in the context of the "San Antonio Wetbacks." In that context it's about the basketball team ... nothing more.Their mascot is a cartoon Indian. I don't disagree. I'm not saying Redskin can't be applied only to the team. I fully understand (now) the term, what it's meant in the past, how it's changed etc. So I know what it CAN mean depending on the individual. We are talking about it in the context of the "Washington Redskins". In that context it's about the football team....nothing more.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'm really enjoying watching the heat grow hotter on those awful people down the road.Don Quixote said:
The Commish
Footballguy
What are the other meanings of "*******"? Genuine question...I really don't know. The only reference I've heard of it is derogatory. That's the problem with all the examples I've heard til now. "The N word" for example doesn't have multiple meanings. It's only ever been a derogatory comment.TobiasFunke said:Would you be OK if the Spurs changed their name to the San Antonio Wetbacks? Sure, wetbacks can't be applied only to the team, and I know what it CAN mean depending on the individual. But we are talking about it in the context of the "San Antonio Wetbacks." In that context it's about the basketball team ... nothing more.The Commish said:Their mascot is a cartoon Indian. I don't disagree. I'm not saying Redskin can't be applied only to the team. I fully understand (now) the term, what it's meant in the past, how it's changed etc. So I know what it CAN mean depending on the individual. We are talking about it in the context of the "Washington Redskins". In that context it's about the football team....nothing more.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You are running through some really terrible twists in logic to defend a stupid name of a sports team.
Your argument (as I understand it, and forgive me if I'm wrong because it's really hard to understand) seems to be that even if Redskins is derogatory as referring to a Native American, "Washington Redskins" is somehow not derogatory because it refers to a sports team, even though the mascot is an obvious reference to the minority to whom it might be derogatory. If that's true, then it's true for any word that refers to a sports team. So is it true or not?
JB Breakfast Club
Footballguy
I can't believe this is still a discussion. It needs to be changed, but the Cleveland Indians need to go first...
The Commish
Footballguy
Early in this thread, there was a court decision posted that said it wasn't enough to argue that "redskin" was offensive. They had to show that "Washington Redskin" was offensive and derogatory. To me, this means that "redskin" <> "Washington Redskin" per the courts. So I don't use them interchangeably, yet all the opponents approach this from the "Go ask an Indian if redskin is offensive and get back to me" perspective. Shouldn't they be approaching this from the "Go ask an Indian if Washington Redskins is offensive and get back to me" perspective?
The reason this is important to me is the context and intent arguments I brought up several pages ago. I personally don't see how folks can get worked up over the term Washington Redskin. You ask 100 people what they think of when they hear that term, they'll say the team....not the hunted Indian or the term used to describe specific groups of Indians by Columbus or a socialist/communist skinhead.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
As was explained to earlier, you were misinterpreting that legal ruling. What they were saying IMO was the test wasn't whether "Redskin" is offensive, but rather that "Washington Redskin" is offensive. They were simply articulating the proper question for the court. Because it's obvious to anyone that the team is referring to Native Americans, the question is whether it's offensive to refer to Native Americans that way. If, say, the team had a potato on its helmet, then we'd have a different question. That's all the court was saying as I understand it. Since the nickname obviously refers to the minority, the questions are identical, but the court still wants to clarify the proper question before it.
You don't get a pass from using a slur just because the team has been around long enough and the minority is small enough that people associate the word with the team first and the minority second. That makes no sense. If it's a slur, it's a slur. That's the only question. I'm not saying I know that answer to that question (although I have a guess, and the Grantland article does a good job of explaining why). I'm saying that in this case, the distinction you're trying to draw is not really a distinction.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
It was certainly my interpretation. Now the question I have before we go any further is, who's interpretation is right? Perhaps that is our problem. We are starting from completely different POV on this. So let's assume that we can agree that you were correct in your interpretation. The question comes back to context, agreed? This word has a very long history and means different things to different people. It's not a word like "*******" or "n#####" that has only one meaning, so to me, context becomes very important.
Personally, I believe the court asked their question(s) specifically to bring context into it's ruling....as it should.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
I can't believe he used the term paleface. I'm so offended. I'm glad they weren't called the Washington Palefaces. The country would be up in arms about it.
STEADYMOBBIN 22
Footballguy
Should have just posted the Redskins fight song. Braves on the Warpath and all.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The court ruled on procedural grounds. The passage you're citing has nothing to do with the "context" of a decision. You are so far lost in the weeds here with this bizarre, nonsensical "context" thing that you are trying to discern the intentions of a court decision that was clearly made on a standing issue and, as the judge actually said in the opinion, had nothing at all to do with whether or not the name was offensive. So take like ten steps back. The decision is totally irrelevant. Forget it ever happened, because the ruling was not made on substantive grounds.
Here's the question- is referring to a football team as the "Redskins," by which they obviously mean Native Americans, a slur towards those people? The fact that people think of the football team first when they hear the word is irrelevant. The fact that the word is also a kind of potato is irrelevant. The only question is whether it's offensive to describe Native Americans in this manner. If it is, then the football team's name is offensive, since it's obviously being used by the team to describe Native Americans. If it's not, no harm done. It's that simple.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
It was argued before the TTAB that the Boston Redskins were named after the colonists who dressed as Native Americans as disguise during the Boston Tea Party.I understand the argument that the controversy erupted from the PC crowd, but to say that the name Redskins applies to the team and nothing more is just dense. Their logos, mascots, helmets etc. have always referenced Indians. That's like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are not named after the bird.I thought the term was being used to describe the football team
It's interesting that you put a 100% qualification in your last sentence after asking me why 50% was my threshold (though I never said that). Why is 100% your threshold?
It brings up another point though...why is it that references like Negro and Oriental are suddenly offensive just because other names have now become the "official" terms? There is nothing intrinsically offensive about either term.
But the marks were registered in 1967, long after that, so that's probably not relevant.
In a trademark disparagement action, the challengers have to claim (1) that the mark clearly refers to a group or individual; and (2) that the mark disparages or brings such individual or group into disrepute.
Anyone arguing that the challenges can't meet the first prong of the test is clearly beyond help. The second prong is more interesting as I don't think the TTAB's decisonal law is particularly clear on the matter. The more common context where disparagement is found is where some type of embarrassing product is associated with a group of people.
For instance, if I tried to register "The Commish" brand anal beads.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Just to expand on this a bit. Probably the first trademark disparagement cancellation case was for Dough-boy Condoms. It was held to disparage WWI veterans. Of course, the Pillsbury Doughboy (created in 1962) is one of the most recognizable trademarks in the world.
And it is not disparaging because (1) it does not clearly refer to WWI veterans the same way that a condom marketed shortly after WWI does, and (2) does not disparage that group (by calling to mind the Army's attempts to prevent veneral disease during WWI).
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I never really clarified whether I was talking about the legal question or the moral/ethical one. Although in this case they're pretty much one and the same in my opinion. The word as the team is using it clearly refers to Native Americans, so Commish's bizarre "context" argument is irrelevant. If it's disparaging towards the group to whom it clearly refers, it should not be entitled to trademark protection AND the team should change it because it's the right thing to do. If it's not, that's fine too.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I agree with you. I will say that TTAB decisions are all over the place on how you prove disparagement. The standard is probably a "reasonable" member of the subject class, but that's up for interpretation. One of the more recent decisions found Crazy Horse Malt liquor disparaging. I doubt they needed to show that it offended 50.1% of Native Americans or heirs of Crazy Horse.
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
What is so derogatory about the word "Indians"? I can see the justification in "Redskins" being a racial slur, but Indians? Come on, this PC business has gotten out of control in our society, imo.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Yes, and while they're at it, they might as well get rid of the Braves, Chiefs while they're at it. hey, and the Yankees too. Not because I'm a Yankee, but because I hate them.
Hang 10
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Total non-sequitur and also 100% wrong since I preferred Bullets and would be happy if they changed it back. But other than that you totally nailed it!It's people like you that named our basketball team the ####ing wizards.
You mind a friendly suggestion? Maybe you should take the mascots of your local sports teams a little less seriously? They're just dumb names thought up to sell overpriced crap to kids. Personally I care about a thousand times more about the "Washington" part of all four of the names of the major teams then whatever cheesy name some marketing ####### decides to put after it. Just my opinion, YMMV I guess.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
JB Breakfast Club
Footballguy
You have seen the Chief Wahoo logo, haven't you? It's disgusting that a major sports team markets its team with such a blatantly racist logo. Yes, the Braves should also change their name along with the Chiefs and any other team named after people. I'll tell you what, if the owners of the Indians, Braves, Chiefs, et al donate all of their profits from their racist logos to Native American charities, I'll consider changing my mind...
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
It signifies that they're playing as representatives of my home town, which I consider a nice gesture.
Also I didn't say it's important, just that it's a thousand times more important than the other part. Which is still a pretty low bar.
Hang 10
Footballguy
You're the one that's taking the name so seriously. How many times have you posted in this stupid thread? Try taking up a worth while cause, Rev. Sharpton.Total non-sequitur and also 100% wrong since I preferred Bullets and would be happy if they changed it back. But other than that you totally nailed it!It's people like you that named our basketball team the ####ing wizards.
You mind a friendly suggestion? Maybe you should take the mascots of your local sports teams a little less seriously? They're just dumb names thought up to sell overpriced crap to kids. Personally I care about a thousand times more about the "Washington" part of all four of the names of the major teams then whatever cheesy name some marketing ####### decides to put after it. Just my opinion, YMMV I guess.
Oink Oink the Pig
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You seem to know a lot about me. You know how I felt about the basketball team's name (you were wrong, but that's OK, nobody's intel is perfect), and how "seriously" I take the name controversy (you are confusing an interest in discussion with passion, but whatever). But now you're following me around enough to know what other causes I take up and whether they're "worth while" or not? Who are you? Why are you so obsessed with me? Don't get me wrong, I'm flattered, but it's a little bit weird.You're the one that's taking the name so seriously. How many times have you posted in this stupid thread? Try taking up a worth while cause, Rev. Sharpton.Total non-sequitur and also 100% wrong since I preferred Bullets and would be happy if they changed it back. But other than that you totally nailed it!It's people like you that named our basketball team the ####ing wizards.
You mind a friendly suggestion? Maybe you should take the mascots of your local sports teams a little less seriously? They're just dumb names thought up to sell overpriced crap to kids. Personally I care about a thousand times more about the "Washington" part of all four of the names of the major teams then whatever cheesy name some marketing ####### decides to put after it. Just my opinion, YMMV I guess.
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Yes, I have seen their logo. I wouldn't call it blatantly racist, but to each his own.
If the PC crowd wants to change the names of every high school, college, and professional sports team, be my guest, but you are
here. No way that is ever going to happen.
PatsFanCT
Footballguy
Oh Boy. Naming a team after people is offensive? I guess we need to get rid of the following teams as well:
Yankees
Mets
Athletics
Rangers
Nationals
Pirates
Brewers
Padres
Patriots
Texans
Titans
Raiders
Cowboys
Packers
Vikings
Saints
49ers
Buckeneers
And that's just two sports.
Similar threads
