US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark (1 Viewer)

[Adam Harstad]

Another interesting tidbit: "Redskins" was first marked as disparaging or offensive in a dictionary in 1966. By 1986, every dictionary included a note identifying the term as derogatory or "not preferred". Again, the trademark dispute covered the period from 1967 to 1990. Had the plaintiff had to argue about the meaning of the word in 1929 when Marshall first selected the name, it would have been a much more difficult task. Although the document does make a point of noting that dictionary definitions are probably representative of the views of the American public as a whole and not of the "referenced group" (i.e. Native Americans) in particular.

It seems unfortunate from Washington's perspective that the period during which they were redoing their trademarks and the period during which dictionaries were switching over to identifying "redskins" as disparaging happened to coincide so neatly.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Alright, so here's the case in a nutshell: The National Council of American Indians was formed in the '40s and, by the time period from 1967-1990 (when the trademarks were registered) represented 30% of all Native Americans. In 1993, the NCAI released a resolution declaring that the term "Redskins" was disparaging and had always been so. Additionally, the NCAI had registered a complaint regarding the name as early as the late 1960s, and in 1972 the president of the NCAI (as well as 10 other representatives of various Native American groups) sat down to meet with the president and part owner of the Washington Redskins in an effort to persuade him to stop using the term "Redskins" as they considered it a racial slur. In addition, the term "redskin" as referring to actual people (instead of the sports teams) practically disappeared from common usage beginning in the mid-'60s (terms "Native American" and "Indian" outnumbered "redskin" when referring to people of Native American descent by a factor of about 2000 to 1), and dictionaries transitioned between 1966 and 1986 until they all noted that the term was disparaging. Based on those facts, the court found that the term "redskins" was considered disparaging at the time to at least 30% of Native Americans (the members of the NCAI), and that 30% constituted a "substantial composite".

In addition, the court stated that "once a substantial composite has been found, the mere existence of differing opinions cannot change the conclusion." That's important, because there really was a substantial numbers of individual Native Americans and tribes who wrote in favor of the name during the time. It really is a complex issue, and a lot of Native Americans really were (and, undoubtedly, still are) proud of the Washington Redskins name and felt that it honored their heritage. The issue strictly came down to a question of what percentage of Native Americans who find the name offensive is acceptable, and the court ruled that 30% was not an acceptable percentage.

The dissenting judge did so on the grounds that the dictionary evidence was inconclusive and there was no way to verify that the NCAI's membership during the period in question truly comprised 30% of Native Americans. Also, to quote again: "To be clear, this case is not about the controversy, currently playing out in the media, over whether the term "redskins," as the name of Washington's professional football team, is disparaging to Native Americans today. The provisions of the statute under which the Board must decide this case... require us to answer a much narrower, legal question: whether the evidence made of record in this case establishes that the term "redskins" was disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time each of the challenged registrations was issued." (all emphasis in the original)

Also found in the dissent: "By this dissent, I am not suggesting that the term "redskins" was not disparaging in 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990 (the registration dates at issue). Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was." (again, emphasis in the original)

I think I'm done spamming the thread, now. Sorry for the hijack, everyone.

 

[Casting Couch]

There is now only one name under the Daniel Snyder trademark umbrella.

say hello to your....

WASHINGTON WARRIORS

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

There is now only one name under the Daniel Snyder trademark umbrella.

say hello to your....

BELTWAY INSIDERS

 

[mightyeskimo]

I could also write some equations that infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a website but, ultimately, would still be inaccurate.

So you're rejecting the very concept of statistical inference?

No. Simply trying to point out the flaws inherent to the use of inference. The old adage that "you can make statistics say anything you want" is very much true. So true, in fact, that we will probably never know just how many native Americans, out of the entire US population, are actually for or against this change.

I think we can feel pretty confident that it's somewhere between 10% and 67%.

Honestly, you're criticising our ability to misrepresent the conclusions of statistical inference, not the actual inference itself. If there were a well-designed study whose methodology was clearly spelled out and open to examination, I would feel pretty confident in the results of that study. The two studies we have both have methodological shortcomings. One produced an estimate of 10%. The other produced an estimate of 67%. Honestly, the 10% study had many more shortcomings, not least of which being the fact that it's 10 years old. But still, I feel very confident that the true figure lies somewhere between those two results. And as I said, the question then becomes "what does the true figure have to be in order for changing the name to become the correct course of action?"

I'm criticizing both the interpretation of the inferences done and the process of inferences themselves. No matter how well you think you plan the study there is still a very wide margin on actual error. Numbers that represent confidence levels are vastly overrated. My main point was not to try and establish a number that represents a threshold above which we should initiate change but rather to point out that it's probably a fact that most native Americans do not find the Washington Redskins offensive.

 

[nittanylion]

I'm trying very hard to stay out of the political mudbath of all of this, but I'll say this much: for how hard a stance he's taken on maintaining the Redskins name, if it ever gets to the point where change becomes a foregone conclusion, before it's enforced, I'd love to see Daniel Snyder change the 'Washington' portion of the name to a City or Region located in the greater D.C. Metro area suburbs, and make a public statement vowing that the Redskins will never play another game in D.C. while he owns the Team.

Wherever folks opinions lie regarding the name change, anyone who calls themselves a fiscal conservative, or a fan of limited federal government, ought to be, at the very least, somewhat irritated every time they see a member of Congress wasting our tax dollars in the form of their time and energy which we pay for, addressing this issue.

In my opinion, given his stance, I'd hope the last thing Snyder would want to maintain would be any identity with the City that's the seat of a government involving itself in something like this rather than focusing it's energies on much more important issues.

Pave my roads, keep me safe, and I'll take care of the rest...

 

[dickey moe]

Washington Injuns

 

[EBF]

So stupid.

 

[cobalt_27]

Adam Harstad is absolutely crushing it in this thread. Thanks for all the legwork and contextual background.

 

[beerbarron]

It's beginning to seem like nothing can stop the political correctness storm in America.

This, if it was such a problem why did they not reject the patent years ago?

Because this entire discussion is BS and a political agenda.

If the government cares so much about what is offensive to the Native Americans... GIVE THEM THEIR DANG LAND BACK.

Until then, the government should shut up in the corner.

Im not sure the Native Americans officially patented the North American continent.. therefore they didn't own it.. Now if they planted a flag in the sand somewhere on any one of the coast's.. everybody would know who it belonged to..

 

[jonboltz]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

 

[Casting Couch]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

Thank you. This should be the "End of Conversation"

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Adam Harstad is absolutely crushing it in this thread. Thanks for all the legwork and contextual background.

 

[SelenaCat]

Adam Harstad is absolutely crushing it in this thread. Thanks for all the legwork and contextual background.

This, x2.

It just baffles me that so many people use the defense of "I don't consider it a racial slur, and wouldn't use it as a racial slur, so they shouldn't have to change it." First of all, unless you are a self-indentified Native American, your (and my) opinion is irrelevant. And likewise, the fact that some Native Americans don't find the name offensive (in relationship to the team name, I'm certain the answers would be different if you phrased the question as referring to a Native American individual) also doesn't make the word any less disparaging. Hell, I'm pretty certain there was a big swath of the US that didn't feel that the N-word was disparaging, it was "just a word." That doesn't make it right.

I get it, Snyder stands to lose money with a name change unless he can talk the NFL into buying up all their old inventory, and there's not an insignificant capital to a long-held brand name. But I'd be willing to bet that he'd make all of that back within a couple of years due to increased team apparel sales. And being on the right side of history is typically a better investment than the short-term profit of sticking to the wrong side.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

Thank you. This should be the "End of Conversation"

"Redskins" or Indian scalps were collected for bounties for centuries all over the American frontier as it moved West.

The follow up article linked in the above link even has a photo showing it from the 1860s.

 

[spider321]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

 

[Brewtown]

HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!

 

[Todd Andrews]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

Not into history?

 

[mightyeskimo]

Adam Harstad is absolutely crushing it in this thread. Thanks for all the legwork and contextual background.

+1 for sure! I've enjoyed reading his posts very much.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

We should all just be thankful that spider321 relegates himself to the sharkpool.

Any actual two-way discussion seems to be unobtainable.

 

[spider321]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

Not into history?

The word "Redskin" refers to the person, not the scalp.

 

[spider321]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

We should all just be thankful that spider321 relegates himself to the sharkpool.

Any actual two-way discussion seems to be unobtainable.

I'd bet that if Dan Snyder hated Christine Michael, BigSteel would support the Redskins.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

We should all just be thankful that spider321 relegates himself to the sharkpool.

Any actual two-way discussion seems to be unobtainable.

I'd bet that if Dan Snyder hated Christine Michael, BigSteel would support the Redskins.

I'm a fan of Christine Michael. (And the entire Seattle run game for fantasy purposes)

I'm not a fan of people who put forth incorrect information regarding depth charts, teams and players as a form of propaganda.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Adam Harstad is absolutely crushing it in this thread. Thanks for all the legwork and contextual background.

This, x2.

It just baffles me that so many people use the defense of "I don't consider it a racial slur, and wouldn't use it as a racial slur, so they shouldn't have to change it." First of all, unless you are a self-indentified Native American, your (and my) opinion is irrelevant. And likewise, the fact that some Native Americans don't find the name offensive (in relationship to the team name, I'm certain the answers would be different if you phrased the question as referring to a Native American individual) also doesn't make the word any less disparaging. Hell, I'm pretty certain there was a big swath of the US that didn't feel that the N-word was disparaging, it was "just a word." That doesn't make it right.

I get it, Snyder stands to lose money with a name change unless he can talk the NFL into buying up all their old inventory, and there's not an insignificant capital to a long-held brand name. But I'd be willing to bet that he'd make all of that back within a couple of years due to increased team apparel sales. And being on the right side of history is typically a better investment than the short-term profit of sticking to the wrong side.

31 of the 32 franchises pool revenue from merchandising (the Cowboys are the lone holdout). While I don't doubt that a name change would boost sales, Snyder doesn't stand to disproportionately benefit from that.On the other side of the ledger, I've seen credible estimates that pegged the cost of changing the name at $10-20m, which is a not-inconsequential sum of money, even for a billionaire. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a fifth of the team's annual profits.

 

[Brewtown]

Who cares. Keep the tradition!

I want their name to stay Redskins even more because of the irrational arguments about hurting people's feelings.....

It's been this way for 100 plus years!

Do we really want to live in a world where everybody must love everybody.

Just because a FEW people don't like something/disagree/or there are hurt things must change.

Does the constitution state that everybody must be 100% happy and agree on everything?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Ironically enough, given that I'm predisposed toward the belief that "Redskin" is a racial slur and should be changed, I actually find the dissent's argument to be rather compelling. I don't have access to all of the evidence that was considered, and I wouldn't want it, anyway- the rationale behind the decision was 99 pages long, and much of that was footnotes and precedent. The list of items submitted into evidence- not the evidence, just the LIST of evidence- was 78 pages long. There's a reason the case took two years to decide. With that aside, if the dissent is accurately characterizing the process, it seems like the majority did a lot of estimating to arrive at their "30%" figure (saying the NCAI represented 30% of Native Americans). At one point, they even had to rely on "double hearsay" (i.e. hearsay about hearsay- someone said that someone said that membership was 30%). If that's the case, then the prosecution really didn't do their job- they really should have provided more solid evidence about the NCAI's membership statistics in the '60s and '70s, because it shouldn't have been the court's place to guess at that figure.

That seemed to be the crux of the dispute. The majority reached the 30% figure and deemed that a substantial composite. The dissent seemed to agree that 30% would comprise a substantial composite, but did not believe the prosecution provided enough evidence to demonstrate that that threshold had been reached by 1967 to the early 1970s, when the majority of the six trademarks were being issued.

 

[Bojang0301]

Sorry if this has already been posted in here... "Redskins" true meaning

The writer's mother's cousin's former brother-in-law's third roommate twice removed CONFIRMS that "Redskins" means the scalp of a Native American.

END OF DISCUSSION! Period. The end.

We should all just be thankful that spider321 relegates himself to the sharkpool.

Any actual two-way discussion seems to be unobtainable.

I'd bet that if Dan Snyder hated Christine Michael, BigSteel would support the Redskins.

I'm a fan of Christine Michael. (And the entire Seattle run game for fantasy purposes)

I'm not a fan of people who put forth incorrect information regarding depth charts, teams and players as a form of propaganda.

This should just be the auto response to the stupidity that is the Christine Michael thread.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

Someone mentioned how awful it would be if the 49ers were forced to change their name (from a fan's perspective). I thought about that for a minute, and while trying to avoiding a strawman argument, I thought of scenario where it could play out...

Imagine historians reveal text that further clarifies the role of the "49ers" in a historical context involving the rape and murder of native Americans. Would the name "49ers", upon new-found context, be the subject of similar scrutiny?

I'm not asking to be facetious, btw.

 

[slackjawedyokel]

I don't see why the name couldn't be chaged to a local tribe, keep the colors and then have a logo similar to MattFancy or just keep the logo. I can understand if Indians find the name offensive, I still do not like the government making it a huge point of interest lately with all the problems piling up on the US. Dan Snyder has sort of a reputation of thumbing his nose at critics, I expect this to be the same but there is a classy way to move to a new name and still keep the hertige of the team without going all Washington Wizards on it.

I agree. I think there are a lot of really classy and cool options open to Washington if they do decide to change the name. Mike Tanier has in the past suggested "Washington Red Clouds" to honor a specific Native American leader. My favorite is the suggestion that Washington keep its logo and colors and simply change their name to the "Washington Americans". Not only does it honor Native Americans, but it seems a fitting tribute to the country as a whole from a team nominally situated in our nation's capital.

I like the Washington Americans. But there might be difficulty trademarking the name. For Snyder, this is solely about firewalling his merchandising revenue.

FWIW, the logo was designed by a Native American artist. I think it is a good logo and I don't think they should have to change that if they keep with the Native American theme with a new name.

Not sure, but you'd think that a team revitalizing its brand would be a boon to merchandising. Both old and new. Fans need new jerseys, hats, and seat covers. A niche market would be throwback players with the new jersey style.

 

[msudaisy26]

On a lighter note we better hope PETA and other organizations don't get offended for certain animals and sue those teams too . Seriously, if Lions or Jaguars knew any better they would be offended by those teams!!!

 

[SelenaCat]

31 of the 32 franchises pool revenue from merchandising (the Cowboys are the lone holdout). While I don't doubt that a name change would boost sales, Snyder doesn't stand to disproportionately benefit from that.

On the other side of the ledger, I've seen credible estimates that pegged the cost of changing the name at $10-20m, which is a not-inconsequential sum of money, even for a billionaire. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a fifth of the team's annual profits.

If Snyder were wise about this, he would approach the NFL and ask that, in exchange for changing their name, the team receives 100% of their merchandising revenue for the next X years to offset the cost of rebranding. I'd be willing to bet the NFL owners would go for that simply to get rid of the PR headache.

Of course, if Danny was truly wise, he would have done this when they drafted RG3 and the Washington fans felt he could do no wrong.

 

[MattFancy]

31 of the 32 franchises pool revenue from merchandising (the Cowboys are the lone holdout). While I don't doubt that a name change would boost sales, Snyder doesn't stand to disproportionately benefit from that.

On the other side of the ledger, I've seen credible estimates that pegged the cost of changing the name at $10-20m, which is a not-inconsequential sum of money, even for a billionaire. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a fifth of the team's annual profits.

If Snyder were wise about this, he would approach the NFL and ask that, in exchange for changing their name, the team receives 100% of their merchandising revenue for the next X years to offset the cost of rebranding. I'd be willing to bet the NFL owners would go for that simply to get rid of the PR headache.

I could see something like that happening if they are forced to change the name. Also could see something where Snyder gets a new stadium in DC as well.

There's no way Snyder changes the name unless he gets something out of it or starts losing millions daily.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

I've wavered on this issue. Redskin didn't have a huge negative connotation to me, and I kind of bought into the "How can it be derogatory when we want to reflect the positive characteristics associated with the name, not anything negative" argument. And in general, I think folks are a bit too sensitive.

All that said, this issue is never going to go away, and apparently at least some folks in the native American community find it to be extremely disparaging. If the Skins don't want to be dealing with this every day for the next 10-20 years, they may as well punt and move on. I get standing your ground on principle, but the principle isn't exactly clear-cut to begin with, and the pragmatic aspects are such that it just makes sense to let this one go.

It would also still be fairly easy to make a U-turn, despite all the strong words from Snyder in the past. All you have to say is "Wow, the longer this goes on, the more folks I see who seem affected by it. We obviously never meant any offense and didn't feel many folks were TAKING offense, but it seems that there are more folks viewing the the name in a negative light than we thought or were lead to believe. In light of that of that, we feel it's best to move on...". In a couple of years, it's all over and no one cares but the real die-hards.

 

[drunken slob]

31 of the 32 franchises pool revenue from merchandising (the Cowboys are the lone holdout). While I don't doubt that a name change would boost sales, Snyder doesn't stand to disproportionately benefit from that.

On the other side of the ledger, I've seen credible estimates that pegged the cost of changing the name at $10-20m, which is a not-inconsequential sum of money, even for a billionaire. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a fifth of the team's annual profits.

If Snyder were wise about this, he would approach the NFL and ask that, in exchange for changing their name, the team receives 100% of their merchandising revenue for the next X years to offset the cost of rebranding. I'd be willing to bet the NFL owners would go for that simply to get rid of the PR headache.

I could see something like that happening if they are forced to change the name. Also could see something where Snyder gets a new stadium in DC as well.

There's no way Snyder changes the name unless he gets something out of it or starts losing millions daily.

I have to believe that Snyder will tell the other owners (except Jerry Jones, and Mark Davis, also Al when he was alive), along with the NFLPA to pound sand on the whole merchandise revenue sharing situation. I'm probably projecting here, but it wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't use this as a means to get his pound of flesh for having 38-million in salary cap money taken away a few years ago. These guys don't forget anything. I can only imagine what a phone call between Snyder and John Mara would be like regarding this matter.

 

[hammerva]

I wonder if all of these people in DC who want to tell us that "Redskins" is not an offensive word and that most native americans aren't offended would have the same opinion if this was the Philadelphia Redskins or the Dallas Redskins. Something tells me that the opinion would be different

Also love hearing the "the only people who care about the name change is white people with their guilt". Something tells me as well that this was the same excuse used in the 50's and 60's to justify why the Skins didn't have to bring in black football players

 

[Dr. Octopus]

On a lighter note we better hope PETA and other organizations don't get offended for certain animals and sue those teams too . Seriously, if Lions or Jaguars knew any better they would be offended by those teams!!!

I think PETA would lack standing to bring a suit - and I know you're trying to be funny but the difference is that Lions and Jaguars are the accepted names of those "races".

It would be like Notre Dame calling themselves the Fighting Paddys, instead of Irish or a team calling themselves the Guineas, the Chinks or the Wetbacks.

You can claim people are too sensitive. I'm an Italian American and I remember the uproar that some Italian American groups caused over the Sopranos - I just laughed (those people do exists). It's pretty difficult to deny that Redskins isn't a racial slur, and while some people may get upset over "political correctness" run amuck, its is pretty strange the name exists. The old Chris Rock joke is it would be like calling a team the Newark s. That wouldn't fly.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Someone mentioned how awful it would be if the 49ers were forced to change their name (from a fan's perspective). I thought about that for a minute, and while trying to avoiding a strawman argument, I thought of scenario where it could play out...

Imagine historians reveal text that further clarifies the role of the "49ers" in a historical context involving the rape and murder of native Americans. Would the name "49ers", upon new-found context, be the subject of similar scrutiny?

I'm not asking to be facetious, btw.

No. Trademark law judges the meaning of the words at the time a trademark was registered. If new information surfaces now, it won't retroactively impact trademarks already issued. It would cause San Francisco some problems if they ever wanted to do any redesigns, though.

 

[Adam Harstad]

On a lighter note we better hope PETA and other organizations don't get offended for certain animals and sue those teams too . Seriously, if Lions or Jaguars knew any better they would be offended by those teams!!!

I think PETA would lack standing to bring a suit - and I know you're trying to be funny but the difference is that Lions and Jaguars are the accepted names of those "races".

It would be like Notre Dame calling themselves the Fighting Paddys, instead of Irish or a team calling themselves the Guineas, the Chinks or the Wetbacks.

You can claim people are too sensitive. I'm an Italian American and I remember the uproar that some Italian American groups caused over the Sopranos - I just laughed (those people do exists). It's pretty difficult to deny that Redskins isn't a racial slur, and while some people may get upset over "political correctness" run amuck, its is pretty strange the name exists. The old Chris Rock joke is it would be like calling a team the Newark ######s. That wouldn't fly.

Right, only the animals themselves would be able to bring a suit on the franchises named after them. You can't get offended on someone else's behalf, you need to demonstrate that a "substantial composite" of the affected population finds the term disparaging. In other words, PETA would need to prove that 30% of all Jaguars found Jacksonville's depiction of them to be offensive at the time Jacksonville first registered its trademarks.

In reality, even that wouldn't be enough, really. Animals lack standing in human courts and aren't subject to human laws. It's a series of tradeoffs. On the one hand, Jaguars can't sue for protection against discrimination, which sucks for them. But on the other hand, they can maul the hell out of someone and never have to worry about being dragged into court on assault charges. So there's that.

Also, even though "Jaguar" and "Lion" are the plain name of those "races", you could still get the trademark canceled if it was offensive or disparaging. If I made a brand of fried chicken called "African American Fried Chicken" whose motto was "mmm'boy us black folk shur do love'm dat fried chicken", the fact that "African American" is the accepted term for the community wouldn't provide much cover. I'll refer again to the precedent the court mentioned where a STD-prevention device had its trademark canceled because it was marketing using WWI soldiers, preying on stereotypes that all WWI soldiers had sex with local women while overseas and contracted STDs.

Edit: Notre Dame could have its "fighting Irish" trademark revoked if a "substantial composite" of the Irish population felt that it was derogatory and perpetuated negative stereotypes at the time the trademark was issued. Pretty sure that one doesn't have much in the way of legs, though.

 

[Da Guru]

Snyder bought the NFL franchise and the "Redskin" brand name. The time of the sale was the perfect time for the NFL to step in and make the change before the team changed hands. Of course a name change may have lowered the value of the team.

If and when Snyder changes the name it will be because the NFL pays him big money to change the name. I heard last night that Snyder will demand a huge sum of cash to change the name. Eventually the NFL will pay him.

 

[Koya]

Who cares. Keep the tradition!

I want their name to stay Redskins even more because of the irrational arguments about hurting people's feelings.....

It's been this way for 100 plus years!

Do we really want to live in a world where everybody must love everybody.

Just because a FEW people don't like something/disagree/or there are hurt things must change.

Does the constitution state that everybody must be 100% happy and agree on everything?

Luckily for you, this nation allows you to spew selfish and, honestly, meanspirited ideas that show a complete disregard for the fact that you are doing harm to a group of people using a word that, play with the meaning all you want, is 100% a slur.

You want to keep using a slur and a bigoted term, that's fine. But accept the responsibility for what that makes you.

Then again, judging from your comments, being a bigot might not be an issue, nor being called one at least, since who cares if people are hurt by something that is said?

Of course, the main difference is if someone called you out as a bigot for that post, they would be using the 100% legit use of that term (I could add coldhearted and uncaring) - while your use of "Redskin" is propogated a misguided slur, not a correct adjective (or, noun).

 

[Rove!]

I find the term Yankees at least mildly pejorative. They should lose their trademark....

 

[Adam Harstad]

I find the term Yankees at least mildly pejorative. They should lose their trademark....

You're welcome to file a lawsuit. If you can demonstrate that a "substantial composite" of the referenced group (in this case, Northerners or so-called "Yankees") found the term to be disparaging or derogatory at the time the trademark was filed, you can absolutely get the trademark revoked. The fact that no one has filed such a suit probably indicates either that (a) there is not enough evidence supporting the claim for any reasonable actor to believe he has a chance to win, or (b) no one is upset enough about the name to take on the tremendous expense and devote decades of their life to fighting for the issue.

At the end of the day, think about how amazing this lawsuit really was. A lot of people say that they don't see how "redskins" is all that offensive, but obviously the plaintiffs were so bothered by it that they devoted what was surely hundreds of thousands of man-hours, untold amounts of money, and decades of their lives to trying to get it changed. I mean, this wasn't a frivolous thing. They didn't just say "you know what, that kind of bothers me a bit". They said "I think this phrase is so abhorrent and this issue is so important that I will make getting it changed my life's work, devoting everything I have to the effort". We can make jokes about how this little thing bothers us or that little thing offends us and how the world should rearrange itself to protect our feelings, but doing so diminishes the raw depth of feeling that the anti-redskins crowd felt, and the amazing lengths they went to to be heard. This might not be important to us, but it sure as hell was important to them. Regardless of where we fall on the issue, I think it's worthwhile to acknowledge that.

 

[John 14:6]

Snyder bought the NFL franchise and the "Redskin" brand name. The time of the sale was the perfect time for the NFL to step in and make the change before the team changed hands. Of course a name change may have lowered the value of the team.

If and when Snyder changes the name it will be because the NFL pays him big money to change the name. I heard last night that Snyder will demand a huge sum of cash to change the name. Eventually the NFL will pay him.

I've been wondering why Snyder is so against a name change. it seems to me he'd be able to earn a lot through merchandising a new name and logo...

 

[MattFancy]

Snyder bought the NFL franchise and the "Redskin" brand name. The time of the sale was the perfect time for the NFL to step in and make the change before the team changed hands. Of course a name change may have lowered the value of the team.

If and when Snyder changes the name it will be because the NFL pays him big money to change the name. I heard last night that Snyder will demand a huge sum of cash to change the name. Eventually the NFL will pay him.

I've been wondering why Snyder is so against a name change. it seems to me he'd be able to earn a lot through merchandising a new name and logo...

Well the league shares all revenue from merchandise sales except for the Cowboys, who have their own deal. So if the Skins did change their name and sold a bunch of merch, it's not like Snyder would see all that money.

 

[Yenrub]

I wonder how long it would have taken for Snyder to rename the team if they were named the Washington [insert one of the many derogatory slurs for Jewish people] before he purchased the team.

http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=jews

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why we’re banning Redskins in The Seattle Times

Posted by Don Shelton

The most controversial name in sports won’t appear again in The Seattle Times’ print edition or on the seattletimes.com home pages as long as I am sports editor.

It’s time to ban the use of “Redskins,” the absurd, offensive and outdated name of the NFL team in Washington, D.C.

Past time, actually.

We’ll probably receive scathing emails, letters, phone calls and reader comments telling me we’re too PC, that the name actually honors Native Americans or that we have no right to change a team’s official name.

Everyone’s entitled to an opinion – even if I don’t buy it.

We’re banning the name for one reason: It’s offensive. Far from honoring Native Americans, the term colors an entire race. Many Native Americans consider it an outdated label placed on their people.

 

[VaCatFan]

Washington Renegades. Get to keep the big "R" in the middle of the merchandise and everything. Don't have to change the imagery.

 

[matttyl]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but....

If we're going to change the name of the Redskins, then don't we also have to change the name of the state of Oklahoma?

 

[John 14:6]

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but....

If we're going to change the name of the Redskins, then don't we also have to change the name of the state of Oklahoma?

Absolutely.

 

[Bronco Billy]

There are 8 registered trademarks at the USPTO that incorporate the "N" word, 2 that use the "C" word, and 50 that use the "B" word.

Don't you guys ever get tired of being duped by the tried and true tactics of Administrations? This one is particularly adept at it.

SQUIRREL!