U.S. Patent Office Cancels Washington Redskins Trademarks

[gopher]

Loss of trademark protection doesn't mean they cannot use the logo - only that anyone else who uses it does not face the same type of liability they did in the old days when it was under Patent Office protection. Therefore, free speech is not an issue here.

 

[pgs]

Why so bitter? Do you have a problem with calling black people "black" or "African American" instead of "colored" or "Negro?" Both of those were once perfectly acceptable, even polite terms. "Redskin" isn't, and never was. It is, and has always been, the semantic equivalent of "n*gger."

It's not about "honouring" Indians. All but the most radical of us have no problem with "Indians" or "Braves" or "Chiefs." We just don't like "Redskins" because it has always been a pejorative term.

And all the excuses given are, not to put too fine an edge on it, bullsh*t. "Honouring our fighting spirit" my red a$$. We weren't all warriors. And we aren't frozen in 1890. And we aren't all dead.

I can hear it now. "Well, what about the Vikings?" Vikings were not a people, they were a profession. They were traders when necessary, pirates and raiders when the opportunity arose. The Norse and the Swedes and the Danes and the Normans were Norse and Swedes and Danes and Normans. Only those who went viking were Vikings.

We don't like being stereotyped, any more'n anybody else does. Yet we put up with it. "Indians." "Braves." "Chiefs." All we ask is that you leave out the one name that to our ears is like "n*gger" to a black person's ears.

I guess that's too much to ask, if your hostile, bitter response is anything to go by.

I have heard native American aboriginal Indians called lots of ugly names but none of them were redskin .

 

[gopher]

I have heard native American aboriginal Indians called lots of ugly names but none of them were redskin .

If you were old like I am you would likely remember the old Hollywood Westerns which contained dialog that used that term. It has been a disfavored term equitable with the N word and this is why it is no longer used in public by most folks.

 

[EagleSmack]

Why so bitter?

I'm not anymore. I've flipped. It won't bother me.

Do you have a problem with calling black people "black" or "African American" instead of "colored" or "Negro?" Both of those were once perfectly acceptable, even polite terms. "Redskin" isn't, and never was. It is, and has always been, the semantic equivalent of "n*gger."

Did N. Mericans ever call themselves redskins in a non-derogatory way?


Is this false?


"My Father—Restrain your feelings, and hear ca[l]mly what I shall say. I shall tell it to you plainly, I shall not speak with fear and trembling. I feel no fear. I have no cause to fear. I have never injured you, and innocence can feel no fear. I turn to all, red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me." – Chief Black Thunder



Do any predominantly NA schools have the name Redskins?

It's not about "honouring" Indians. All but the most radical of us have no problem with "Indians" or "Braves" or "Chiefs." We just don't like "Redskins" because it has always been a pejorative term.

And all the excuses given are, not to put too fine an edge on it, bullsh*t. "Honouring our fighting spirit" my red a$$. We weren't all warriors. And we aren't frozen in 1890. And we aren't all dead.

It was about honoring and using the warrior spirit. Regardless of what you say it is now.

We don't like being stereotyped, any more'n anybody else does. Yet we put up with it. "Indians." "Braves." "Chiefs." All we ask is that you leave out the one name that to our ears is like "n*gger" to a black person's ears.

I guess that's too much to ask, if your hostile, bitter response is anything to go by.

I'm not bitter or hostile anymore about it. I hope they change it and be done with it. They won't stop until they do. Heck it is not even a Native American battle anymore.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm not bitter or hostile anymore about it. I hope they change it and be done with it. They won't stop until they do. Heck it is not even a Native American battle anymore.

You said a mouthful there. Your nastiness about our white masters notwithstanding, there's more Wa-Na-Bes than all the other nations put together.

 

[Walter]

Under common law the Redskins have their logo until kingdom come.

 

[tay]

Forward!


I say replace it with a hammer and sickle: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Washington Redskins Trademarks





Forward! - Small Dead Animals

Amanda Blackhorse is a Native American issues advocate and part of the group that filed the suit challenging federal trademarks with the NFL's Washington Redskins name.










www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7QBQiIbl-8

 

[EagleSmack]

You said a mouthful there. Your nastiness about our white masters notwithstanding, there's more Wa-Na-Bes than all the other nations put together.

And they'll feel good about what they did and what they made an NFL football team do. Native Merican what?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Under common law the Redskins have their logo until kingdom come.

Already said that, Walter. Maybe you should read the thread.

 

[Walter]

Already said that, Walter. Maybe you should read the thread.

No one reads long posts.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And they'll feel good about what they did and what they made an NFL football team do. Native Merican what?

I honestly don't understand what all the fuss is about. Never did.

First off, I never did care much about symbols. I don't think they're important. So I don't have any emotional stake in the battle. At the same time, I remember the big flag-burning case in the Supreme Court, and the Muslims getting all het up about Mohammed cartoons, and the Christians getting all cranked about Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Sinead O'Connor tearing up a picture of the Pope on TV.

I sorta vaguely oppose the name. Insofar as I care at all, I prefer disparaging group terms not to be used. And in this particular case, the justifications are complete crap. Even assuming Snyder really does "honour the fighting spirit," using racially loaded terminology doesn't really achieve that. I think most folk would agree that if you admire the courage of the black units of the Ninth Negro Cavalry, or the black units in WWII, you'd still find a different term than "n*gger" to refer to them.

On the other hand, I'm equally perplexed by the fury of the name supporters. I guess it's that symbol thing again. Several sports teams (including the Redskins) have undergone name changes without collapsing. And it's amusing that many of the name supporters are black.

But funniest of all are the people who are wailing gloom and doom about it. I've heard folks express the opinion "Don't Indians have bigger things to worry about?" a sentiment I agree with completely. But the opposite is also true. Don't name supporters have anything more important to do with their time and concern?

It really comes down to, you either believe it's OK to use racial and racist terminology, or you don't.

No one reads long posts.

Well, you certainly don't.

 

[captain morgan]

The tyranny is the Corporatocracy or oligarchy if you prefer. They love it when people form left and right political camps. It distracts them from the truth - there is no democracy. They own you.

... But you don't mind when the corpotocracies provide you with the little things in life like your food, shelter and clothing, right?

...Oh, and have their tax dollars go to the programs that pay you to then buy their stuff.

Wipe all of it and change the name to something that has zero to do with Indians.

Somewhere along the lines certain Native Mericans picked this fight.

So fine. I've evolved. Scrub it and all Native Merican identity from it. Leave no trace.

Scrubbing any native identity(s) from use as a public entity will be the fallout from this. The message here is that only indians can use a term that has any reference (direct or implied) to them because everyone else is racist

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

... But you don't mind when the corpotocracies provide you with the little things in life like your food, shelter and clothing, right?

...Oh, and have their tax dollars go to the programs that pay you to then buy their stuff.




Scrubbing any native identity(s) from use as a public entity will be the fallout from this. The message here is that only indians can use a term that has any reference (direct or implied) to them because everyone else is racist

Why do you care? Even enough to post?

 

[EagleSmack]

It really comes down to, you either believe it's OK to use racial and racist terminology, or you don't.

Why is this OK...


Notre Dame Fighting Irish





And this was not...


N. Dakota Fighting Sioux

 

[Walter]

Why is this OK...


Notre Dame Fighting Irish





And this was not...


N. Dakota Fighting Sioux

Leftard white liberal PC guilt.

 

[captain morgan]

Why do you care? Even enough to post?

I don't other than this is an example of a group that is being so hyper-sensitive that anything will 'offend' them.

Red+skin
White+man
Drama+queen

Why is this OK...


Notre Dame Fighting Irish





And this was not...


N. Dakota Fighting Sioux

You see ES, it's common knowledge that all Irish are drunken louts that love to fight while the name Fighting Sioux paints an entire group as 'fighters'.... See the difference?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Why is this OK...


Notre Dame Fighting Irish

Because to the best of my knowledge, no significant number of Irish or Irish Americans objects to it.

And this was not...


N. Dakota Fighting Sioux

I don't see any problem with this one. But I'm not responsible for what a bunch of white people (the NCAA) do.


And it's irrelevant. You keep missing the point, or perhaps you're just trying to divert it. Neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge most Indians, have a problem with "Indians" or "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Seminoles" or "Utes" or any names like that. But to me and to most Indians that I know, "redskin" is a racial slur.

That's what this is about. You and Captain Morgan keep pushing the slippery-slope fallacy. But that ain't the topic. The topic is one word: Redskins.

I'll ask the same question I asked Cap. Why do you even care? You're not a Redskins fan, are you? And I know from our interaction here you don't give a damn less about Indians generally, our ideas, our history, our problems, or our opinions.

I don't other than this is an example of a group that is being so hyper-sensitive that anything will 'offend' them.

So, I guess I'll ask the same questions of you that I never get an answer to from anybody else, not that I expect anything different:

Do you consider the term "n*gger" acceptable for general use?

Do you dispute that a substantial percentage of Indians consider "redskin" to be a racial slur, and pretty much the nastiest and most insulting of them?

And in all sober seriousness, here's one I'd really like an answer to: who gets to decide if a given term is unacceptable, society at large or the group to which the term refers? I ask because I can see both sides to this argument. On the one hand, American English doesn't belong to Indians, it belongs to all Americans, and shouldn't be ruled by one group that's only about 1% of the population. On the other hand, you could argue that Indians have a particular interest here.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Why so bitter? Do you have a problem with calling black people "black" or "African American" instead of "colored" or "Negro?" Both of those were once perfectly acceptable, even polite terms. "Redskin" isn't, and never was. It is, and has always been, the semantic equivalent of "n*gger."

It's not about "honouring" Indians. All but the most radical of us have no problem with "Indians" or "Braves" or "Chiefs." We just don't like "Redskins" because it has always been a pejorative term.

And all the excuses given are, not to put too fine an edge on it, bullsh*t. "Honouring our fighting spirit" my red a$$. We weren't all warriors. And we aren't frozen in 1890. And we aren't all dead.

I can hear it now. "Well, what about the Vikings?" Vikings were not a people, they were a profession. They were traders when necessary, pirates and raiders when the opportunity arose. The Norse and the Swedes and the Danes and the Normans were Norse and Swedes and Danes and Normans. Only those who went viking were Vikings.

We don't like being stereotyped, any more'n anybody else does. Yet we put up with it. "Indians." "Braves." "Chiefs." All we ask is that you leave out the one name that to our ears is like "n*gger" to a black person's ears.

I guess that's too much to ask, if your hostile, bitter response is anything to go by.

Who is the "We" that you refer to?

 

[EagleSmack]

Because to the best of my knowledge, no significant number of Irish or Irish Americans objects to it.

Ah... Merica

I don't see any problem with this one. But I'm not responsible for what a bunch of white people (the NCAA) do.

White people? It was the Sioux that whined about it. Of course the NCAA quickly caved as our lib institutions do.

 

[captain morgan]

Neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge most Indians, have a problem with "Indians" or "Braves" or "Chiefs" or "Seminoles" or "Utes" or any names like that. But to me and to most Indians that I know, "redskin" is a racial slur.

A group of natives deemed red skin to be a slur... Red skin is a descriptor no different than white skin or black skin.

Maybe they can rename the team Thin Skins to more accurately reflect this particular situation.

Fact is, it is only a function of time before some simpering group takes offense to Braves, Chiefs or whatever else on some trumped-up and imaginery offense like not all natives were Chiefs, or maybe they were not all brave

That's what this is about. You and Captain Morgan keep pushing the slippery-slope fallacy. But that ain't the topic. The topic is one word: Redskins.

See above... It is a slippery slope, particularly based on the notion that this mortal insult of Red Skin is soooo heinous that society was too horrified to do anything about it since 1932.

I'll ask the same question I asked Cap. Why do you even care? You're not a Redskins fan, are you? And I know from our interaction here you don't give a damn less about Indians generally, our ideas, our history, our problems, or our opinions.

I look at Indians no different than Asians, Europeans (or any other race/culture on the planet), gender, etc. On common, everyday issues, I don't actively seek the opinions of any specific group, so why would I do that on Native opinions or ideas.. As far as problems are concerned, welcome to life - everybody has them

As far as ideas, culture, history et al, it's impossible to get past the native politics and the self-identification as perpetual victims... That is a direct function of the actions of the vocal minority (majority?) that have hammered this idea into the minds of the public