Rocky Landing

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

I was listening to the radio on my drive in to work this morning and they were debating this subject. A lot of the same points that I have been reading on here were being made by the two respective pundits. And, I will say this: the argument for not changing the name sounds slightly better when spoken with an English accent. You're welcome.

You're making a spurious assumption that this is setting some sort of precedent. It isn't. Trademarks are denied all the time. For example, a publisher tried to trademark "Hebe Magazine," and was denied on the grounds it was disparaging towards Jews-- even though it was championing Jewish issues. Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal. This is simply the trademark process at work. BTW- Muhammad's Islam Grill, assuming they served pork, would likely be denied a trademark.

No.

I will say this: You have my admiration for somehow pulling Benghazi into this! And, without a shred of satire, no less. Bravo!!!

You don't sound like a sucker. You sound utterly unhinged. But, I will bet you that Dan Snyder doesn't get a single civil lawsuit off the ground related to the USPTO ruling. What would be your time frame?

How about a little wager? Whoever wins the appeal process? I'll take the side of the USPTO decision, you take the Redskins. Whoever wins gets to choose the other's avatar for a month.

The problem that Native American proponents have with the Annenberg survey (other than the obvious fact that it doesn't fit their agenda), is that it was taken from a much broader political survey, and relied on people who self-identified as Native American. A survey taken from people who self-identified as tribal members would certainly garner a different result. At any rate, here is a very interesting link to an interview on the subject with Adam Clymer, the man who actually ran the National Annenberg Election Survey, from which the results were culled: http://indiancountry...nge-name-152737

Really (and, I can't believe I am actually taking the time to respond to you), if anything, the USPTO expanded free speech by removing trademark restrictions from the name "Redskins." Now anybody can use the name for whatever they like-- even Dan Snyder. Don't you feel freer?

Please tell me this is parody.

I'm speechless.

In my opinion, this is the best argument you have made. For the record, I have always maintained that context matters. It is context that makes every false comparison irrelevant. And, context is what makes this another false comparison. The NAACP is well aware that "colored" has evolved into a derogatory term. They also represent the people who would be offended by it. There have been numerous debates, internally within their organization, as well as in the media, about whether they should change the name. These debates are ongoing. I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they did change their name in the near future. But, they certainly aren't ignoring the current connotations of the word, nor are they misrepresenting their history in order to preserve their name. The same cannot be said about the Redskins. Simply ignoring the connotation, and historical perception of a term does not make the term inoffensive. Writing press releases that misrepresent, or even fabricate the team's history regarding the term does not make it inoffensive-- quite the opposite, IMO. But the biggest point regarding context is the one I already mentioned in my previous post. People- lots of people, especially Native Americans as evinced by a very expensive commercial, numerous protests, the NCAI, and various lawsuits- find the term "redskin" offensive. In contrast, almost nobody is offended by the NAACP, especially the people they purport to represent. Again, the USPTO didn't "step into it." They ruled on a legally filed claim, as is their obligation. They aren't "pushing" anything. They are simply doing their jobs.

It's inaccurate to suggest that the USPTO "took action." They ruled on a legal challenge. You can argue their ruling, but they didn't act out of thin air. As far as me not responding to your other false comparisons, again... bizarre. Is there some legal challenge to "News Whore" we should know about? What does this have to do with anything? That is my point about the false comparison argument-- it is utterly irrelevant. Because one of them isn't offensive, and the other one is. Seriously. If the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred Native American Tribes, were to argue, for decades, that the term was offensive, and the foremost linguistic experts on the term were to contend that it is offensive, and Webster's Dictionary were to define it as offensive, I would say that the term has been decided to be offensive.

There is a difference between a false comparison, and a valid comparison, and the difference seems glaringly obvious. The term "redskin," and the term "colored," in modern day usage, are both disparaging. (Although, the term "colored" has only achieved this status recently- within my lifetime- hence the continued use of NAACP.) There are also valid comparisons one could draw between the history of African Americans, and Native Americans in this country. Both were subjugated-- the former through slavery, the latter through genocide. Where the comparison does turn false, however, is when a non-offensive term (like NAACP) is used to justify an offensive one (like "redskin"). Again, I'm not sure why I'm typing this? "The Washington Redskins should keep their name because the NAACP exists, and so does the state of Oklahoma," is not a statement that makes the slightest bit of sense.

Of all the standard arguments against changing the name, the "false comparison argument" strikes me as the most bizarre. It is so spurious, that it is almost difficult to argue-- one finds themselves typing statements that seem so painfully obvious, that you have to scratch your head, and wonder why anyone should have to bother. So, here goes: Comparing the moniker, "redskin," to other terms such as the NAACP, and the State of Oklahoma is not a valid argument against changing the name of the Washington Redskins, because the sky is blue, water is wet, life is short, death is long, and THEY ARE NOT OFFENSIVE TERMS.

I suspect that the bidding process will be favored towards those who can prove a commitment to keeping the team in Buffalo, and that will scare away some investors-- even some who would ultimately prefer to keep the team in Buffalo. The terms of the Non-Relocation Agreement will allow certain local entities, even politicians, who would otherwise not have influence, to exert pressure on potential bidders in this regard. This, combined with the uncertainties of the future stadium, the current state of RW Stadium, and the tepid regional economy will depress the sale price. $950 million.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-redskins-name-only-offensive-if-you-think-a,33449/

I believe that "thoroughly disproven" is an overstatement and misrepresentative of Goddard's work. Certainly, his statements regarding scalps are in dispute, but that represents a small portion of his study, which includes well researched, and documented evidence of his history of the word. Be that as it may, by Goddard's account, regardless of the word's origin, the term had become disparaging by the early 1800s at the latest- predating the naming of the team by over 100 years. It should also be understood that Redskin press releases have often been knowingly misleading regarding the origin of the team's name, as well as the attitudes of George Preston Marshall, and supposed support from Native American communities. In my mind, lying about your own organization's history in an attempt to seize some moral high ground excludes you from that high ground.

Everyone knows our D is good, and from all accounts, improved from last season. So, for this team, I'd feel pretty good if the offense were winning.

Well, clearly that depends on what offends thee: racial slurs, or political correctness?

That's an interesting poll. I just checked it out on the ESPN site. It certainly doesn't change my mind in the slightest, though. I have no desire to jump on that bandwagon.

Oh, Kellyto83TD, you're always good for a laugh!

Conspiracy!!!

Judging from past Washington Skins' press releases on the subject of their name, I wouldn't assume they are definitive.

Care to make a wager on that?