NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Let's not forget that this thread is about a television ad, placed in prime-time during the NBA finals, by the National Congress of American Indians, which represents several hundred tribes throughout the United States including Alaska. This isn't some internet campaign, it is a very well-conceived, and expensive national spot, easily hitting seven figures, produced by Native Americans. Nor does it "slander/demonize/discredit the Redskins Organization" in any way. Intent is not everything in this case, because intent does not erase history. you see quickly the argument twisted into, you have to look at the intent of daniel snyder and assume the best, while looking at the intent of those unhappy with the name and assuming the worst. generally speaking im guessing most of the people that dont particularly want to see the name changed are well intentioned.... but man, the arguments from a lot of the highly vocal ones are rough around the edges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 The final shot, one could argue, does indeed attempt to demonize the Redskin organization for their continued use of the name. Hmm. I suppose the argument could be made. But, I would disagree. To me, a single shot of their helmut on the playing field illustrates the issue without any other context. It doesn't say anything about intent, history, attitude, or anything else. It doesn't mention, or allude to any individual, or individual action. How else can a commercial protest Washington's use of the name without somehow alluding to the team? And, how could that element be inserted into the commercial in any less of a confrontational way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 you see quickly the argument twisted into, you have to look at the intent of daniel snyder and assume the best, while looking at the intent of those unhappy with the name and assuming the worst. generally speaking im guessing most of the people that dont particularly want to see the name changed are well intentioned.... but man, the arguments from a lot of the highly vocal ones are rough around the edges. IMO the edges on this argument are smooth as ice in favor of keeping the name. Naming your football team the Redskins is 100% legal. Its a free persons decision to keep the name. Its a free persons decision to patronize a team with the name. Its a pretty clear cut edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 IMO the edges on this argument are smooth as ice in favor of keeping the name. Naming your football team the Redskins is 100% legal. Its a free persons decision to keep the name. Its a free persons decision to patronize a team with the name. Its a pretty clear cut edge. I don't believe that anybody has argued its legality-- only its decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 IMO the edges on this argument are smooth as ice in favor of keeping the name. Naming your football team the Redskins is 100% legal. Its a free persons decision to keep the name. Its a free persons decision to patronize a team with the name. Its a pretty clear cut edge. I don't believe that anybody has argued its legality-- only its decency. We'll see what the USPTO has to say very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I don't believe that anybody has argued its legality-- only its decency. We'll see what the USPTO has to say very soon. Massaging the 1st amendment over the name of a football team is a slippery slope. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is marching towards Baghdad. I guess my priorities must be mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Massaging the 1st amendment over the name of a football team is a slippery slope. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is marching towards Baghdad. I guess my priorities must be mixed up. Nothing new about trademarks being subject to decency standards. The suit was brought decades before with the football team prevailing on a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 IMO the edges on this argument are smooth as ice in favor of keeping the name. Naming your football team the Redskins is 100% legal. Its a free persons decision to keep the name. Its a free persons decision to patronize a team with the name. Its a pretty clear cut edge. as rocky said, the legal standing is what it is - when you start arguing that they should be forced to change it you end up out in those rough edged arguments too a lot of times. when you start arguing the morality of whether they SHOULD keep it instead of if they CAN keep it - a lot of the "they should keep it because....." trails off into weird double standards and hypocrisy. thats not saying all the arguments on the otherside are clean and well constructed either. ive seen some well crafted arguments on both sides but the ones that seem to resonate best, in my opinion, are the "They can keep it, but its probably kind of a jerk move." such is life though - there are tons of examples of similar situations where people choose to do something that others disagree with or dislike. they all play out inidividually, and we will see what this one does. both sides seem to have dug in their heels on it (hence its lasted decades) and each side has the right to do so - and are exercising those rights. it seems to be shifting lately though, and i wont be surprised if within the next few years snyder caves. the pressure is steadily growing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 as rocky said, the legal standing is what it is - when you start arguing that they should be forced to change it you end up out in those rough edged arguments too a lot of times. when you start arguing the morality of whether they SHOULD keep it instead of if they CAN keep it - a lot of the "they should keep it because....." trails off into weird double standards and hypocrisy. thats not saying all the arguments on the otherside are clean and well constructed either. ive seen some well crafted arguments on both sides but the ones that seem to resonate best, in my opinion, are the "They can keep it, but its probably kind of a jerk move." such is life though - there are tons of examples of similar situations where people choose to do something that others disagree with or dislike. they all play out inidividually, and we will see what this one does. both sides seem to have dug in their heels on it (hence its lasted decades) and each side has the right to do so - and are exercising those rights. it seems to be shifting lately though, and i wont be surprised if within the next few years snyder caves. the pressure is steadily growing. Good post. For me, a lot of things like this come down to, "of course you have the right to be an a-hole, but why do you WANT to be an a-hole? Why choose to be?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 IMO the edges on this argument are smooth as ice in favor of keeping the name. Naming your football team the Redskins is 100% legal. Its a free persons decision to keep the name. Its a free persons decision to patronize a team with the name. Its a pretty clear cut edge. There are no smooth edges on this argument. Something may be legal under the law; however, it doesn't mean it is not morally objectionable or just plain wrong. If the standard for whether or not something is "right" is whether or not it is "legal," then legal standards would never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 ive seen some well crafted arguments on both sides but the ones that seem to resonate best, in my opinion, are the "They can keep it, but its probably kind of a jerk move." such is life though - there are tons There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light. it might - the problem is, im guessing most of the folks that are really dug in and spending huge dollars advertising arent doing so because they are unaware of its origins. it may help sway the undecided in the middle and take some pressure off, but i dont think that it will have huge global changes to the perception of the word. it may even come across as condescending to tell the group protesting, a group that hes not a part of, that they should like it. Realistically you'd need a more organic support from an existing/established tribal group that loves the name to avoid "rich white tells Indians what they should like" Edited June 12, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light. This would be an outstanding move on Snyders part. There seems to be two histories of the name being told. One that it is racist. One that it is a sign of respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Hmm. I suppose the argument could be made. But, I would disagree. To me, a single shot of their helmut on the playing field illustrates the issue without any other context. It doesn't say anything about intent, history, attitude, or anything else. It doesn't mention, or allude to any individual, or individual action. How else can a commercial protest Washington's use of the name without somehow alluding to the team? And, how could that element be inserted into the commercial in any less of a confrontational way? Just for the record I do not make that argument, I was just pointing out it could be made. As for your questions I suppose, and I am no marketing expert by any means but, they could just make a statement sans the helmet requesting "others look inward an not use words that are derogatory" and perhaps list several names they find offensive. Of course one of which would be Redskin thus not directly associating their message with the Team but in a general sense be "respectful of us". Edited June 12, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Nothing new about trademarks being subject to decency standards. The suit was brought decades before with the football team prevailing on a technicality. Technicality? Sounds vague Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Technicality? Sounds vague No vaguery at all. The original ruling was that the complainants waited too long to file a lawsuit. The case was not decided on the merits of the argument or complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 There is of course a different avenue to explore for Snyder. I suppose that besides just giving to native american causes, if he truly believes the name is not derogatory, he could run an educational campaign to explain its history and build up the name as positive. I read here, so forgive me if it is not true, that the name was a sign of respect in its original meaning, if true, a great educational campaign may promote native americans and associate the name in a positive light. I think this would be quite a stretch for Snyder. The name, most likely, was originally a term of respect, but became derogatory in the early 1800s. It has since been associated with scalping, and genocide. In 1933, when the name was changed, the connotation for mainstream America was that of the "Hollywood" indian, typically portrayed as violent, uncivilized, and most often "bad guys." This was well before Native Americans had any sort of unified voice. And, the story that G.P Marshal changed the name to "honor" their coach, has been debunked. So, for Snyder to try to "educate" Native Americans on their own heritage, and the history of what is, without a doubt, a racial slur would surely backfire. I think that the question has really been more about whether the supporters of the name are either aware of its history, or willing to acknowledge it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I think this would be quite a stretch for Snyder. The name, most likely, was originally a term of respect, but became derogatory in the early 1800s. It has since been associated with scalping, and genocide. In 1933, when the name was changed, the connotation for mainstream America was that of the "Hollywood" indian, typically portrayed as violent, uncivilized, and most often "bad guys." This was well before Native Americans had any sort of unified voice. And, the story that G.P Marshal changed the name to "honor" their coach, has been debunked. So, for Snyder to try to "educate" Native Americans on their own heritage, and the history of what is, without a doubt, a racial slur would surely backfire. I think that the question has really been more about whether the supporters of the name are either aware of its history, or willing to acknowledge it. I really do not think stereotypes created by Hollywood should dictate anyone's notion of anything. Nearly any villain in modern film has a British accent, as lampooned in the Jaguar commercial. I don't think anyone believes people for the Isle of Britannia are inherently evil. Nor do I think anyone now believes Native Americans behaved as they were suggested to have by Westerns from a by gone era. That said, I do believe it would be a huge endeavor and certainly has the potential to backfire. However; while educating Native Americans would occur, I was actually suggesting that he educate everyone else. Even marketing and branding push that would portray the name is a better than favorable light and a more general connotation(outside that of the team) . This is,of course, only if he makes the decision to keep the name, which I am not suggesting he do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 I really do not think stereotypes created by Hollywood should dictate anyone's notion of anything. Nearly any villain in modern film has a British accent, as lampooned in the Jaguar commercial. I don't think anyone believes people for the Isle of Britannia are inherently evil. Nor do I think anyone now believes Native Americans behaved as they were suggested to have by Westerns from a by gone era. That said, I do believe it would be a huge endeavor and certainly has the potential to backfire. However; while educating Native Americans would occur, I was actually suggesting that he educate everyone else. Even marketing and branding push that would portray the name is a better than favorable light and a more general connotation(outside that of the team) . This is,of course, only if he makes the decision to keep the name, which I am not suggesting he do. I brought up the Hollywood stereotype because that was the connotation the name had when the team was named, in 1933. I think it's an important historical context to this discussion, because so many have pointed to the team name's origin as if it had been done out of respect. In 1933, Native Americans had no national voice, and were viewed largely as that negative stereotype, as evidenced by the overwhelming depiction in media from that time as uncivilized, savage, and violent. The only way Snyder could educate people to the favorability of the name would be for him to rewrite history (which, sadly, some people seem more than willing to do). I think this does a disservice to all parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) I brought up the Hollywood stereotype because that was the connotation the name had when the team was named, in 1933. I think it's an important historical context to this discussion, because so many have pointed to the team name's origin as if it had been done out of respect. In 1933, Native Americans had no national voice, and were viewed largely as that negative stereotype, as evidenced by the overwhelming depiction in media from that time as uncivilized, savage, and violent. The only way Snyder could educate people to the favorability of the name would be for him to rewrite history (which, sadly, some people seem more than willing to do). I think this does a disservice to all parties involved. I am not sure if that is correct, one could tell a story that the name was usurped by individuals in the past but its original meaning and the meaning they wish it to signify now is one of respect and dignity. This way the past is not rewritten as much as it is admonished for its behavior, acknowledged and corrected. True it would take a marketing and story writing genius but I believe, if done correctly(this being the real issue), it could be done. The questions then are 1.) is it worth that for the sake of the name? And 2.) Will those who are offended now be able to accept the name? Edited June 12, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts