US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[DC Tom]

I'm assuming you're just joking with this. The Reds were shorten from Red Stockings, the Thrashers were named after the Georgia state bird, and the Yankees were originally the Highlanders but it got changed because some Irish people didn't like it. (Too Scottish). http://www.baseball-...hp/t-64650.html

 

Only the last.

 

But EII specifically said "What other team uses an official slur as defined by the standard dictionary?" He provided an objective measure. I used that objective measure. Both "Yankees" and "Reds" are listed in the Oxford Dictionary as "derogatory."

 

That's fact, not opinion. You want to argue with it, argue with EII for providing the objective measure.

[FireChan]

 

 

Radio callers are a self-selecting sample, hence not a valid statistical measure of anything.

 

I don't believe I said anything about "valid statistical measure," only C.Biscuit's assumption that it can't have been a diverse group.

 

 

 

Do you really not believe the vast majority of sports radio callers aren't white men? And I'm 33 but I guess I just grew up differently than some. I grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood. My parents raised me to respect everyone. Just because a certain word isn't meant to offend me, I shouldn't use it if it offends someone else.

 

What would be the worst thing to happen to this world if people stopping using slurs or other offensive words?

 

Respect everyone but old white men?

 

You're too young. By 50, I can disregard what you say, right?

Edited June 19, 2014 by FireChan

[Rocky Landing]

Using the same logic the USPTO applied in the Redskins case, the NAACP and United Negro College Fund should be forced to give up their trademarks as well.

 

And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw...

 

Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO.

 

Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail.

 

And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch.

 

And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go.

 

The Redskins should be renamed the USPTO is not the appropriate place to try to legislate them into changing.

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.

[FireChan]

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.

 

"Go call a black guy colored, and see how he responds"

 

/yourargument.

[Rocky Landing]

"Go call a black guy colored, and see how he responds"

 

/yourargument.

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.

[Malazan]

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.

 

You're right, it's not an argument against changing the name. It's an argument against the USPTO taking action. I notice you conveniently leave out the other examples. I guess 'News Whores' is ok with you.

Edited June 19, 2014 by jeremy2020

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Who decides what is and is not an offensive term?

 

The USPTO?

[FireChan]

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.

 

Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?

[Greg F]

Pointing out that this myth of "redskins" referring to native scalps is, in fact, complete nonsense does not defend the term "redskins." Quite the contrary - it's a request to use actual facts, and not salacious nonsense, to make your point.

 

Exactly correct DC Tom. It is interesting how off the deep end some people will go when facts that don't coincide with their world view is brought to their attention. Here is a survey the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania did:

 

Most American Indians say that calling Washington’s professional football team the “Redskins” does not bother them, the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows. Ninety percent of Indians took that position, while 9 percent said they found the name “offensive.” One percent had no answer. The margin of sampling error for those findings was plus or minus two percentage points.Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”

[Green Lightning]

 

The complaint that the USPTO made a ruling on was brought by politicians?

 

Having worked in and out of politics most of my life, if you don't think politicians are behind the Patent Office's efforts then I vote you to be our new ambassador to Narnia.

 

And by the way your attack on the old white guys is patently offensive, racist and ageist. Just sayin'.

[Campy]

Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?

 

Context.

 

Who decides what is and is not an offensive term?

 

The USPTO?

 

The offended party decides what they're offended by.

[Hplarrm]

 

 

"Go call a black guy colored, and see how he responds"

 

/yourargument.

 

Yet, refer to him as a person of color and it is doubtful this would be problematic.

 

Well, what does this tell you?

 

Simply that while a first truth (or a principle or an ideology is at last presented as immutable, words clearly are not.

 

It simply means one thing to refer to a guy being gay in the year 2000 than it meant in 1934 (Fred Astaire made a movie with that title which was racy for the time as this divorcee was lighthearted but had nothing to do with depictions of homosexuality).

 

The false comparison here is that some folks seem to be operating as though words are not immutable.

 

Given the dark history of treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the dominant USA culture, a business should not be surprised if easily within the lifetime of a person, a word that they chose even as an immutable tribute to a group in society has changed so that now it has a significant view as derogatory.

 

Insisting on the continued use of that came ACTUALLY BE a proud tradition AND an insult at the same time.

 

Asan owner if you view the major rationale and mission for your business is to promote a tradition then by all means keep the name.

 

If on the other hand the rationale and mission is to make big bucks by presenting an entertainment product then changing the name can easily be a good move to make.

[Rocky Landing]

You're right, it's not an argument against changing the name. It's an argument against the USPTO taking action. I notice you conveniently leave out the other examples. I guess 'News Whores' is ok with you.

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.

 

Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?

Because one of them isn't offensive, and the other one is. Seriously.

 

Who decides what is and is not an offensive term?

 

The USPTO?

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.

[Hplarrm]

 

 

Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?

 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is an offensive name to various folks such as racists, members of the KKK or other idiots.

 

Society in general or in this particular case large public institutions have decided to care what normal folk think and ignore the desires of racist idiots.

 

The Redskins are not there yet, but society as demonstrated by a letter from 50 Senators, and this recent judgment by the patent office are moving toward throwing the Skins name on the discard pile.

 

Just like the NAACP issue not really being decided by ALL folks not agreeing (there will always be a hardcore of racists pissed off by the name) there will always be a group of people who legitimately feel the name was chosen to honor Native Americans and is fine.

 

However, my GUESS is that a critical mass of the 31 business partners of Snyder will judge that they would rather spend their time and effort talking about and presenting football rather than spend time arguing over semantics.

[Beerball]

Why is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People not offensive, but Washington Redskins is?

What people has stood together and complained about the fact that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is offensive to them?

 

Your arguments make zero sense.

[FireChan]

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.

 

So the word "colored" isn't offensive? Got it.

 

What people has stood together and complained about the fact that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is offensive to them?

 

Your arguments make zero sense.

 

That's because you jumped in halfway. That, and some argue context matters, or context doesn't matter, or context matters when I say so.

 

 

Context.

 

[/size]

 

The offended party decides what they're offended by.

 

Washington "Redskins" is contextually not used to cause offense. The word Redskins by itself is derogatory. In the context of the team name, it isn't. Colored is derogatory. In the NAACP, it's contextually not used to cause offense. In the context of the organization name, it isn't derogatory.

[What a Tuel]

Context.

 

[/size]

 

The offended party decides what they're offended by.

 

Being offended is not good enough. Being offended does not give a person more rights than the average person.

 

Especially when the offended party cannot provide a shred of evidence that the offending party intends to offend, or sets circumstances that would detract from the well being of a particular people. And they in fact do the opposite.

[Beerball]

So the word "colored" isn't offensive? Got it.

 

 

 

That's because you jumped in halfway. That, and some argue context matters, or context doesn't matter, or context matters when I say so.

Trust me, I have unfortunately read this entire thread. You have made no sense whatsoever, in my opinion. You also didn't make an iota of sense, again, in my opinion in the other threads on this topic.

 

Stop trying to show everyone how smart you are and ask yourself this simple question..."What is the right thing to do in this situation?" Stop your spurious arguments that do nothing, in my opinion, but muddy the waters and answer that simple question. If you are arguing for arguments sake then I'd say that this topic isn't the place for it. If you really believe that it is right that Redskins remains the nickname of the Washington NFL team then I question your character, your moral fiber.

 

What is right?

 

Being offended is not good enough. Being offended does not give a person more rights than the average person.

 

Especially when the offended party cannot provide a shred of evidence that the offending party intends to offend, or sets circumstances that would detract from the well being of a particular people. And they in fact do the opposite.

What is right?

[Malazan]

Trust me, I have unfortunately read this entire thread. You have made no sense whatsoever, in my opinion. You also didn't make an iota of sense, again, in my opinion in the other threads on this topic.

 

Stop trying to show everyone how smart you are and ask yourself this simple question..."What is the right thing to do in this situation?" Stop your spurious arguments that do nothing, in my opinion, but muddy the waters and answer that simple question. If you are arguing for arguments sake then I'd say that this topic isn't the place for it. If you really believe that it is right that Redskins remains the nickname of the Washington NFL team then I question your character, your moral fiber.

 

What is right?

 

 

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

[Rocky Landing]

So the word "colored" isn't offensive? Got it.

 

 

 

That's because you jumped in halfway. That, and some argue context matters, or context doesn't matter, or context matters when I say so.

 

 

 

Washington "Redskins" is contextually not used to cause offense. The word Redskins by itself is derogatory. In the context of the team name, it isn't. Colored is derogatory. In the NAACP, it's contextually not used to cause offense. In the context of the organization name, it isn't derogatory.

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.

 

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

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.