US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[Big Turk]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

Everyone is offended by everything these days...gotta be all that estrogen

[DC Tom]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

Flip that on its head: what number of offended can we ignore? One? Two? Four?

[Rocky Landing]

Flip that on its head: what number of offended can we ignore? One? Two? Four?

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

[26CornerBlitz]

6/18 Oneida Indiian Spokesman Joel Barkin talks Redskins Name with John Murphy <11:05>

[millbank]

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

what is does take for you people, the name is going to go and rightly so, it only a matter of time... so many of you pretend to take the high ground on other minority rights , you are flat out ridiculous and shameful

Edited June 19, 2014 by millbank

[DC Tom]

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

Except THAT'S NOT WHERE THE TERM CAME FROM. The Phips Proclamation is irrefutable, but "red skin" does not refer to the scalps collected therewith. That's a modern invention, because scalps are "bloody" hence "red skin," and people are too damn stupid to spend the ten minutes it takes blasting a hole in this ridiculous story.

[Greg F]

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

Then Baxter Holmes is an ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't see my post on the previous page.

 

And for those interested Goddard's published paper is here (PDF).

 

Unlike a ignorant Boston Celtics beat writer for The Boston Globe, Goddard is an Indian language scholar at the Smithsonian Institution. A small quote from Goddard's paper:

 

 

The earliest examples of redskin to be found so far are emblematic of the process of its adoption in English. In 1769 three chiefs of the Piankashaws, a Miami-speaking people then living on the lower Wabash River, sent to Lt. Col. John Wilkins four talks, written out for them in French, which were forwarded to London with translations and explanations in August of that year. Wilkins, the British commander in Illinois, had his headquarters at Fort Cavendish (the former Fort de Chartres), about 18 miles above Kaskaskia on the east bank of the Mississippi. He had the task of eliciting loyalty or at least peaceful behavior from the Illinois tribes, who were still strongly attached to the French four years after their surrender and departure, a disposition that had led to the assassination of the Ottawa war chief Pontiac by Peorias further upriver in Cahokia some months earlier (Kelsey 1979; Chevrette 1974). The “Old Sachem” Mosquito (French Maringouin) ended his first talk with an invitation:

 

“je serai flatté que tu Vienne parler toimeme pour avoir pitie De nos femmes et De nos enfans, et si quelques peaux Rouges te font Du mal je Scaurai soutenir tes Interests au peril De ma Vie” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 133).

 

This was translated as:

 

“I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 137–138).

 

The more “severe” speech of the war chief and village chief called Hannanas (evidently a French nickname Ananas ‘Pineapple’) included these words:

 

“aparament que tu crois que je ne serai pas capable De rien Lorsque tu me privera de poudre et De balles, tu dois scavoir que je scais me servir de Bois pour faire mes armes et que avec ce meme bois ye tue Des hommes, … “… tu Crois que je suis Orphelin, mes tous les Gens De ces rivieres et tout les peaux rouges apprenderont ma mort” (Johnson 1921– 1965, 7: 135).

 

This was translated as:

 

“Apparently you think that I shall not be capable of anything when you deprive me of powder and ball. You must know that I know how to use wood to make my weapons and that with this same wood I kill men .… “… You think that I am an orphan; but all the people of these rivers and all the redskins will learn of my death” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 139).

 

I know this may come as a surprise to those who get their history lessons from sports writers that the first documented use of the term "redskins" comes from native Americans. In fact Goddard opens up the paper by dispelling the scalp myth:

 

One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments” to accept that many find the word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Don't post here in this part of TBD if you don't want to

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

what is does take for you people, the name is going to go and rightly so, it only a matter of time... so many of you pretend to take the high ground on other minority rights , you are flat out ridiculous and shameful

 

So, tell me this... what of the institutional genocide of tribal-tribal warfare? There are so many offended people out there who have NO IDEA how grisly warfare could be with no white men involved whatsoever, who simply parrot the same line of historical revisionists as if white men invented genocide and scalping.

 

Do you know what happened BEFORE this Proclamation? Of course not, because someone cut out a bit to suit an agenda. Big surprise...

[ExiledInIllinois]

"This is the second time the federal trademark board had issued an opinion on the case. A similar ruling from 1999 was overturned on a technicality in 2003."

 

Anybody catch this? It has obviously been on people's radar as offensive.

 

All Native Americans weren't even granted US citizenship until 1924. The Washington team formed 8 years later. The original owner must have had a concerned heart for Natives, that he wanted to honor and "mainstream" them into society. I wonder what his take was on the 1924 ruling was?

Edited June 19, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[Pondslider]

Everyone is offended by everything these days...gotta be all that estrogen

 

Change the name to the "Dumb !@#$ing White Guys" and make this the logo:

 

 

Everybody wins.

[Greg F]

All Native Americans weren't even granted US citizenship until 1924. The Washington team formed 8 years later.

 

The registered trademark in question was issued in 1967.

[millbank]

there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed

[ExiledInIllinois]

there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed

 

Exactly Mill. You reduced it to as simple as it gets and people still don't understand. They never will.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The last appeal took 4 years to conclude, so 4 more years of Redskins... 4 more years of whining about the "disparaging" name....

 

America is turning very soft.... congratuations. Pretty soon, the government will tell you what you can eat, can drink, etc for X reason or someone got offended.

 

Glad I'm older so I don't have to spend more time in THAT America.

Andy Rooney! LET'S GIVE IM A HAND EVERYBODY!

[poo]

Public opinion isn't a legal argument.

A silly thing to say in a country built on democratic participation. Prohibition, social security, trail of tears, legalized human bondage, both anti and pro-abortion laws: all these things were considered ridiculously pointless or outright evil before the majority of people wanted them. Public opinion is absolutely a basis for legal argument as public opinion shapes the law. The same outcry that takes away the Redskins name will bring marijuana to your nearest store. Hooray, court of public opinion! Hooray, America!

[ALF]

Just not worth the high profile controversy. They will start losing sponsors if this keeps up.

[Roger Goodell]

The Washington Redskins name has from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. The name is a unifying force for the team's fans that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.

[Beerball]

Don't post here in this part of TBD if you don't want to

Let me know when it became your job to tell people where/what to post.

 

So, tell me this... what of the institutional genocide of tribal-tribal warfare? There are so many offended people out there who have NO IDEA how grisly warfare could be with no white men involved whatsoever, who simply parrot the same line of historical revisionists as if white men invented genocide and scalping.

 

Do you know what happened BEFORE this Proclamation? Of course not, because someone cut out a bit to suit an agenda. Big surprise...

If you want to highlight man's inhumanity to man please don't begin or end here. Fill up the page with examples and don't stop until your fingers are bloody nubs.

 

 

All of which is beside the point. What is "right" here? Don't spout political correctness bull either. Tell me what is right. If you can honestly say that continuing with a name that truly offends a segment of the population is the right thing to do then I'm sorry to say that I have no use for you. Leave the Fighting Irish, Yankee etc. nicknames out of the equation until you can find me a people who are really and truly offended by their name. Leave the "this is all about the $$$" BS out of your reply. Reduce this to its lowest level please.

 

What is right?

[eme123]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

There should never be a percentage that tips the scale. If 1% of native americans feel that they are being humiliated by the term Redskin then they need to get out in front of the issue and be the face.

 

Harry Reid is the wrong front man for your argument. Ray Harbriter, billionaire casino owner, is the wrong front man for your argument. This whole thing screams of a back room government power grab. Put the NFL on thin ice and gain negotiating power on dozens of other issues with $$ involved.

 

To me the real tragedy is that if there is real anger and embarrassment over the name then the small percentage of native american are too late to be taken seriously. The rational public knows when something smells like bull from the beginning and it never comes out of their nostrils.

[machine gun kelly]

FWIW - this topic is being discussed on NFL Radio this morning on Ross Tucker's two shows. The overwhelming majority seem to take the side of not changing the name. Mostly, politically motivated, etc.

 

 

Not my opinion, but if you want to chime in, call into the show.