Update On Legal Dispute Over "Redskins" Trademark

[FireChan]

What if Kansas fired the first shots as the Confederacy did (you had inaccurately stated that they did not)? And what if Kansas was insistent on spreading slavery throughout other regions of the US and even parts of the Caribbean as well? Ya know you have been extremely confrontational and condescending in this thread yet your original argument was that the issue of slavery was not at the root of the Civil War. I was certain it was and after reading up more on it today, slavery was more directly responsible for the War than I even remembered. In fact, it was almost the sole reason for the War- certainly the biggest reason. If you want to argue that Lincoln should have said, "fine, secede from the Union, do whatever you want with your slaves, feel free to spread slavery to the western states as well and oh yeah, that attack on Fort Sumter- we'll just let that slide, retreat and be on our way. Good luck with your new country" and you want to call the Union the aggressors in the War then that's totally up to you. But if you are going to sit here and tell me that the South's desire to preserve and further spread the institution of slavery was not the primary factor in their formation of the Confederacy in the first place, you are simply wrong.

You aren't good at this.

 

your original argument was that the issue of slavery was not at the root of the Civil War.

 

No it wasn't. My argument was that the War was fought to exert the power of the federal government over state governments.

 

If you want to argue that Lincoln should have said, "fine, secede from the Union

 

I don't wish to argue that. Yet, the first reason you state in this hypothetical is "secede from the Union." Why?

 

But if you are going to sit here and tell me that the South's desire to preserve and further spread the institution of slavery was not the primary factor in their formation of the Confederacy in the first place

 

I haven't even come close to saying that.

Edited July 13, 2015 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

 

Very clever.

 

So, should citizenry make all decisions by popular vote?

 

If so, segregation could still be the law of the land.

 

 

Where the hell did that come from? Where did I say anything remotely similar to that? And how is that even related to anything I said or responded to? At all? Even a little a bit?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Rob's House

[metzelaars_lives]

You aren't good at this.

 

your original argument was that the issue of slavery was not at the root of the Civil War.

 

No it wasn't. My argument was that the War was fought to exert the power of the federal government over state governments.

 

If you want to argue that Lincoln should have said, "fine, secede from the Union

 

I don't wish to argue that. Yet, the first reason you state in this hypothetical is "secede from the Union." Why?

 

But if you are going to sit here and tell me that the South's desire to preserve and further spread the institution of slavery was not the primary factor in their formation of the Confederacy in the first place

 

I haven't even come close to saying that.

Damn man, you are good at this. I obviously have a lot of work to do. How can I learn to debate people about the Civil War on football webstes like you?

 

The issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and the War also being a matter of the federal government exerting its power over state governments are anything but mutually exclusive ideas in this case. Of course both those things are true. I said something about the issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and you said that I was "off the mark" as far as what the Civil War was about. It's all right here in this thread for your viewing pleasure. As far as that hypothetical, I was responding to your assertion that the War was a war of Northern aggression and that they were totally unjustified in attacking the South, which they didn't- another fact that you got wrong in this thread and have yet to address. Look, I'm willing to chalk this one up to miscommunication but I don't like your tone one bit.

Edited July 13, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[FireChan]

Damn man, you are good at this. I obviously have a lot of work to do. How can I learn to debate people about the Civil War on football webstes like you?

 

The issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and the War also being a matter of the federal government exerting its power over state governments are anything but mutually exclusive ideas in this case. Of course both those things are true. I said something about the issue of slavery being at the crux of the Civil War and you said that I was "off the mark" as far as what the Civil War was about. It's all right here in this thread for your viewing pleasure. As far as that hypothetical, I was responding to your assertion that the War was a war of Northern aggression and that they were totally unjustified in attacking the South, which they didn't- another fact that you got wrong in this thread and have yet to address. Look, I'm willing to chalk this one up to miscommunication but I don't like your tone one bit.

Fair enough. EJ Manuel does kinda stink. Bring it in.

[metzelaars_lives]

Fair enough. EJ Manuel does kinda stink. Bring it in.

Of course he does. What bothers me more than anything is how people mock other QB's like they're a complete farce but get overly defensive if you say that you think EJ Manuel probably won't develop into a franchise QB. Like Kelly Holcomb for instance. Do I think EJ Manuel could potentially develop into a better QB than Kelly Holcomb? Yes I do. But it's not a given. Their numbers are similarly pedestrian thus far. A team trusted Kelly Holcomb as their starting QB six years into his career. Will EJ Manuel even be in the league in six years? Really looking forward to seeing this thing play out. I hope that the EJ dreamers can give me a big fat 'I told you so' but I just don't see it happening.

 

And that link doesn't tell me if that is what they called themselves or that is a name that the white settlers came up with for them. Much the same way the Lakota were mistakenly called "Sioux" by white settlers. Sioux is actually a Lakota word meaning "enemy." Hell, they're not even freaking Indians.

Edited July 14, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[BUFFALOKIE]

Oklahoma is a Choctaw word that means....

 

wait for it...

 

RED PEOPLE.

 

And our state flag has a bison hide, and eagle feathers (OMG! protected species)...and a pipe. A PIPE PEOPLE! Oh the horror!!!

 

[metzelaars_lives]

Oklahoma is a Choctaw word that means....

 

wait for it...

 

RED PEOPLE.

 

And our state flag has a bison hide, and eagle feathers (OMG! protected species)...and a pipe. A PIPE PEOPLE! Oh the horror!!!

 

Why do the white people on this website keep telling everyone how either a) the term "Redskins" doesn't offend them or b) they met a Native American guy once and it didn't offend him. Clearly it has offended enough of them for it become an issue. And yes it is true that in the 1950's it was a non-issue and all of a sudden it is now. Ralph Kramden used to tell his wife that one of these days he was gonna punch her in the face so hard that she was going to go flying to the moon. We live in more PC times. That would not be acceptable today. If it offends even a small percentage of the Native American population that is enough for me to defer to them and not try and tell them what should and should not offend them. They have been through enough for Christ's sake- especially in Oklahoma! Have you ever spent time on a rez?

[FireChan]

Why do the white people on this website keep telling everyone how either a) the term "Redskins" doesn't offend them or b) they met a Native American guy once and it didn't offend him. Clearly it has offended enough of them for it become an issue. And yes it is true that in the 1950's it was a non-issue and all of a sudden it is now. Ralph Kramden used to tell his wife that one of these days he was gonna punch her in the face so hard that she was going to go flying to the moon. We live in more PC times. That would not be acceptable today. If it offends even a small percentage of the Native American population that is enough for me to defer to them and not try and tell them what should and should not offend them. They have been through enough for Christ's sake- especially in Oklahoma! Have you ever spent time on a rez?

Because small percentages of people could be offended by anything. What is your cutoff?

[BUFFALOKIE]

Why do the white people on this website keep telling everyone how either a) the term "Redskins" doesn't offend them or b) they met a Native American guy once and it didn't offend him. Clearly it has offended enough of them for it become an issue. And yes it is true that in the 1950's it was a non-issue and all of a sudden it is now. Ralph Kramden used to tell his wife that one of these days he was gonna punch her in the face so hard that she was going to go flying to the moon. We live in more PC times. That would not be acceptable today. If it offends even a small percentage of the Native American population that is enough for me to defer to them and not try and tell them what should and should not offend them. They have been through enough for Christ's sake- especially in Oklahoma! Have you ever spent time on a rez?

 

I am offended by your invocation of the Holy Son to this argument! Have you ever spent time in church?

 

I have not told anyone what should or should not offend them. I only offered my personal experience and opinion.I've never lived on a reservation, but my ex-wife was born on one. I also do not patronize the casinos, but I do buy my cigs at the smoke shops.

 

 

Kidding aside, you are absolutely right about one thing. The Native Americans have been through enough. Too much. I actually agree with nearly everything you said. I was simply illustrating ANOTHER example of this beautiful and honorable race of people describing THEMSELVES with the English words in question.

 

Are English words (Redskins) more impactful, or hurtful than Choctaw words (Oklahoma, i.e. Red People)? They are just words.

[keepthefaith]

Just in case you haven't seen this.

 

Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.

 

Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

 

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

 

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

 

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

 

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

 

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

 

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

 

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

 

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves..

 

As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California . Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???)

 

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the “Foreskins” to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.

[metzelaars_lives]

I am offended by your invocation of the Holy Son to this argument! Have you ever spent time in church?

 

I have not told anyone what should or should not offend them. I only offered my personal experience and opinion.I've never lived on a reservation, but my ex-wife was born on one. I also do not patronize the casinos, but I do buy my cigs at the smoke shops.

 

 

Kidding aside, you are absolutely right about one thing. The Native Americans have been through enough. Too much. I actually agree with nearly everything you said. I was simply illustrating ANOTHER example of this beautiful and honorable race of people describing THEMSELVES with the English words in question.

 

Are English words (Redskins) more impactful, or hurtful than Choctaw words (Oklahoma, i.e. Red People)? They are just words.

Thanks for not arguing. I much prefer having civil conversations on here, even though I realize I myself often times come off as argumentative. So thank you.

 

The one thing I would ask is whether the Choctaw themselves began using the word "Oklahoma" or if that was a name given to them by white settlers who learned some of the language. For instance, my understanding is that we mistakenly began calling the Lakota Indians "Sioux" even though the word Sioux actually means "enemy" in the Lakota language.

Because small percentages of people could be offended by anything. What is your cutoff?

It is more than a small percentage in this case. When a race of people is offended by a depiction of their race- particularly a race whose genocide served as the foundation for the expansion of this very country and one that was lied to, pissed on, left for dead and to this day lives largely in squalor as a direct result of our doing- I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Look I never really thought that the word "Redskins" seemed that offensive to me. But that is not the point here. The point is whether it offends them. What is INCREDIBLY offensive to me is when other white people weigh in on this subject and assert their opinion as if it matters whatsoever. The Native Americans who this does offend took out this ad with their own money (guessing it cost quite a bit being that it was a full two minute spot) and aired it during the NBA Finals last year. Instead of arguing with me, you should be arguing with the people behind this commercial and telling them they shouldn't be offended. We should both be on the sidelines.

 

Just in case you haven't seen this.

 

Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.

 

Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

 

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

 

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

 

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

 

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

 

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

 

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

 

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

 

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves..

 

As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California . Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???)

 

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the “Foreskins” to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.

This is so dumb and juvenile. Edited July 14, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

This is so dumb and juvenile.

 

Is that in your esteemed opinion or what?

[Rubes]

Just in case you haven't seen this.

 

Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.

 

Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

 

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

 

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

 

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

 

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

 

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

 

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

 

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

 

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves..

 

As a die hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers (especially when they play Southern California . Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers???)

 

I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the “Foreskins” to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.

 

Aside from completely missing the point and rehashing all of the tired, off-the-mark arguments, it's not a bad letter.

[FireChan]

It is more than a small percentage in this case. When a race of people is offended by a depiction of their race- particularly a race whose genocide served as the foundation for the expansion of this very country and one that was lied to, pissed on, left for dead and to this day lives largely in squalor as a direct result of our doing- I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Look I never really thought that the word "Redskins" seemed that offensive to me. But that is not the point here. The point is whether it offends them. What is INCREDIBLY offensive to me is when other white people weigh in on this subject and assert their opinion as if it matters whatsoever. The Native Americans who this does offend took out this ad with their own money (guessing it cost quite a bit being that it was a full two minute spot) and aired it during the NBA Finals last year. Instead of arguing with me, you should be arguing with the people behind this commercial and telling them they shouldn't be offended. We should both be on the sidelines.

 

This is so dumb and juvenile.

It is more than a small percentage in this case.

 

It is? I was addressing this post.

Why do the white people on this website keep telling everyone how either a) the term "Redskins" doesn't offend them or b) they met a Native American guy once and it didn't offend him. Clearly it has offended enough of them for it become an issue. And yes it is true that in the 1950's it was a non-issue and all of a sudden it is now. Ralph Kramden used to tell his wife that one of these days he was gonna punch her in the face so hard that she was going to go flying to the moon. We live in more PC times. That would not be acceptable today. If it offends even a small percentage of the Native American population that is enough for me to defer to them and not try and tell them what should and should not offend them. They have been through enough for Christ's sake- especially in Oklahoma! Have you ever spent time on a rez?

 

Explain to me the cut off for who can speak for an entire race of people? Do my parents have to be full blooded Cherokee? Can I be 1/8th Native American and say it's not offensive to anybody? What if it is my great-great-great-grandma who was a Native? Are you gonna tell me my opinion doesn't count? What about the Natives who aren't offended? Do their opinions negate the ones who are, or do they count as abstaining? Why? Who determines if taking offense is justified? Obviously, you find it offensive for other races to submit opinons. Is that racist? "You're white, your opinion doesn't matter." Sounds a little racist. Maybe Natives aren't allowed to weigh in on how to solve white-collar crime, a predominantly white problem. How do they know what it's like, right? And finally, to the TV spot, how much money from "whites" helped fund that? Do you even bother considering that?

 

These are the questions no one can answer.

Edited July 14, 2015 by FireChan

[Rocky Landing]

For anybody still arguing whether or not the term “redskin” is offensive to Native Americans, I suggest you visit the website of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), by far the largest, oldest, and most representative Native American organization, representing over 500 tribes, for the answer. (Hint: they do find it offensive.)

 

From the State of Indian Nations address by NCAI president Brian Cladoosby in Washington DC, January, 2015, (http://www.ncai.org/resources/testimony/2015-state-of-indian-nations):

“Let me be very clear: the single-most offensive name that you can call an American Indian is “Redskin.”

But, personally, for me, a white guy of entirely European heritage, it isn’t a question of the name being offensive. It’s a question of it being an embarrassment. That an NFL team that makes its home in the nation’s capitol is named a perforative term for the native population that our European forbears, and our government, systematically drove out of their lands, marginalized, and slaughtered is a national embarrassment. To me, that seems so blatantly, mind-numbingly obvious, that I marvel that it needs to be argued.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Rocky Landing

[FireChan]

For anybody still arguing whether or not the term “redskin” is offensive to Native Americans, I suggest you visit the website of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), by far the largest, oldest, and most representative Native American organization, representing over 500 tribes, for the answer. (Hint: they do find it offensive.)

 

From the State of Indian Nations address by NCAI president Brian Cladoosby in Washington DC, January, 2015, (http://www.ncai.org/resources/testimony/2015-state-of-indian-nations):

“Let me be very clear: the single-most offensive name that you can call an American Indian is “Redskin.”

But, personally, for me, a white guy of entirely European heritage, it isn’t a question of the name being offensive. It’s a question of it being an embarrassment. That an NFL team that makes its home in the nation’s capitol is named a perforative term for the native population that our European forbears, and our government, systematically drove out of their lands, marginalized, and slaughtered is a national embarrassment. To me, that seems so blatantly, mind-numbingly obvious, that I marvel that it needs to be argued.

Is there anyone who associates the Redskisn with the US government? I mean, it's a private business. Just because something exists in DC doesn't make it a reflection of our goverment.

[Rocky Landing]

Is there anyone who associates the Redskisn with the US government? I mean, it's a private business. Just because something exists in DC doesn't make it a reflection of our goverment.

Did I say there was? The Washington Redskins are associated with Washington, just as the Buffalo Bills are associated with Buffalo.

[Rob's House]

Why do the white people on this website keep telling everyone how either a) the term "Redskins" doesn't offend them or b) they met a Native American guy once and it didn't offend him. Clearly it has offended enough of them for it become an issue. And yes it is true that in the 1950's it was a non-issue and all of a sudden it is now. Ralph Kramden used to tell his wife that one of these days he was gonna punch her in the face so hard that she was going to go flying to the moon. We live in more PC times. That would not be acceptable today. If it offends even a small percentage of the Native American population that is enough for me to defer to them and not try and tell them what should and should not offend them. They have been through enough for Christ's sake- especially in Oklahoma! Have you ever spent time on a rez?

My father in law is from the "rez" and he doesn't give a !@#$. I want to know why white people are so offended, or why the world has to stop in its axis every time a relative handful of people decide to feel offended by something.

 

I also want to know when anyone's ever heard someone use the term "redskin" as a slur. Ever.

[FireChan]

Did I say there was? The Washington Redskins are associated with Washington, just as the Buffalo Bills are associated with Buffalo.

Yes. You associated the team with the US government.

 

 

For anybody still arguing whether or not the term “redskin” is offensive to Native Americans, I suggest you visit the website of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), by far the largest, oldest, and most representative Native American organization, representing over 500 tribes, for the answer. (Hint: they do find it offensive.)

 

From the State of Indian Nations address by NCAI president Brian Cladoosby in Washington DC, January, 2015, (http://www.ncai.org/resources/testimony/2015-state-of-indian-nations):

“Let me be very clear: the single-most offensive name that you can call an American Indian is “Redskin.”

But, personally, for me, a white guy of entirely European heritage, it isn’t a question of the name being offensive. It’s a question of it being an embarrassment. That an NFL team that makes its home in the nation’s capitol is named a perforative term for the native population that our European forbears, and our government, systematically drove out of their lands, marginalized, and slaughtered is a national embarrassment. To me, that seems so blatantly, mind-numbingly obvious, that I marvel that it needs to be argued.

RIght here.

[Rocky Landing]

Yes. You associated the team with the US government.

 

 

RIght here.

Straw man argument.

 

I associated the nation's capital with the US government, and the team with the nation's capital, which should be obvious. Please don't pretend that I was implying that the team represents the government. It's insulting to both our intelligence.

 

Dan Snyder should, of his own free will, change the name of the team because it would be the right thing to do. That's my opinion, and I believe it to be rational, and well thought out. I haven't heard a single compelling argument to the contrary-- not one-- that is based on that simple opinion. The arguments I keep hearing are either based on points that are irrelevant to that opinion, or based on easily debunked, fake stats, many of which were propagated by Dan Snyder. No one is suggesting, for example, that anyone has "a right not to be offended."

 

As I'm sure you remember, there was another thread on this topic, and you and I got into it. That whole thread was exhausting, and I don't feel like getting back into it. I'm not going to answer to any more straw man arguments, anecdotal stories, BS polls, or Dan Snyder press releases. There's no question that whether or not the name should be changed is a matter of opinion. But, please, argue the opinions that people are espousing.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Rocky Landing