Update On Legal Dispute Over "Redskins" Trademark

[FireChan]

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.

I'm just asking if you make the link between "Washington Redskins" and the wars/invasion of the Native Americans. When I think of the Redskins, I don't. I think of RG3 and other football players. The link between the team name, or the team location,to me does not equal "Trail of Tears" to me. You, however, claim otherwise. Which is why I asked. You associated Redskins, with Washington, with genocide. A secondary association perhaps.

 

I don't know how that's a strawman. More like your whole point about how it's shameful because it's in our nation's capital. I don't even make that connection. Similar to when I hear "Apache Tank Killer" I don't think of Native reservations, or General Custer. Your argument is that that connection is clear to everybody, but I doubt that is true for everyone.

Edited July 15, 2015 by FireChan

[metzelaars_lives]

Private property supersedes all.

So you would fully support a major league baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes because the team was privately owned? What if the mascot was a proud negro and not a comical one? Would that make a difference? I guess I would ask you the same question that you asked me earlier- where would you draw the line? Me personally, I draw the line at nicknames for entire races that could be construed and interpreted as offensive to people of that race. Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Rob's House]

Is "Houston Texans" disparaging to Texans?

[metzelaars_lives]

Who Annointed you to speak on behalf of "native Americans?" And why should I respect an emotion based in absurdity? This is not a movement brought about by "native Americans," it's been manufactured, primarily by white people, out of the national obsession with race and targeted, not because it disparages people of American Indian (excuse me, "native American) ancestry, but because it makes reference to skin color. And a relative handful of American Indians have jumped on the bandwagon.

 

So why should I put the frivolous concerns of people trying to capitalize on racial outrage over those of people (including Indians) who like and/or are proud of of the symbolism?

Let's not argue here, OK? I think we can make this work without being abrasive.

 

1. You are incorrect in your assertion that this is some sort of movement manufactured by the white, liberal, elitist PC police out of thin air and like five Native Americans shrugged their shoulders and were like, "OK sure, I could go along with that." Please see the ad that I posted and more importantly, please read what Rocky Landing posted regarding the National Congress of American Indians' official statement on this matter posted right on the previous page of this thread. Thank you.

 

2. You say "capitalize." What does anyone stand to gain by the Redskins changing their name to the Warriors?

 

3. I agree that the Redskins logo is a proud logo and I don't think anyone takes any issue with the "symbolism" of the logo. It is just the name. That's it. Personally, I would think that the ridiculous Cleveland Indians' logo (they've started to phase that out, right?) would be far more offensive than the name "Redskins" but again, I am not a judge here. Only they can be.

 

4. Which leads me to number 4. As I have stated numerous times already, I AM NOT A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NATIVE AMERICANS. That's my whole point. Neither are you. If they say they are offended, we have to defer to them on this one. Neither of us can make that call. I am the anti-spokesperson. You are trying to be a spokesperson. If there was no movement to get rid of this name and no Native Americans took issue with it, I certainly wouldn't give a s**t. So I'm not anointing myself anything. It's literally the complete opposite of that.

Is "Houston Texans" disparaging to Texans?

Dude. That is not apples to apples. Texans are people from Texas. That is why no one takes issue with the name Seminoles (please don't find an article where someone does, I'm sure it exists). Seminoles are Seminoles. That's what they call themselves. "Redskins" is an offensive term. According to them, it is the most offensive term. No Texan has ever taken issue with the term Texan ever. Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

My brother Darryl still hasn't renewed his subscription to Ladies Home Journal. So if anybody wants to see a pretty well-informed discussion of the legal issues involved in deciding whether a disparaging term can be federally registered as a trademark (as opposed to simply used as a trademark without a federal registration), he suggests you take a gander at this:

 

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/07/05/free-speech-or-scandal-the-slants-case-disparaging-trademarks/id=59413/

 

 

 

It would be hard to discuss THE SLANTS case without recognizing the giant elephant in the room – the PTO’s decision in June 2014 to remove the trademark protection of the Washington REDSKINS under §2(a). Blackhorse v. ProFootball, Inc., 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080 (TTAB June 18, 2014). The REDSKINS controversy has generated substantial attention from the press and from individuals and groups ordinarily likely to be anything but interested in the finer points of U.S. trademark registration. The REDKINS case has advanced at least one of the same lines of argument, namely that use of the slur by the football team has actually resulted in the linguistic gentrification of the term. Any determination by the full Federal Circuit in THE SLANTS case could be dispositive for the REDSKINS.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No matter how the full Federal Circuit decides THE SLANTS case in October, formerly denied registrants and hopeful registrants of “disparaging” marks are likely to be watching, but refusing to register an offensive trademark remains constitutional … for now.

 

P.S. No goose was harmed in the posting of this message, and as far as I know, no subset of the waterfowl population was offended by my use of the term "gander."

Edited July 15, 2015 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[FireChan]

So you would fully support a major league baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes because the team was privately owned? What if the mascot was a proud negro and not a comical one? Would that make a difference? I guess I would ask you the same question that you asked me earlier- where would you draw the line? Me personally, I draw the line at nicknames for entire races that could be construed and interpreted as offensive to people of that race.

I'd support the right for anyone to name their team whatever they wanted. I may disagree with what they say but, you know that quote...

 

Also, seeing as the name isn't intended to cause offense, rather to give homage and invoke feelings of strength and pride, I'd hope that some could distinguish that. If the intent isn't to cause offense, why take offense? Isn't that why some races can use racial pejoratives as friendly words? Because you know they aren't insulting you?

Edited July 15, 2015 by FireChan

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Instead of spending so much time worrying about why native americans could be offended by the name, many of you need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are so offended by the prospect of the name being changed. And if you think your offense with the name being changed supersedes the offense taken by native americans at the name still existing, you are an a**hole.

 

Who's judging who, here?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Speaking for myself, I don't really care what the Redskins call their team but I'm mostly offended by self righteous douchebags (who are typically middle or upper class whites living in coastal cities and don't know sh-- about American Indians) going around preaching to everyone about what should be banned or not banned based on the hyper sensitivities of the day.

 

Won the internet.

[Rob's House]

Let's not argue here, OK? I think we can make this work without being abrasive.

 

1. You are incorrect in your assertion that this is some sort of movement manufactured by the white, liberal, elitist PC police out of thin air and like five Native Americans shrugged their shoulders and were like, "OK sure, I could go along with that." Please see the ad that I posted and more importantly, please read what Rocky Landing posted regarding the National Congress of American Indians' official statement on this matter posted right on the previous page of this thread. Thank you.

 

2. You say "capitalize." What does anyone stand to gain by the Redskins changing their name to the Warriors?

 

3. I agree that the Redskins logo is a proud logo and I don't think anyone takes any issue with the "symbolism" of the logo. It is just the name. That's it. Personally, I would think that the ridiculous Cleveland Indians' logo (they've started to phase that out, right?) would be far more offensive than the name "Redskins" but again, I am not a judge here. Only they can be.

 

4. Which leads me to number 4. As I have stated numerous times already, I AM NOT A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NATIVE AMERICANS. That's my whole point. Neither are you. If they say they are offended, we have to defer to them on this one. Neither of us can make that call. I am the anti-spokesperson. You are trying to be a spokesperson. If there was no movement to get rid of this name and no Native Americans took issue with it, I certainly wouldn't give a s**t. So I'm not anointing myself anything. It's literally the complete opposite of that.

Dude. That is not apples to apples. Texans are people from Texas. That is why no one takes issue with the name Seminoles (please don't find an article where someone does, I'm sure it exists). Seminoles are Seminoles. That's what they call themselves. "Redskins" is an offensive term. According to them, it is the most offensive term. No Texan has ever taken issue with the term Texan ever.

The point is that being a team mascot is not a disparagement. No one gives their team a name that they find disparaging. And I've never in my life ever heard anyone use "redskin" as a slur, nor have I ever known of anyone who's ever heard it used as such. 20 years ago no one thought it was disparaging, but now it's a slur? Edited July 15, 2015 by Rob's House

[metzelaars_lives]

Speaking for myself, I don't really care what the Redskins call their team but I'm mostly offended by self righteous douchebags (who are typically middle or upper class whites living in coastal cities and don't know sh-- about American Indians) going around preaching to everyone about what should be banned or not banned based on the hyper sensitivities of the day.

That's funny, you live in Connecticut and I live in Colorado. Your state is literally on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and my state borders Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming and Utah. Nor am I middle upper class- certainly not at the moment. And what makes you think I don't know s**t about Native Americans? I'm not going to give you my Native American knowledge credentials but I happen to have a pretty good understanding as to their history and culture- both through studies and personal experiences. And again, I'm not preaching anything. I'm only asking that we defer to them. If they didn't care, I wouldn't care. After doing some more reading about this last night, I was surprised to see that based on many polls, many of them don't care. But I think enough of them do- most notably the official stance taken by the National Congress of American Indians- that we should consider respecting their wishes. Is that douchey enough for ya?

Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[FireChan]

That's funny, you live in Connecticut and I live in Colorado. Your state is literally on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and my state borders Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming and Utah. Nor am I middle upper class- certainly not at the moment. And what makes you think I don't know s**t about Native Americans? I'm not going to give you my Native American knowledge credentials but I happen to have a pretty good understanding as to their history and culture- both through studies and personal experiences. And again, I'm not preaching anything. I'm only asking that we defer to them. If they didn't care, I wouldn't care. After doing some more reading about this last night, I was surprised to see that based on many polls, many of them don't care. But I think enough of them do- most notably the official stance taken by the National Congress of American Indians- that we should consider respecting their wishes. Is that douchey enough for ya?

Who is we? Do you and I own the Redskins?

[metzelaars_lives]

I'd support the right for anyone to name their team whatever they wanted. I may disagree with what they say but, you know that quote...

 

Also, seeing as the name isn't intended to cause offense, rather to give homage and invoke feelings of strength and pride, I'd hope that some could distinguish that. If the intent isn't to cause offense, why take offense? Isn't that why some races can use racial pejoratives as friendly words? Because you know they aren't insulting you?

I like that this conversation has turned into a civil one, thank you. If you feel this is truly a matter of private ownership/trademarking and you would honestly be OK with a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes, then I respect your stance.

 

I agree 1000% that the name was not intended to cause offense. It was named after their first coach, who was part Native American. That being said, wouldn't you agree that in the 1970's plenty of people referred to blacks as "coloreds" or even "negroes" and they similarly meant no offense whatsoever? You could say, "hey those colored folks sure can play basketball" and no one would find that offensive for one second. If Brent Musberger called a player "colored" this football season he would be fired before halftime. That's just the way it is. The point is that, whether anyone likes it or not, we are living in more PC times and evidently many Native Americans find it offensive now. I think another HUGE point here that no on has mentioned is that Native Americans have been so beaten down as a people throughout the years that they've never really had a voice or an advocate and apparently now they do.

Who is we? Do you and I own the Redskins?

Alright you don't have to nitpick every last word. They, OK? The powers that be. Whoever would forcibly change the name of a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes.

[FireChan]

I like that this conversation has turned into a civil one, thank you. If you feel this is truly a matter of private ownership/trademarking and you would honestly be OK with a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes, then I respect your stance.

 

I agree 1000% that the name was not intended to cause offense. It was named after their first coach, who was part Native American. That being said, wouldn't you agree that in the 1970's plenty of people referred to blacks as "coloreds" or even "negroes" and they similarly meant no offense whatsoever? You could say, "hey those colored folks sure can play basketball" and no one would find that offensive for one second. If Brent Musberger called a player "colored" this football season he would be fired before halftime. That's just the way it is. The point is that, whether anyone likes it or not, we are living in more PC times and evidently many Native Americans find it offensive now. I think another HUGE point here that no on has mentioned is that Native Americans have been so beaten down as a people throughout the years that they've never really had a voice or an advocate and apparently now they do.

Alright you don't have to nitpick every last word. They, OK? The powers that be. Whoever would forcibly change the name of a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes.

Who is that? A bunch of white people in the government that you've spent a couple pages arguing shouldn't take part in either side, and should remain "on the sidelines?"

[KD in CA]

That's funny, you live in Connecticut and I live in Colorado. Your state is literally on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean and my state borders Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming and Utah. Nor am I middle upper class- certainly not at the moment. And what makes you think I don't know s**t about Native Americans? I'm not going to give you my Native American knowledge credentials but I happen to have a pretty good understanding as to their history and culture- both through studies and personal experiences. And again, I'm not preaching anything. I'm only asking that we defer to them. If they didn't care, I wouldn't care. After doing some more reading about this last night, I was surprised to see that based on many polls, many of them don't care. But I think enough of them do- most notably the official stance taken by the National Congress of American Indians- that we should consider respecting their wishes. Is that douchey enough for ya?

 

Of course you were surprised because like most self righteous types you launched into your big crusade before you actually understood the issue or how the supposed offended party even felt. Much like the NCAA did to UND, you just made your assumptions and bullied your way through.

 

And I wasn't just referring to this particular issue. This nonsense is everywhere you look now. And clearly most of the ban this word/ban that flag/ban reruns of old TV shows/ban team mascots/etc. etc. is coming from the self anointed 'progressives' in CA/NY/DC. That's what's douchey enough and then some for me.

[metzelaars_lives]

The point is that being a team mascot is not a disparagement. No one gives their team a name that they find disparaging. And I've never in my life ever heard anyone use "redskin" as a slur, nor have I ever known of anyone who's ever heard it used as such. 20 years ago no one thought it was disparaging, but now it's a slur?

Please read up on the subject. This is a controversial one, no doubt. It is not as black and white as say, the n-word for instance. But there is enough there to warrant a discussion. None of us were around during the 1800's. We no longer have encounters with backwoods Indians as we are trying to settle on the prairie. My guess is that back then it was not used as a term of endearment. But I hope you can see why there is at least controversy surrounding the term "redskin" as opposed to "Texan."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

[Dopey]

Hey did you see the ad I posted a page or two back or Rocky Landing's post on the NCAI's official stance on this subject?

 

Also, would you be OK with a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes? Let's say they have a respectable looking negro as a mascot, a rich tradition and history and were named with the intention of paying homage to the American negro. 1000% serious question.

Alright Dopey.

Am I wrong?

[metzelaars_lives]

Am I wrong?

Not really. I'm talking to two different people there. If one person wants to engage in a serious discussion, I will be friendly with them. I so much prefer that. But then if someone else just comes in like a moron, I'm going to respond that way. Just the way I'm wired.

[FireChan]

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.

 

 

Alright you don't have to nitpick every last word. They, OK? The powers that be. Whoever would forcibly change the name of a baseball team called the Mississippi Negroes.

 

 

Who is that? A bunch of white people in the government that you've spent a couple pages arguing shouldn't take part in either side, and should remain "on the sidelines?"

[metzelaars_lives]

 

FireChan, we've been allies in the past on a subject far more controversial than this one- EJ Manuel. Let's be cool. Number one, you do nitpick little words in my posts and then completely gloss over questions that I ask you. I'm still waiting for you to tell me who stands to capitalize from the Redskins potentially changing their name to, say the Warriors. Number two, if you are trying to expose some sort of contradiction on my part by saying that white people shouldn't weigh in on this subject (which I have maintained- I am only supporting the sentiment of many Native Americans here- if they didn't care, I wouldn't care) but that predominantly white lawmakers would ultimately have to get involved in the changing of the name, come on man, you're smarter than that. Who else is going to get involved? There really isn't a strong contingent of Native Americans in Congress. The National Congress of American Indians doesn't really have the jurisdiction to rule on this one. So of course white (and black) lawmakers will have to be involved in this process and that doesn't go against anything I have said. Edited July 15, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[Kelly the Dog]

Is "Houston Texans" disparaging to Texans?

I think so. It reminds us they're Texans.