"Redskins" trademark registrations likely to be re-instated

[boyst]

I am curious, do the people who find the name Redskins offensive also find the word Negro offensive? ( just in case this is censored, I'm referring to the Spanish word or black that begins with the letter NE and ends Gro).

 

I ask because a lot of silly people do think that is an insult, but it's not. That is the proper scientific term for their race. My black friend born in 1987 has it on his birth certificate naming his race. Yet lots of people who scoff at you if you used te term in public. Yet it's quite simply not a racist nor derogatory term.

 

The same can be said of Redskin.

for what it is worth, !@#$ is filtered here but other derogatory words are not - such as faggot.

 

No, entirely unlike that. The Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation created by proper legislative process. The Redskins decision was an arbitrary bureaucratic rule issued as an ex post facto, extra-judicial punishment for violating popular opinion.

 

The passage of bad laws by proper process is completely different from the creation of good rules by improper process. And guess which is more damaging in the long run? (Hint: you can repeal a law more easily that you can fight an irresponsible bureaucracy.)

pwnd'm

 

 

That document has been altered (amended) 27 times over the past 200+ years since it was written. Hundreds more amendments are proposed by Congress every couple of years.

 

It's sad that the American educational system could fail so dramatically that one could post such a statement as yours. That's what the "national conversation" should be about.

raysis!

[Maury Ballstein]

So i went out with this half Cherokee girl for a couple weeks. I felt odd texting her that I was going to the redskins game.

 

She said we don't care half my family is redskins fans. Works for me.

[metzelaars_lives]

So i went out with this half Cherokee girl for a couple weeks. I felt odd texting her that I was going to the redskins game.

 

She said we don't care half my family is redskins fans. Works for me.

So what if you dated one of the millions of Native Americans in this country who is offended by the term? Would you formulate your opinion on the subject because that's what that one person thought? I dated a girl who watched Real Housewives of Orange County. That does not work for me.

Look, this thread can go 40 pages (it seems to be a bi-annual event at this point) but I can summarize it very easily and we can just end it here and move onto football as other have suggested:

 

Half the people will say, "hey if it offends (some of) them, who cares, just change it."

 

And then the other half of the people will say, "I knew an Indian guy one time down at the bingo hall and he said he wasn't offended so there you have it" and it will eventually devolve into a conversation about how this is another example of the "wussification of America."

 

Choose to get involved at your own risk.

Edited December 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[FireChan]

So what if you dated one of the millions of Native Americans in this country who is offended by the term? Would you formulate your opinion on the subject because that's what that one person thought? I dated a girl who watched Real Housewives of Orange County. That does not work for me.

 

Look, this thread can go 40 pages (it seems to be a bi-annual event at this point) but I can summarize it very easily and we can just end it here and move onto football as other have suggested:

 

Half the people will say, "hey if it offends (some of) them, who cares, just change it."

 

And then the other half of the people will say, "I knew an Indian guy one time down at the bingo hall and he said he wasn't offended so there you have it" and it will eventually devolve into a conversation about how this is another example of the "wussification of America."

 

Choose to get involved at your own risk.

When you say "who cares just change it" who are you telling to change?

[Rocky Landing]

There is no way I'm going to go back to this debate about whether Washington should change its name.

 

But, I will say this:

What strikes me as interesting is that the denial of a trademark doesn't restrict an organization like the Redskins from using their name in any way. It merely doesn't restrict others from using the name, or its associated logos, etc. In other words, the denial of trademark protection is not restricting the organizations free speech, it's restricting their ability to profit from that speech.

 

So... is profit covered by the first amendment? Of course it isn't. There are lots of things we aren't allowed to profit from. But, as I read it, this judge is basing his decision on the belief that the government should not be allowed to judge the merits of intellectual property, or whether or not it is offensive-- that decision should be left up to the consumer, and the court of public opinion.

 

Personally, I find the name to be in extremely poor taste, at best. I find no reason to argue with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) on the subject. They consider it offensive. And, I know of no other organization that is more representative of Native American interests than the NCAI, anecdotal girlfriends notwithstanding.

 

Be that as it may, I agree with this judge's ruling. There is a fine line here. The government does have a right, and a responsibility to protect minorities against discrimination. If the Native American community could show that they had been actively discriminated against, that would be an entirely different argument (one, I suspect they would lose). But, the question here is: Who has the right, or responsibility to decide what is offensive? In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has held that authority. I don't see taking that power away from them as a step in the wrong direction.

I am curious, do the people who find the name Redskins offensive also find the word Negro offensive? ( just in case this is censored, I'm referring to the Spanish word or black that begins with the letter NE and ends Gro).

I ask because a lot of silly people do think that is an insult, but it's not. That is the proper scientific term for their race. My black friend born in 1987 has it on his birth certificate naming his race. Yet lots of people who scoff at you if you used te term in public. Yet it's quite simply not a racist nor derogatory term.

The same can be said of Redskin.

Are there birth certificates with the designation, "redskin" on them? Is "redskin" a "proper scientific term?" Of course not. That would be offensive.

 

I think the better comparative analogy for the term "redskin" would be the term "ni**er." (that is as close as this site will allow me to spell that.)

 

Although, come to think of it, I strongly suspect that a team called, "The Washington Negros" would be considered by most rational adults to be offensive.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Rocky Landing

[Rocky Landing]

No, entirely unlike that. The Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation created by proper legislative process. The Redskins decision was an arbitrary bureaucratic rule issued as an ex post facto, extra-judicial punishment for violating popular opinion.

 

The passage of bad laws by proper process is completely different from the creation of good rules by improper process. And guess which is more damaging in the long run? (Hint: you can repeal a law more easily that you can fight an irresponsible bureaucracy.)

Not sure I agree with that last sentence...

[Maury Ballstein]

So what if you dated one of the millions of Native Americans in this country who is offended by the term? Would you formulate your opinion on the subject because that's what that one person thought? I dated a girl who watched Real Housewives of Orange County. That does not work for me.

Look, this thread can go 40 pages (it seems to be a bi-annual event at this point) but I can summarize it very easily and we can just end it here and move onto football as other have suggested:

 

Half the people will say, "hey if it offends (some of) them, who cares, just change it."

 

And then the other half of the people will say, "I knew an Indian guy one time down at the bingo hall and he said he wasn't offended so there you have it" and it will eventually devolve into a conversation about how this is another example of the "wussification of America."

 

Choose to get involved at your own risk.

I don't care at all. Just being honest. Redskin/non redskin I got bills to pay. Doesn't affect me at all.

[mannc]

So i went out with this half Cherokee girl for a couple weeks. I felt odd texting her that I was going to the redskins game.

 

She said we don't care half my family is redskins fans. Works for me.

Maybe you jumped to conclusions. Did she say whether it was the Cherokee half of her family that were Redskins fans?

[Very wide right]

So i went out with this half Cherokee girl for a couple weeks. I felt odd texting her that I was going to the redskins game.

 

She said we don't care half my family is redskins fans. Works for me.

The most disturbing about this post is the need to start it with the word "SO". People started doing that about 2 years ago and I think others thought it would make them look cool but it really sounds rather stupid.

[mannc]

The most disturbing about this post is the need to start it with the word "SO". People started doing that about 2 years ago and I think others thought it would make them look cool but it really sounds rather stupid.

I have noticed that many people are now unable to begin a spoken sentence without the word "so". I can't explain it. It has just creeped into the language and seems to be here to stay.

[Rocky Landing]

The most disturbing about this post is the need to start it with the word "SO". People started doing that about 2 years ago and I think others thought it would make them look cool but it really sounds rather stupid.

So what?

[Maury Ballstein]

The most disturbing about this post is the need to start it with the word "SO". People started doing that about 2 years ago and I think others thought it would make them look cool but it really sounds rather stupid.

So, cool story. What's the other disturbing part ? Let's hear some good old 2015 outrage.

[vorpma]

Meanwhile, back to football!

[Mr. WEO]

The most disturbing about this post is the need to start it with the word "SO". People started doing that about 2 years ago and I think others thought it would make them look cool but it really sounds rather stupid.

 

You're only off by a few thousand years, but good pickup.

 

"So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

Exodus 15:22"

Edited December 26, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Marv's Neighbor]

So "justice" prevailed BUT you can bet that each Justice will receive at least 1 pair of really good season tickets from Danno. Just the way things are done in DC.

[peterpan]

There is no way I'm going to go back to this debate about whether Washington should change its name.

 

But, I will say this:

What strikes me as interesting is that the denial of a trademark doesn't restrict an organization like the Redskins from using their name in any way. It merely doesn't restrict others from using the name, or its associated logos, etc. In other words, the denial of trademark protection is not restricting the organizations free speech, it's restricting their ability to profit from that speech.

 

So... is profit covered by the first amendment? Of course it isn't. There are lots of things we aren't allowed to profit from. But, as I read it, this judge is basing his decision on the belief that the government should not be allowed to judge the merits of intellectual property, or whether or not it is offensive-- that decision should be left up to the consumer, and the court of public opinion.

 

Personally, I find the name to be in extremely poor taste, at best. I find no reason to argue with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) on the subject. They consider it offensive. And, I know of no other organization that is more representative of Native American interests than the NCAI, anecdotal girlfriends notwithstanding.

 

Be that as it may, I agree with this judge's ruling. There is a fine line here. The government does have a right, and a responsibility to protect minorities against discrimination. If the Native American community could show that they had been actively discriminated against, that would be an entirely different argument (one, I suspect they would lose). But, the question here is: Who has the right, or responsibility to decide what is offensive? In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has held that authority. I don't see taking that power away from them as a step in the wrong direction.

 

Are there birth certificates with the designation, "redskin" on them? Is "redskin" a "proper scientific term?" Of course not. That would be offensive.

 

I think the better comparative analogy for the term "redskin" would be the term "ni**er." (that is as close as this site will allow me to spell that.)

 

Although, come to think of it, I strongly suspect that a team called, "The Washington Negros" would be considered by most rational adults to be offensive.

Well there you go. Negro is not offensive.

 

I'm white and get called white all te time. Black people prefer being called black over African or African American and that is not considered racist either. In both circumstances being labeled by your skin color is perfectly acceptable.

 

And FWIW, my uncle and cousins are Cherokee. They don't care at all about redskins or Blackhawks or Indians or braves or any of those names.

 

You know what they and the peoples at the Ganondagon center near Rochester find more offensive? Being called Indians.

 

Redskin Is simple not a derogatory term, it's just that some people who mainly aren't native Americans feel like other people shouldn't say that word.

[4merper4mer]

You mean like the Patriot Act, that undercut constitution rights under the guise of protection from terrorists? I guess everyone is OK with giving up their rights out of fear but be damned if we're going to give up our right's to be racists.

 

The term "redskin" was used by the white majority as an intentionally pejorative term to describe Native Americans. It therefore was and is deemed by most Native Americans as offensive. The idea that this is so-called PC is merely another attempt to minimize and therefore continue the use of the term by ignorant white Americans who are slowly seeing their power slip away as the county becomes less white and more ethnically diverse.

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

You left out the part where Obama forces nuns to hand out birth control pills. I'm sure you're against that too.

[metzelaars_lives]

I don't care at all. Just being honest. Redskin/non redskin I got bills to pay. Doesn't affect me at all.

That's a fair stance. I don't sit around thinking about it either. I only questioned the process by which you formulated your opinion on the issue.

 

Personally, it doesn't really bother me either. What bothers me are the people who come on here guns-a-blazin', hell bent on not changing the name, telling us a) that Native Americans are not offended because they know one guy who isn't (of course many of them are- enough of them for this to be an issue) or b) they shouldn't be offended because it used to not be an issue. As another pointed out, "negro" used to be an accepted term. Could you imagine if there was a Triple-A baseball team named the Mississippi Negroes? Do you think people would be talking about it being some sort of trademark/first amendment issue? No, they would just change it. The problem is that Native Americans don't really have much of a voice/advocate here. As evidenced by this thread. Last week when we talked about Crohn's Disease, at least ten people WITH CROHN'S DISEASE chimed in. When it comes to this topic, it's always "a guy I know" or a "girl I dated for two weeks who was half..." Believe me when I tell you that in many circles it IS an offensive term. In some, it's not. But it is in enough of them to just change the damn name already.

Edited December 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[metzelaars_lives]

There is no way I'm going to go back to this debate about whether Washington should change its name.

 

But, I will say this:

What strikes me as interesting is that the denial of a trademark doesn't restrict an organization like the Redskins from using their name in any way. It merely doesn't restrict others from using the name, or its associated logos, etc. In other words, the denial of trademark protection is not restricting the organizations free speech, it's restricting their ability to profit from that speech.

 

So... is profit covered by the first amendment? Of course it isn't. There are lots of things we aren't allowed to profit from. But, as I read it, this judge is basing his decision on the belief that the government should not be allowed to judge the merits of intellectual property, or whether or not it is offensive-- that decision should be left up to the consumer, and the court of public opinion.

 

Personally, I find the name to be in extremely poor taste, at best. I find no reason to argue with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) on the subject. They consider it offensive. And, I know of no other organization that is more representative of Native American interests than the NCAI, anecdotal girlfriends notwithstanding.

 

Be that as it may, I agree with this judge's ruling. There is a fine line here. The government does have a right, and a responsibility to protect minorities against discrimination. If the Native American community could show that they had been actively discriminated against, that would be an entirely different argument (one, I suspect they would lose). But, the question here is: Who has the right, or responsibility to decide what is offensive? In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has held that authority. I don't see taking that power away from them as a step in the wrong direction.

Are there birth certificates with the designation, "redskin" on them? Is "redskin" a "proper scientific term?" Of course not. That would be offensive.

 

I think the better comparative analogy for the term "redskin" would be the term "ni**er." (that is as close as this site will allow me to spell that.)

 

Although, come to think of it, I strongly suspect that a team called, "The Washington Negros" would be considered by most rational adults to be offensive.

Great post. The bolded paragraph trumps anything else that anyone could possibly say on this issue and also made me what some refer to as "lol."

Edited December 26, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[DirtDart]

+1 yay supreme court

Good for them -1 for the PC.....victory....