NationStates

Vetalia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:injuns is still derogatory. if they changed to lenape, or any of the tribes from the washington area, they probably could trademark it.

That'd be too easy.

Washington Hunters. Washington Tomahawks. Washington Braves (like before).

Plenty of quite good and non-racist possible alternatives.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

greed and death wrote:You are correct, while Obama does appoint some members of the patent and trade mark office the decision was rendered by Article I judges not appointed by the President, and who cannot be fired without cause.

Holy crap, did you just post something truthful?

Time paradox.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Vetalia wrote:
I think we should reach a compromise, just rename them the Injuns. That's about halfway there and in another 50 years we could change it to Indians.

injuns is still derogatory. if they changed to lenape, or any of the tribes from the washington area, they probably could trademark it.

To the people of Injuns, Nebraska it is not derogatory.

now i can carry out my plan of long standing for the Washington football team: keep the name, change the mascot -- to a redskin potato.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail victory
Spuds on the warpath
Roots for old D.C.

...Fry on, fry on, 'til you are done
Spuds of Wash---ing---ton! Fry! Fry! Fry!

Geilinor wrote:

greed and death wrote:I have read an argument that it is about speech

Sauce?

Professor Volokh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... rademarks/

greed and death wrote:

Geilinor wrote:Sauce?

Professor Volokh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... rademarks/

Ah yes, good old Volokh, Mr. State-funded-anti-asteroid programs are impermissible violations of liberty, and we should just face extinction with a stiff upper lip.

I wouldn't call him an authority on constitutional matters.

Trotskylvania wrote:

greed and death wrote:Professor Volokh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... rademarks/

Ah yes, good old Volokh, Mr. State-funded-anti-asteroid programs are impermissible violations of liberty, and we should just face extinction with a stiff upper lip.

I wouldn't call him an authority on constitutional matters.

Trotskylvania, what was I asked to source ?

This:

I have read an argument that it is about speech

Did I speak to the validity of the argument ? No. I was more surprised anyone asked for a source on that since the existence of an argument is not the sort of factual proof that changes the course of a debate.

Grenartia wrote:2: Move the Patriots to DC, and give New England a new team called the Pilgrims.

New Englanders do not want DC stealing our team.

Sheltopolis wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Hell yeah hell yeah, right on. Change the fucking name already. If you have been told for decades by tons of people, "this is racist, this is insensitive, this is hurtful," and you are still hiding your ass by claiming "no, it's HONORING you!!!" then basically fuck you

Right, except almost all the people claiming "RACIST!!!! RACIST!!!111" are privileged white liberals.

Only because the US has a larger population of white liberals than Native Americans. Per capita, I think Native Americans have done more complaining.

Ethel mermania wrote:if they changed to lenape, or any of the tribes from the washington area, they probably could trademark it.

They could even keep the same logo if they tried that.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

CBS wrote:There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

The term "redskin" is not at all applicable to the terms nigger, chink, wetback, and other racial epithets, which are solely designed to belittle races. They were also created by white men. Redskins was not so; a reputable linguist, Ives Goddard, studied the term to its origins and found that it was first used by Native Americans. They often called each other redskins. Additionally, there are many Native American high schools whose nickname is Redskin (see: Kingston (OK) High School, Wellpinit (WA) High School, some others). These schools wear it with honor, and who is a white person to tell them that it's racist? No historically black school would call their teams the Niggers, no Asian school would call themselves the Chinks or Gooks, because those are terms intently designed for racism.

Ultimately, the decision to change the name rests solely on the opinions of Native Americans and Native Americans only. Until there is a reputable survey showing large support from Natives to change the name (and I have not seen such a poll), it should stay as is.

That's my 2 cents.

Sheltopolis wrote:http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/

CBS wrote:There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans. In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents.

The term "redskin" is not at all applicable to the terms nigger, chink, wetback, and other racial epithets, which are solely designed to belittle races.

Then why did your own source make the comparison between "redskin" and "nigger"?

Ultimately, the decision to change the name rests solely on the opinions of Native Americans and Native Americans only. Until there is a reputable survey showing large support from Natives to change the name (and I have not seen such a poll), it should stay as is.

That's my 2 cents.

The people who filed the suit to get the trademark revoked were Native American.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:Then why did your own source make the comparison between "redskin" and "nigger"?

I just used the source to back up my claims about the poll. The article's still wrong IMO comparing redskin to nigger.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:The people who filed the suit to get the trademark revoked were Native American.

Sure they're are some Natives bitching complaining about the name, but like I said, I won't consider changing my opinions on this until I see a credible poll or other evidence showing that most Native Americans want the name changed.

I grew up 20 miles from the Cornplanter Reservation in the area around Salamanca, NY. State policy was as hostile to the Seneca people as it could be, yet I never heard "Redskin" used as a pejorative. People who didn't like the Haudenosaunee just said "Indians" and spat on the ground as they said it.

Why would any team choose a negative name? Would they not rather want to hold out an image of something desirable? Team names and logos generally suggest manliness, bravery, strength, intensity, and so on.

Pope Joan wrote:I grew up 20 miles from the Cornplanter Reservation in the area around Salamanca, NY. State policy was as hostile to the Seneca people as it could be, yet I never heard "Redskin" used as a pejorative. People who didn't like the Haudenosaunee just said "Indians" and spat on the ground as they said it.

Why would any team choose a negative name? Would they not rather want to hold out an image of something desirable? Team names and logos generally suggest manliness, bravery, strength, intensity, and so on.

Basically, IIRC, the original owner was a racist fuckwad back when that thing was seen as an admirable trait, and all the attempts to change the name since then have been cockblocked by "but muh tradition!"

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You may be thinking a bit too far outside the box. The simplest solution is for them to pick a new name that doesn't disparage or belittle anyone, or otherwise run afoul of federal trademark law. use their previously successful legal defense, and point out that the statute of limitations long since expired on this matter.

Fixed that for ya', based on what the 'skins' lawyer said (posted upthread).

That would involve keeping their obviously racist name, and thus isn't a solution at all.

---

Sheltopolis wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:Then why did your own source make the comparison between "redskin" and "nigger"?

I just used the source to back up my claims about the poll. The article's still wrong IMO comparing redskin to nigger.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:The people who filed the suit to get the trademark revoked were Native American.

Sure they're are some Natives bitching complaining about the name, but like I said, I won't consider changing my opinions on this until I see a credible poll or other evidence showing that most Native Americans want the name changed.

Why not? I mean, if it were 49% of Native Americans who had a problem with the term, does that mean it isn't disparaging or belittling? Do those millions of people just not count?

Redskin is listed in 5 different dictionaries that I've looked in (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Webster's and Collins) as being offensive, taboo, insulting or disparaging. Is there really a need to have a debate over whether or not it's offensive? It seems pretty clear to me...

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Redskin is listed in 5 different dictionaries that I've looked in (Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Dictionary.com, Webster's and Collins) as being offensive, taboo, insulting or disparaging. Is there really a need to have a debate over whether or not it's offensive? It seems pretty clear to me...

But clearly because a lot of people who claim to be Native American despite never living on a reservation and appearing white say it's not offensive, that means that it's totally not offensive at all.

Pope Joan wrote:I grew up 20 miles from the Cornplanter Reservation in the area around Salamanca, NY. State policy was as hostile to the Seneca people as it could be, yet I never heard "Redskin" used as a pejorative. People who didn't like the Haudenosaunee just said "Indians" and spat on the ground as they said it.

Why would any team choose a negative name? Would they not rather want to hold out an image of something desirable? Team names and logos generally suggest manliness, bravery, strength, intensity, and so on.

one would think that but...
ask the vancouver "canuks" that question