OT: US Patent Office cancels "Redskins" trademark regisgtration
- Thread starter Scott O.
- Start date
No offense, Mike, but unless you are a Native American you aren't really in a position to say whether the word "Redskin" is offensive or not. I also don't think just because the words "white", "black", and "red" describe the color of a particular race of people's skin that the use of the word "redskin" is the equivalent of calling someone white or black.
IF public pressure generates a change it's all good. Trying to get it done through the courts is over the top way over the top. They are not a publicly owned company so it is and should be Snyders decision.
My mom was half native American which makes me a 4th. At what point am I worthy of a vote in your eyes? Your statement is a great example of what is killing our country. Some folks have the right to say this or that and some don't. Some folks have a right to be victims and others do not. Some folks have the right to decide "offensive" while others only have the right to be labeled offensive. Used to be a free country where folks just took the good and the bad and survived the best they could. People understood that life isn't always easy and isn't always fair and that sitting around finding ways to be offended about it does not change anything in a positive way.
We became a great, great country by having a society that let people be as little or as much as their dreams and work ethic allowed them to be. Unfortunately, the greatest generation, the generation that saw us through the great depression and WWII, in their efforts to create better lives for their kids and grandkids, accidently turned us into a bunch of idealistic whiners that believe success in life is a right and an entitlement that has nothing to do with self responsibility. Native Americans are a text book example of the mess a government makes when it takes a group of people and sends them a check every month just for being in that group. It doesn't help them, it stifles them. Now, we are teaching them to be offended by stuff they never cared about before so they can be even more isolated and feel even more victimized. The real irony here is that the alleged champions of equal rights are the first to divide folks by race or color, the first to declare who has rights and who doesn't, and the first to demand different treatment based on race, gender, etc. Our country is imploding and political correctness is the detonator.
I was assistant general counsel for a major tribe in the southwest a few years ago. In that capacity, I obviously had a ton of interaction with the Tribe which allowed me to experience a lot of their culture and get to know a lot of great people that are Native Americans. I'm not here saying that I "think" the word is offensive or not. I'm simply saying that there are plenty of Native Americans that DO think it's offensive. That is all that matters. And I get that you say you have Native American heritage, but unless you grew up on a reservation and really assimilated into that culture, then you have about as much to say about how it's offensive or not as I do.
As a practical matter, the litigation won't make any difference, even if this ruling is upheld in court. Registration is not the only way to protect against infringement. Right to a trademark can be established by use (see sixth paragraph).
Court of public opinion, however, might be another story. Can't the NFL make them change the name?
From BloombergBusinessWeek
Court of public opinion, however, might be another story. Can't the NFL make them change the name?
From BloombergBusinessWeek
Shouldn't it be Washington Palefaces?
Disclosure Razorback Dundee approved this message and of entirely of paleface heritage (so I can say pale face lol).
It's my position that I'm conservative and I haven't seen any of them on the bandwagon. Unlike libs, I don't pretend to speak for everybody. Conservatives(not to be confused with republicans) tend to take a "you mind your business and I will mind mine" tact on things which doesn't mesh well with creating victims. Hope that clarifies it for you. BTW, whenever I make a disparaging remark about libs on here, I tend to use you, baber, and mackey as my mental points of reference. Did enlightened come to mean clueless yet arrogant before or after gay quit meaning happy? Might as well ask an expert.
I wonder if the average redneck finds this sort of verbiage offensive. Are you saying that all rednecks are dumb and paranoid? It seems you are just as bad as the people you are trying castigate. I'm not surprised, do you see your hypocracy? I'd guess no because you probably have that innate sense of rightness that most radicals have.
So, because I didn't grow up on a reservation I can't identify as a partial descendant of Native Americans. I can't be proud of my grandmother? I don't think that's your call counselor. So, how long ago did you work with the tribe? Was it a big issue at the time? I'd love to hear more if you don't mind letting us in on the inner workings you were privy to being involved.
The mascot for my elementary school and middle school is the Indians. The mascot for my high school is the Redskins. So I should have more say on this topic than anyone else. And on that note, I won't comment.
That is an extremely interesting statement (coming from the assistant counsel general of the "tribe") .
So if your are Native American you have to be on a "reservation" and if you are not you are not truly a Native American, Is that what you are saying here sir?.
Lol I thought the same thing but wouldn't dare offendOriginally posted by RazorbackDundee:
Shouldn't it be Washington Palefaces?.
Disclosure Razorback Dundee approved this message and of entirely of paleface heritage (so I can say pale face lol).
razorback9455 posted on 6/18/2014...
This has already been overturned once and will likely be overturned again. Until the appeals process is finished, they are still protected.
Offensive or not, there are so many important things to worry about, and the name of a football team isn't one of them.
Absolutely, I've yet to hear anyone say how offensive the Redskins name is except for the PC crowd, and we've got far more issues to worry about than this. The fix is simple for people.., don't support the team.., don't buy anything with their name on it.
This has already been overturned once and will likely be overturned again. Until the appeals process is finished, they are still protected.
Offensive or not, there are so many important things to worry about, and the name of a football team isn't one of them.
Absolutely, I've yet to hear anyone say how offensive the Redskins name is except for the PC crowd, and we've got far more issues to worry about than this. The fix is simple for people.., don't support the team.., don't buy anything with their name on it.
I have read several media reports on all this today and can't find the one I need now. The logo is NOT one of the 6 patents that were declared offensive. Everything I've read (except on this board) referred to the alleged offensiveness of the term. Just wanted to offer this clarification.
This post was edited on 6/18 6:31 PM by TNHOG66
Originally posted by floridahog:
there are some really funny things in this thread but some really @$$ backward stuff. holy moly!
let's just all smoke a doobie & love one another
Ignoramus, This isn't about D.C., it's about private property rights so this is an important issue if you inspire to grow up and own things. Idk how to link but here's an insert:
Practically every statement on the subject from the Washington franchise or NFL proclaims: Nine out of 10 Native Americans support the name! NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently cited this "fact" at his pre-Super Bowl news conference.
This post was edited on 6/18 2:51 PM by minnesotahog
Lol... We're having a net worth off now?
The fact of the matter is that Redskin is offensive... I fish the wind river reservation several times a year and would never dream of calling anybody on the Res a redskin.
On the other hand, I don't care and don't think the regular folks on the res do either, but if tribes want it changed then change it. Red Clouds, same logo, and your done.
It has literally nothing to do with private property rights, trademarks are granted according to the laws governing them, which in this case stipulate denying trademarks for offensive terms. I can't build walls around my property in because of wildlife migration, that is not the same as the government seizing my land.
the article that was linked (thanks)
1. Doesn't say who carried out or how the survey was conducted, so I don't find it credible. If you said Pew or Brookings.., cool, but my standards of evidence are higher.
2. Same article says majority of the large tribes have joined the action referenced in the article, so apparently somebody cares.
Your right that this is a opportunistic play in an overly PC society, but don't act like liberals have a monopoly on being opportunistic vultures drumming up public opinion to suit their various causes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Practically every statement on the subject from the Washington franchise or NFL proclaims: Nine out of 10 Native Americans support the name! NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently cited this "fact" at his pre-Super Bowl news conference.
This post was edited on 6/18 2:51 PM by minnesotahog
Lol... We're having a net worth off now?
The fact of the matter is that Redskin is offensive... I fish the wind river reservation several times a year and would never dream of calling anybody on the Res a redskin.
On the other hand, I don't care and don't think the regular folks on the res do either, but if tribes want it changed then change it. Red Clouds, same logo, and your done.
It has literally nothing to do with private property rights, trademarks are granted according to the laws governing them, which in this case stipulate denying trademarks for offensive terms. I can't build walls around my property in because of wildlife migration, that is not the same as the government seizing my land.
the article that was linked (thanks)
1. Doesn't say who carried out or how the survey was conducted, so I don't find it credible. If you said Pew or Brookings.., cool, but my standards of evidence are higher.
2. Same article says majority of the large tribes have joined the action referenced in the article, so apparently somebody cares.
Your right that this is a opportunistic play in an overly PC society, but don't act like liberals have a monopoly on being opportunistic vultures drumming up public opinion to suit their various causes.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Of all the people on this board you are literally one of the five last posters I would expect to bite on that.
Seriously, I think there is a difference between calling a fellow whitie a redneck and calling a Native American a redskin but I don't really care either way. I'd be happy if they just polled the Native Americans. That wouldn't be that difficult as long as you kept it optional, and there's nothing more American than settling a dispute with a vote.
I also want to note that, this being Arkansas, most of us have Cherokee or Choctaw blood in us. My great-grandmother was a Cherokee, making me 1/8 Cherokee. I am not offended by Redskins. But if actual Native Americans are then it has to go.
Who conducted that poll? Find some factual information and quit with that Fox news bs of throwing shit off the wall to please the rest of the racist white people. Go poll any indian reservation in this country and I guarantee you will not get those numbers. Better yet walk on the rez with a Cleveland Indians hat and conduct your poll and see how well that goes for you.
Wow, Dr. Phil Damone prescribes professional help one day, then the next he fires off a couple of arrogant, from-the-holster judgments that because the mascot is not meant to offend, then it not only shouldn't be considered offensive, but it should be considered an honor. I think it was Bobby Knight who once said if rape is inevitable, might as well lay back and enjoy it. Not nearly the same level of offense, but the notion that a group of people who "Redskins" refers to should consider it an honor is arrogant, ignorant, and insensitive.
The same as calling Caucasians white, or African Americans black? Black is less and less used, and one day will be gone like "coloreds" (neither were meant to offend, but over time, coloreds became a no-no and if you think about it, it was a simplistic/arrogant/mindless way to differentiate any group/race of people, and black doesn't describe one African American that I've ever known -- their skin colors vary in tones of brown more than any other color, and even that is a lazy and thoughtless way to describe someone).
What if you were rich enough to buy an NBA team, and let's say the Wizards had moved to Seattle, and you decided to locate your new team in Washington, D.C., and let's say you wanted to name the team the D.C. Blacks, or Coloreds, honoring the many trailblazing African Americans from the past who were referred to as "Blacks" or "Coloreds" in their day, but who helped fight for equality while bringing that cause to our nation's capital where positive changes were slowly but surely realized in our legislative, executive, and judicial branches?????? Well-intended, not meant to offend, historically accurate and meant to honor. How would that go over? Should all, or most, African Americans not be offended because you didn't mean malice or harm, should they feel honored because that was how it was intended? Most of the African American people I know are not offended when they hear "black man, black woman, black person", but that does not mean they'd be comfortable or accepting of it being incorporated into a team mascot name. Quite the contrary.
And to those who posted other rationales ... Native Americans used the word redskins to differentiate themselves from the white man, so they invented "redskins" thus how could they be offended? When was that, back in the 17th-18th centuries? If Native Americans use it now, it is a cultural thing (possibly slang) and not done out of communicative necessity as it was when it was hatched. We also live in a society where many African Americans refer to each other as niggas -- just part of their culture, right? That doesn't make it okay, and even when it's done for purposes to entertain (music and comedy are two examples) it's usually derogatory and is rarely used as a teaching tool to make us learn and get better. Same thing with Redskins. Even if 90% of Native Americans don't care if the team is called the Redskins (not sure I buy that statistic), that doesn't make it okay. Do you think that 90% will care if the reference goes away altogether, outside of being a footnote in history or a teaching point? Not likely they'll want it back.
There's been too much bad blood in the short history of the U.S. (in the world, for that matter) in regards to race/culture oppression -- early Caucasian settlers and Native Americans, and early Caucasian-American colonists/citizens and African American slaves are the two biggest examples. How far have we really come? While we try to blend, we also still segregate. This is not just about who should and shouldn't be offended, it should be about tearing down stereotypes and turning ignorance into understanding/tolerance so we can all be better people. If we all genuinely mean to recognize each other as equal human beings from birth, we can't keep qualifying people by the color of their skin in the name of defining character and culture. "I met a well-spoken black man today." "White boy can dance." "Redskins were brave, plus its just the name of a sports mascot, so what's the big deal?" All meant to be positive, but all with unnecessary qualifiers that perpetuate stereotypes and reveal/promote ignorance. Will we always be white people, black people, red people, yellow people, etc.? Will we ever be just people?
I agree that American society has become too soft/sensitive in many regards, too knee-jerk on many levels trying to make things sound right (use of words/PC) without really getting to the heart of the problem which is usually tied to the flaws of human nature (fear, hypocrisy, greed for power/wealth, and inability to sympathize and/or empathize are a few that come to mind). But the bottom line is: Representations of race in ways that are offensive, derogatory, or that perpetuate stereotypes -- whether meant to or not -- should be avoided and possibly eliminated. And there will always be some exceptions. Movies and novels depicting historical events dealing with slavery, for example, serve to both entertain and educate, so there may be necessity in using racial slurs or names to those ends. And there are some rap songs and comedy where the usage is not gratuitous, and it is meant to enlighten while entertaining. Even when there is a constructive purpose, it still is a slippery-slope.
Nobody has all the answers, but eliminating Redskins does more good than harm.
This post was edited on 6/19 5:17 AM by Sir Dennis Eeatin-Hog
Same here.If the truth is known, I despise the Washington Redskins as I grew up a Dallas Cowboys fan. Anyway, I don't care about the argument, its fun watching people get worked up over silly hot button issues that nobody but a zealot will give two craps about next week . The irony, would redneck not imply redskin on the neck?
Yeah, like if ABC, NBC, or CNN said it, it must be unbiased and fair. But you don't mention their bias and bs b/c they sing the tune you like to hear. Don't know if you're white or not but you and your ilk are as racist as anybody on here. More than most. You are just less honest about your bigotries, even(especially) to yourselves and each other. I can go into detail on that if you like.
How many indian reservations have you polled? What were your findings? Was it a bs poll or fairly done? If fair, how did you insure fairness? Did you poll all native Americans or just those on the rez? Did they have to be full native American or could they be half or a quarter? How did you decide on that in a fair manner?
How many folks have you seen get their butt whipped for wearing that Cleveland cap on the "rez"? Have you spent much time on the rez or have you just watched enough Longmire to learn the term rez? When were you elected spokesperson for them and who elected you? Why you? If you had to answer "no" or had no answer to any of those questions, you are no less full of it than the guy you just called out. Actually, you are more full of it b/c at least he referenced something beyond his own opinion and didn't pretend to know the feelings of millions of people he hasn't met or polled himself.
LOL you guys get lost in the weeds. Back on topic, per Albert Breer twitter:
Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...
Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.
He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.
The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.
Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.
As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Asked Erik Syverson, a partner and intellectual property attorney at Raines Feldman, to review the Redskins ruling for me yesterday. ...
Syverson said he'd view this as significantly different from the 1999 case, because of the shift in public sentiment, which matters here.
He emphasized that the appellate court never ruled that the evidence brought in 1999 was insufficient to prove "Redskins" is disparaging.
The 1999, rather, was reversed on a laches defense, a doctrine that says if you wait too long to take action, you lose the right.
Change of venue is important here too, per Syverson. Appeal goes to a different court due to realignment under the America Invents Act.
As we know, this isn't over legally. But Syverson says it could be the final straw. Businesses sometimes see these as opp's to change.
Well, CBS used the poll in the link, they are about the polar opposite of Fox. The poll was by the National Annenburg Election Survey, University of Pennsylvania. They are described as a "non partisan, non profit consumer advocate for voters." Yet one should still remember that most Universities are not to be considered conservative although I could believe neutral maybe. It seems you are somewhat mentally handicapped to be unable to find this out yourself and therefore you probably need a cookie.
Dont give me "public sentiment" as viable evidence to overturn freedom of speech. Provide me 5 examples of civil suits won based on the use of the term Redskin outside of the Football teams situation and Ill listen. If this is a term that inspires hatred surely it has been addressed in the courts previously. If not this is nothing but a witch hunt to get headlines. But something tells me you wont be abke to find that. Again were using the term Redskin for the basis of this topic not general native american discrimination.
Oh, I'm giving you public sentiment Boss! LOL! How's the family?
Like I alluded to earlier, I dont really have a dog in this fight. I follow Breer on twitter and he usually has pretty solid takes. Its the first time I've heard a verified attorney weigh in so I thought I'd post.
Like I alluded to earlier, I dont really have a dog in this fight. I follow Breer on twitter and he usually has pretty solid takes. Its the first time I've heard a verified attorney weigh in so I thought I'd post.
I'm offended as well .... and know how some folks feel .... I'm offended by teams like Ole Miss, UNLV and SSHS that use the term Rebels. They use the term but don't have the guts to honor the Confederate soldier. As a member of the SCV I think they should change their names.
PS I'm not so much offended as mortified by the name a certain baseball team in NYC uses .... they even have gall to leave off half the word ....
PS I'm not so much offended as mortified by the name a certain baseball team in NYC uses .... they even have gall to leave off half the word ....
They are good man hope yours are too.
My point is the case is so weak that its built purely on public sentiment and not on factual evidence. I doubt there is a single case of documented discrimination in the past 25 years primairly based on the term Redskin that doesnt involve the football team. Yet here we are with the left media declairing an injustice where there clearly isnt one and no one is truly effected. Otherwise where is the trail of civil suits, bar fights, shootings, etc that draw a line to the excessive use of the term Redskin as derogatory hate speech that inspires those natural reactionary triggers?. I just dont see it. Its phony, a sham. Much like the vast majority of the general media's social platform.
You really got your feelings hurt by me calling you out on your poor reading comprehension on that ridiculously stupid article that "backed up" your opinion. LOL, sorry I disagreed with your constant beating of a dead horse.
It may not seem like it now, but its going to be OK. Time heals all butthurt. You will make it through this.
The Redskins logo/mascot is of a powerful native American chief figure. It has MILLIONS of fans that support and love the imagery that I have little doubt Native Americans are proud to call their heritage.
On the other hand......the link provided is a true case of bigoted imagery. Depicting an entire state of citizens as second rate people with little to no education and deplorable hygiene habits. You tell me which mascot is inspiring and which one is truly built on negative stereotypes
really? I mean.... really?
On the other hand......the link provided is a true case of bigoted imagery. Depicting an entire state of citizens as second rate people with little to no education and deplorable hygiene habits. You tell me which mascot is inspiring and which one is truly built on negative stereotypes
really? I mean.... really?
I am headed out to the casino now to take a poll since its the closest thing we have to a reservation around here. I have my CDIB card to prove I am a fellow tribesman, I will report back later after I finish playing poker, I mean polling. GHG
It is a privately owned company. His choice to adopt whatever marketing he choses for his business is indeed free speech. Its his money but the market will decide his fate right......isnt that the lefts standpoint.....just not when the market doesnt side with the lefts views then they must legislate their views instead of sticking with the whole land of the free bs. That freedom garbage is sooooo overrated.
