MattFancy Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=27379&zoneid=3 Didn't know this was going on. The team has been named the Redskins for over 70 years now, why are they just starting to complain now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 We win one of these yearly. Never fails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 honestly this is nothing new. they have been protesting this ever since i can remember. they protest the braves chop, the aztecs mascot. pretty much anything they find offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4169336 "WASHINGTON -- The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who argue the football team's trademark is racially offensive.The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main question of racism at the center of the case. Instead, it upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality. The court agreed that the seven Native Americans waited too long to challenge the trademark first issued in 1967. They initially won -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999 -- but they've suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts since then." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majormajor00 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 the north dakota fighting sioux are changing their name this year, which would be considered less offensive than "Redskin". Luckily there are no real American Indian tribes hanging around DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 My wife's firm actually represented the injuns in the 1999 case. I never stop taunting the lawyers involved about the ludicrous nature of their case. They get rather flustered because a part of them believed in what they were doing, but, when faced with simple logic they have a difficult time supporting their initial views. As an example, it's hard to question that word usage defines word meaning. If I'm singing Hail to the Redskins, it's hard to argue I'm really saying screw those Indian bastiges. If I'm saying, "I'm going to kill you, you filthy redskin," it's hard to argue I'm talking about the football team. Word meaning changes over years. Redskins no longer means Indian. It means football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 http://wbal.com/apps/news/templates/story.aspx?articleid=27379&zoneid=3 why are they just starting to complain now? I've been hearing about these complaints since I was a kid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 already posted :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan757 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 These people are ignorant. They are just looking for a fight and some attention. Irish americans are not complaining about the Celtics. British are not complaining about Buccaneers and Cavaliers. They should be honored that they are being reconized as a fierce and powerful symbol of pride. They also need to do thier research. The Redskins does not refer to the natural reddish skin that Native Americans have but rather a specific tribe of Native Americans that would crush berries and paint themselves red as a war ritual. This tribe is Historically located in the region of New England that encompasses Boston. This team adopted the name Redskins while they were located in Boston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnFoRcEr_uPu Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 That's odd, it never showed up for me. I refreshed the page a few times to be sure it hadn't already been posted. Wierd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 My wife's firm actually represented the injuns in the 1999 case. I never stop taunting the lawyers involved about the ludicrous nature of their case. They get rather flustered because a part of them believed in what they were doing, but, when faced with simple logic they have a difficult time supporting their initial views.As an example, it's hard to question that word usage defines word meaning. If I'm singing Hail to the Redskins, it's hard to argue I'm really saying screw those Indian bastiges. If I'm saying, "I'm going to kill you, you filthy redskin," it's hard to argue I'm talking about the football team. Word meaning changes over years. Redskins no longer means Indian. It means football team. Very good point. However, what infuriates me is the fact that so many people don't even know the history of the how the team came to be called "Redskins." If people would actually look at the history behind the name, they would see that the name, logo, etc. all have been presented and pushed forward by Native Americans and for the honor of Native Americans. The funny thing is that there are many people who are not offended at all until some White, Left-wing PC nut comes along and tells them they should be. Then, all of a sudden they are. That is not be offended;that is being a weak-minded puppet to someone else's political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 it still seems like this isn't over as the judges seem to rule on improper process and not the content itself. Either way, I don't think it will win anytime soon either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'm interested in how this new case gets worked out in court. I've got no problems with the Redskins changing their name if it is in fact "racially offensive". The main problem I have though is that I've met many Native Americans who fall on both sides of the issue so that I can't see a clear cut issue here. I did some research on the term itself a few years ago and found that its actual origins weren't intended to be racist, but the term did have many racist uses over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'm interested in how this new case gets worked out in court. I've got no problems with the Redskins changing their name if it is in fact "racially offensive". The main problem I have though is that I've met many Native Americans who fall on both sides of the issue so that I can't see a clear cut issue here. I did some research on the term itself a few years ago and found that its actual origins weren't intended to be racist, but the term did have many racist uses over the years. Hence, it can never be proven to be a FACT that the name is "racially offensive." This is all about some people's opinion, mostly based on ignorance of the name's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I've got no problems with the Redskins changing their name if it is in fact "racially offensive". IMO this cannot be fact only opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Hence, it can never be proven to be a FACT that the name is "racially offensive." This is all about some people's opinion, mostly based on ignorance of the name's history. yeah, but I do wonder how large the groups on each side are. I mean, there are several other terms that were not "originally" intended to be racist, but many take them as racist because of the history of this country. (my mind immediately is drawn to the Obama cartoon with him drawn as a monkey). ....maybe this belongs in tailgate because I can see it turning into a really political discussion and not too much skins related (other than the name itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 IMO this cannot be fact only opinion. In issues like this, if a group with enough power or a loud enough voice gets the mic then it becomes hard to tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuryYourDuke Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I'm interested in how this new case gets worked out in court. I've got no problems with the Redskins changing their name if it is in fact "racially offensive". The main problem I have though is that I've met many Native Americans who fall on both sides of the issue so that I can't see a clear cut issue here. I did some research on the term itself a few years ago and found that its actual origins weren't intended to be racist, but the term did have many racist uses over the years. My question for you would be...if a court finds it to be "racist", does that make it so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatsnack Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 My wife's firm actually represented the injuns in the 1999 case. I never stop taunting the lawyers involved about the ludicrous nature of their case. They get rather flustered because a part of them believed in what they were doing, but, when faced with simple logic they have a difficult time supporting their initial views.As an example, it's hard to question that word usage defines word meaning. If I'm singing Hail to the Redskins, it's hard to argue I'm really saying screw those Indian bastiges. If I'm saying, "I'm going to kill you, you filthy redskin," it's hard to argue I'm talking about the football team. Word meaning changes over years. Redskins no longer means Indian. It means football team. In any case, when did anyone name their team the Washington Big Fat Hairy Losers? Not only has the word's meaning lost its racial context in the last 100 years, the intent was never to defame or stereotype anyone. team names are celebratory and held up as something very positive rather than derogatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuryYourDuke Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 and more importantly, should the federal government be involved in banning names and words it deems racist at all? Especially when it is the name of a privately held entity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 and more importantly, should the federal government be involved in banning names and words it deems racist at all? Especially when it is the name of a privately held entity? It's not about banning. It's about whether the trademark of the name and logo are legal. If they kill the trademark, then anyone can make money off the name and logo and that's why the Redskins are fighting it. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instinct21 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 IMO this cannot be fact only opinion. If I was Native American and the name Redskin was offensive to me, it's considered an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Started to get pissed off at Indians, so Indians are causing my racism, not the Redskin trademark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 the north dakota fighting sioux are changing their name this year, which would be considered less offensive than "Redskin". Luckily there are no real American Indian tribes hanging around DC. Maybe, maybe not: http://chronicle.com/news/article/6476/north-dakota-boards-vote-puts-universitys-fighting-sioux-mascot-on-thinner-ice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dominion Monarch 06 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 This line said it all Raskopf said it's all too late. "The time when the case could have been brought was 1967," he said. "So it's not going to get any easier for anybody to bring the case now." Seriously, just give it a rest. I got that quote from this article about it, which i think was also posted here http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4169336 it's a little more in depth than the article above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.