nonniey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 From the Federalist .........I think everyone should be terrified by the new ruling by the US Patent Office cancelling the team’s trademark. The ruling was based on a dubious argument that “redskins” is a slur against Native Americans. Well, then maybe we’d better rename the state of Oklahoma, which drew its name from Choctaw words that mean “red people.” Or maybe we should petition the US Army to decommission the attack helicopter it named after a people it defeated in 1886. Then again, forget I mentioned it. I don’t want to give anyone ideas. This name-bullying has become a kind of sport for self-aggrandizing political activists, because if you can force everyone to change the name of something—a sports team, a city, an entire race of people—it demonstrates your power. This is true even if it makes no sense and especially if it makes no sense. How much more powerful are you if you can force people to change a name for no reason other than because they’re afraid you will vilify them? Given the equivocal history of the term “redskins” and the differing opinions—among Native Americans as well as everyone else—over whether it is offensive, this was a subjective judgment. (One observer suggests a list of other sports names that could just as plausibly be considered offensive.) When an issue is subjective, it would be wise for the government not to take a stand and let private persuasion and market pressure sort it out. Ah, but there’s the rub, isn’t it? This ruling happened precisely because the campaign against the Redskins has failed in the court of public opinion. The issue has become the hobby horse of a small group of lefty commentators and politicians in DC, while regular Washingtonians, the people who make up the team’s base of fans and customers, are largely indifferent. So the left resorted to one of its favorite fallbacks. If the people can’t be persuaded, use the bureaucracy—in this case, two political appointees on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. That’s what is disturbing about this ruling. Our system of government depends on the impartial administration of the laws by the executive. In this case, executive officials declared that a private company doesn’t deserve the protection of the law: if the ruling survives an appeal in the courts, the federal government will stop prosecuting violations of the team’s intellectual property rights, potentially costing it millions of dollars. This ruling isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a slope we’ve already slid down: bureaucrats in Washington are now empowered to make subjective decrees about what is offensive and what will be tolerated, based on pressure from a small clique of Washington insiders. Anyone who runs afoul of these decrees, anyone branded as regressive and politically incorrect, is declared outside the protection of the federal government. That this is happening, and that we have no idea where it will stop, is what should terrify us—even if, like me, you don’t particularly care one way or the other about the Washington Redskins." http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/19/why-the-redskins-trademark-ruling-should-terrify-you/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinpride1 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Yesterday ..I was thinking that maybe it was time for a name change. I think that I was just growing tired of all the negative from the media and just tired of it all...I mean warriors couldn't be that bad.. I know that we all take pride in redskins and never thought of it as racist .Even growing up in the eighty's I never remember anyone saying the name was just bad in school or out in public. I have decided that.. I'm staying Redskin ..WHY??? Because I just figured out.. What the word "Oklahoma" means and that being RED PEOPLE!!!! . We have a state that means the same as Redskins!!! That proves even more to me that Historical that its not derogatory term like the media claims!! The red nation as I've read is a term native americans also use to show pride. How can a team be under attack when you got a state that is named after it!!! I bet that majority of the public outside of people around Oklahoma are clueless to this and once again I say.. America keep listening to the liberal retards in this country and there twisted half ass ways ..They are going to destroy this country and I'm sick of it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 well, i don't think it's going to ruin the country and i don't think it's a sign of tyranny or government over-reach. I think that constant alarm needs to have it's circuit breaker turned off. and i stand by my idea from before,, if we have to change, i vote the Washington Burgundy and Gold. I think there's pride in that.. no matter what we become, we've always been that already. We aren't "warriors".. never have been. We aren't "Braves",, we're not in Boston... or Atlanta. But we've always been the Burgundy and Gold.. when Doc Walker says it, it sounds as reverent as it should be. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Would you call a room full of caucasians "Hey whites!" Would you call a room full of women "Hey women!" Would you call a room full of Mexicans "Hey Mexicans!"? No. It's ****ing weird. And none of those terms are "offensive" Stupid argument. For the 1000000th time. Agreed!!! No one does this. It would be very weird. Piggy backing on LKB's comments I've said black, white, Mexican to friends of mine that are those things. Never in an insulting way and usually because I have a question relating to that aspect if them. Also Muslim, Christian, Catholic, etc. I would not refer to a Native American friend as "redskin" however. That would be weird. You make no sense.... -For one, he asked if you would say that to a room full of people. If you would really walk into a room and refer to a group of black people by saying "hey you blacks", then that is extremely weird. -Next time you might try.... Hey guys. /or/ Hi ladies. /or/ Hello ladies and gentlemen. /or/ In a smaller group setting calling them by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Why would any team, ANY TEAM, name themselves something that they intended to use with negative intentions? Have you ever known a team that isn't proud of its name? At team that names themselves a name as a joke? As a way to harass their fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You make no sense.... -For one, he asked if you would say that to a room full of people. If you would really walk into a room and refer to a group of black people by saying "hey you blacks", then that is extremely weird. -Next time you might try.... Hey guys. /or/ Hi ladies. /or/ Hello ladies and gentlemen. /or/ In a smaller group setting calling them by name. Is the only reasonable context walking into a room full of strangers and shouting something referencing their race/gender/religion? That's always a bad way to approach people. My point was that those words aren't unthinkable in a different setting and I can't say the same for redskin.And next time I have to address a random room full of strangers I'll channel Bernie Mac and loudly announce "I ain't scared of you mother****ers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Also, what about the Browns? How do they seemingly get away Scott free in all of this? Want to know a disparaging term that I HAVE heard used towards a group of people lately? It's brown. On a scale of one to KKK, I'd imagine browns would be pretty high up there. Wouldn't name a team the Blacks? Probably shouldn't have one named the Browns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So I was at a sporting goods store today, and while I was checking out one of the guys at the counter saw my lanyard. So, making small talk, he asked me what I thought about the recent ruling. So we talked about it for a minute or 2, and while he's checking me out there's another guy looking at guns. And I look over and see one of the guns in the case: So I pointed this out to the guy I was talking to, and he just stared for a couple of seconds before he started laughing. I guess this name isn't big enough to draw criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Is the only reasonable context walking into a room full of strangers and shouting something referencing their race/gender/religion? That's always a bad way to approach people. My point was that those words aren't unthinkable in a different setting and I can't say the same for redskin. And next time I have to address a random room full of strangers I'll channel Bernie Mac and loudly announce "I ain't scared of you mother****ers." There is no way you are walking up to a Hispanic and saying " what's up, Mexican ? ", or "columbian" or any racial descriptor. It's a ridiculous argument. You know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Is the only reasonable context walking into a room full of strangers and shouting something referencing their race/gender/religion? That's always a bad way to approach people. My point was that those words aren't unthinkable in a different setting and I can't say the same for redskin. And next time I have to address a random room full of strangers I'll channel Bernie Mac and loudly announce "I ain't scared of you mother****ers." If there are any fellow native american extremeskins friends browsing right now, could you help out with a question? -According to DESTINO it is acceptable to strike a conversation with a person by referring to them by there skin color. For example if a white guy is standing near by, saying hey white guy. According to what he has been saying, this is acceptable for every color of skin with the exception to native american skin color, which is not okay. (Native american skin color can be many different shades of tans or browns, but there skin color is definitely not red mind you. Again the name redskin was derived from red war paint.) -So here is the question..... A man sees three people in front of him. The first is a black man, the second is a white man, and the third in a native american. The man states "Hey white guy, black guy, and redskin guy". Does any of you have directions to the nearest gas station. In this situation according to DESTINO, the white and black guy are fine being referred to as a color, but the native american should be offended. Is that the case??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 There is no way you are walking up to a Hispanic and saying " what's up, Mexican ? ", or "columbian" or any racial descriptor. It's a ridiculous argument. You know this. I'm Hispanic myself and we are far less sensitive about these things so in response to your specific question, I'd have to go with "I wouldn't do so in English". I get your point however and if you read my last two posts you'll see that I'm in agreement with you. I wouldn't fire off a racial or religious description at a stranger. My point was that I've said black, Muslim, etc to friends of mine, identifying them as such, and haven't lost a minute of sleep over it. I didn't say these things as an insult but I have said things like "You're *insert race/nationality/religion*, what do you think about blah blah something something?" Can you imagine sitting down with a Native American you know and calling that person a redskin? I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 A man sees three people in front of him. The first is a black man, the second is a white man, and the third in a native american. The man states "Hey white guy, black guy, and redskin guy". Does any of you have directions to the nearest gas station. In this situation according to DESTINO, the white and black guy are fine being referred to as a color, but the native american should be offended. Is that the case???You missed this: "friends of mine"- DESTINO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You missed this: "friends of mine" - DESTINO Would you call a room full of caucasians "Hey whites!" Would you call a room full of women "Hey women!" Would you call a room full of Mexicans "Hey Mexicans!"? No. It's ****ing weird. And none of those terms are "offensive" Stupid argument. For the 1000000th time. This conversation started why you quoted RIGGO#44's post. You said those would be acceptable, and redskins would not. As far as the "friends thing" goes. A true friend is not gonna care what you call them, so that throws that argument right out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 This conversation started why you quoted RIGGO#44's post. You said those would be acceptable, and redskins would not. As far as the "friends thing" goes. A true friend is not gonna care what you call them, so that throws that argument right out the door. You have to be trolling at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You have to be trolling at this point. Obviously you hate being on the losing end of an argument. Usually that's when name calling starts to come out. LOL, "trolling", give me a break. #HTTR!!! #KeepTheName!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think anyone wants it changed. I see this in groups: Fans that love the team but acknowledge the word is sketchy and should probably be changed. Fans that love the team, love the name but are just sick of this controversy and want to move on. Fans that love the team, love the name, and are willing to sacrifice the name but keep the colors/logo Fans that love the team, love the name, and haven't given this thing a lot of thought or are still in the denial stage. I don't fit in any one of those groups, I am in the Fans that love the team, love the name and feel this effort to force change is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. “The Great Spirit made my skin red, and he made us to live as we do now; and I believe that when the Great Spirit placed us on this earth he consulted our happiness. We love our country— Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins2victory Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't fit in any one of those groups, I am in the Fans that love the team, love the name and feel this effort to force change is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. “The Great Spirit made my skin red, and he made us to live as we do now; and I believe that when the Great Spirit placed us on this earth he consulted our happiness. We love our country— Very well said.... That's the group I would fit into as well. HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/19/watch-washington-redskins-trademark-attorney-talks-to-glenn-about-latest-ruling/ “They can’t be canceled and will not be canceled while this proceeding continues,” he continued. “So I hope the Redskins fans aren’t worrying about whether the marks are still registered because they clearly are and will continue to be.” One of the reasons Redskins brass has refused to contemplate a name change is because of the history the moniker holds. Glenn asked Raskopf to explain the tradition. ADVERTISEMENT “[The franchise] was using Boston Braves, but that conflicted with the Boston Braves baseball team, so the name got changed to another laudatory term for Native Americans. That was the story. Then we built on that for years and years ago and years. We built brand recognition, and we turned it into one of the most valuable names in all of sports. Washington Redskins, by any measure is one of the most valuable trademarks in all of sports,” Raskopf said. “So we have done a lot with it in a positive way… Just look at the record in this case, look at what the witnesses have said, and you will find your record that’s completely at odds with what is being advertised.” While Raskopf appreciates the groundswell of grassroots support the Redskins have received in the face of this controversy, he believes the franchise will prevail regardless because the evidence is simply not there. “We have unbelievable support, but we keep the support close to us. It’s hard to be critical, I think, of the decision at this time in history… so I don’t want to put anybody in a difficult position. We have a lot of support at the grassroots level, in my mind,” he explained. “And not only do we have it in my mind, but where is the support in the record in this case that they have the burden of proof of coming up with? It’s not there.” http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-redskins-dan-snyder-should-tell-the-pc-bullies-to-shove-it/article/2549968 “ The claim that having an NFL team named 'Redskins' perpetuates discrimination is a politically motivated pretext for nullifying the First Amendment. You have to be trolling at this point. Aren't you too young to be starting arguments at this yet early time of night? lol. That's what you get for calling me old previously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Can you imagine sitting down with a Native American you know and calling that person a redskin? I can't. Same argument would apply to Brave, Chief, and for many Indian as well. Probably when will be used when these groups go after those teams after Redskins. It's an argument that assumes the word is a slur and one wouldn't use it around NAs because of that. Really one wouldn't use it because it's an outdated term as a descriptor much like Celtics. I'd refer to someone as a Native American and only that. I wouldn't refer to them as Indian or Chief or Brave. That doesn't mean those team names are all offensive and should be changed, especially not when most Native Americans don't care. Crazy thing is, if we changed the logo to an R with devil horns similar to the New Jersey Devils we could keep the name Redskins and it would be acceptable to the PC brigade. Honoring NAs who mostly don't care about the name is bad, but honoring demons is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Obviously I'm a long-time fan of the team, but it really wouldn't rip my heart out if the name got changed. That said, it doesn't really help the keep-the-name contingent to have a bunch of white guys lecturing Native Americans about what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Team management set the right tone a month or two back with a press release saying that the intent of the name and trademarks was to honor Native Americans, while acknowledging that some may be legitimately offended. Note that... they didn't delegitimize the offense some took, but stressed that there was no intent to cause that offense. I think it's an important distinction as this argument goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Can you imagine sitting down with a Native American you know and calling that person a redskin? I can't. Can you imagine yelling anything other than GO REDSKINS at this point?///https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tleC3OYByXs#t=59 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/19/watch-washington-redskins-trademark-attorney-talks-to-glenn-about-latest-ruling/ “They can’t be canceled and will not be canceled while this proceeding continues,” he continued. “So I hope the Redskins fans aren’t worrying about whether the marks are still registered because they clearly are and will continue to be.” One of the reasons Redskins brass has refused to contemplate a name change is because of the history the moniker holds. Glenn asked Raskopf to explain the tradition. So now Glenn Beck is on the side of the Redskins. Yay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Can you imagine sitting down with a Native American you know and calling that person a redskin? I can't. I could sure launch a host of stereotypical ribs at him about how his family owns all the casinos west of the Mississippi, how he spends his free time in the teepee smoking the peace pipe and how his hot sister would make a sweet Pocahontas. That's for sure! My friends and I tell all sorts of racial jokes about each other. Usually nothing is off limits. Doesn't make us racist or bigoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So now Glenn Beck is on the side of the Redskins. Yay? Sucks, but the name change crowd has Olbermann on their side so the disgustingness evens out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Daily Show opened with an entire segment on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.