SWFLSkins Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 The thread is degenerating rapidly. Here's a guy that writes for historical purpose.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I read the whole thing. Its a little redundant but all in one place and very well put. Her camp has to realize they are facing an ace staff at this point and losing ground Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Here's a guy that writes for historical purpose.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-government-decided-that-redskins-bothers-you/2014/06/27/669558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it. Next to her Redskins equals scalps lie, Harjo's "the overwhelming majority of Native American peoples support litigation against the Washington franchise" claim (I believe it is a lie, as she provides no proof) irks me greatly. While I do believe that she is truly offended by NA mascots, I also believe that she has absolutely zero shame in pursuit of her goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 If a pro-Lesbian organization suddenly developed a dis-like for the name 'William', because people would call him 'Dick' for short, and demanded the name no longer be used, would that be fair? Jesus...see yourself out bruh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 so that would make Indians stupid then if they are worried about being depicted with big teeth LOL seriously..this is ****ing stupid from all angles. There are so many indian football fans that if this were actually a problem they would have complained in the 1960s. This is because some obsessive woman who doesn't even watch sports is having a 10 year hissy fit. are people really this ignorant of history? Like seriously? Racial caricatures arent cool. EVER. Google banned Looney Tune and Tom & Jerry episodes and figure out why they were banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram29jackson Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 painting people with big smiles is a racial problem ? that's just plain dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 painting people with big smiles is a racial problem ? that's just plain dumbDude if you're that ignorant to history, that's cool. Id just probably avoid discussions like this if I were you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Bass Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Hundreds protest Redskins' name before Washington plays against Minnesota Vikings November 11, 2013 http://www.redlakenationnews.com/story/2013/11/11/news/hundreds-protest-redskins-name-before-washington-plays-against-minnesota-vikings/17428.html We're clearly losing the PR war. (Yes, that picture is from the article.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I find the Indians fan, that appears to be talking down to a Native/Indian outside the stadium, posted a few pages back and on every sports site, more offensive then any of the sports franchises. I think he is an embarrassment to all franchises and fans of those franchises. I really hope he feels like a complete douche today for that stupid act. Obviously people see things differently. I never viewed the Indians logo as racist. I always viewed him as a fun guy and something young kids could attach themselves to in a fun baseball way, not racial. I don't think it was ever meant to be derogatory, just like all other Indian themed sports franchises. However, I do understand why people think it is racist. The dude has bright red skin and a goofy smile much like old cartoons. This face wasn't designed by a Native/Indian as far as I know and the Natives/Indians or Americans in general have never used a caricature like that anywhere to promote Indian pride. So, I would say, if the Indians were my team, I would be willing to get rid of the logo. However, I would fight for the name to stay because it is still widely used even amongst their people. I would also replace that logo with one similar to the Skins. In my opinion it has pride and dignity, but obviously people would still hate it and they would still get complaitns. If it was up to me, I would feel better about myself as a person if I changed it. Hundreds protest Redskins' name before Washington plays against Minnesota Vikings There are other pictures that have more people, but you can't tell how many because they are night photos. Then there are the ones that I just don't understand like the Viking shirt with the head dress? What are they saying with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 The thread is degenerating rapidly. Perhaps, but since the debate will not be going away soon, we'll be getting some fresh news to comment on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 The Viking mascot is undeniably insulting. I also think the 49er is, as well Actually I don't. That would be as ****ing dumb as the idiots offended by Redskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Perhaps, but since the debate will not be going away soon, we'll be getting some fresh news to comment on... Doubt it. I think there's been like three pieces of new news in this thread, since it started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 painting people with big smiles is a racial problem ? that's just plain dumb I agree. I think all the comparisons to Sambo are ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I didn't think you would have gotten the point, but for those who didn't see the angle, it was associating a word with another which had no place. A totally separate meaning. If I had used ' Richard' you would have said it was a totally different topic and issue altogether, so William was another multi-source name more fitting for the point. Yes, it is 'precious'. Sucks when you gotta explain everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Bass Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 There are other pictures that have more people Not really. Not in that article, at least. I saw one picture of a lot of people in another article, but it was a picture of the area between the metro station and the stadium before a Vikings game. This news website had an article called "Hundreds protest Redskins", and they posted a picture of a couple of fat guys on a bench. I didn't choose the picture. They did. I just pointed it out. I don't think I ever saw UnWise Mike or Ray Halbritter at any of the protests. That's weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 I didn't think you would have gotten the point, but for those who didn't see the angle, it was associating a word with another which had no place. A totally separate meaning. If I had used ' Richard' you would have said it was a totally different topic and issue altogether, so William was another multi-source name more fitting for the point. Yes, it is 'precious'. Sucks when you gotta explain everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Just some fun on Steinberg and his WP ranting....he has done so much work for the Change the Name Party that he's spending more time defending his ranting:FYISteinberg is a Bills fan. Now waiting for Bang to REALLY have some fun with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan since a Fetus Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Not really. Not in that article, at least. I saw one picture of a lot of people in another article, but it was a picture of the area between the metro station and the stadium before a Vikings game. These are the pictures I am talking about, one of them is on the first page. It appears to be misleading by saying hundreds, but there are a few more than the one you posted. Not calling you out by any means, maybe there is background information that I am missing with these versus the one you presented. It is difficult to tell how many showed up because it is night time and the pictures aren't taken at the best angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Bass Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dozens protest Redskins name: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 FYI Steinberg is a Bills fan. Now waiting for Bang to REALLY have some fun with that. Hey, you can lead a horse to water. .. no,, check that analogy.. Horses are much smarter than this. Proves every point about this I've ever made. There is absolutely no way I can respect the opinion of anyone on this matter if they fail to recognize, or don't care to recognize what is truly offensive. You want to marginalize actual native voices, ignore actual natives who disagree with the Redskins crusade it's bad enough, but when you're straight up too stupid to realize what is really offensive, I have no patience for you. Well, hang on.. maybe you're NOT too stupid, but you realize that going after the Bills would require actual thought (not much, mind you), and you decide to not bother because you know the herd is too ****ing dumb to get it,, well, it doesn't say much to me for your movement. When truth takes a back seat to convenience, you're on the wrong bus. Now, i could maybe see that Blackhorse and her four friends know that the way they must get support for their protest is to appeal to the idiots, and so go after something easily understood by the Kardashian Kulture. Makes sense, i guess, start with what loks like a slam-dunk and then go on to harder stuff. But in their hit list, I don't see the Bills. Which tells me that they couldn't care less. i can't see how a professionally offended person could not make the simple connection as to why Buffalo Bills is the single most offensive name in all of American sports. But it appears that it has been missed. And if i were a name-changer, then i'd really start to wonder about who is waving the flag I've chosen to stand beneath. It is mind boggling, the ignorance and straight up hubris of those who find one so offensive and could not care less about the other. Stupid, dumb-ass herd. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planter Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Doubt it. I think there's been like three pieces of new news in this thread, since it started. Dream on. If protestors at stadiums increase and sponsors flee its over. The Owners and the Commish will inform Snyder on his new range of options. Did you see the commercial aired during the NBA Finals? Ouch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 painting people with big smiles is a racial problem ? that's just plain dumb history tends to disagree---see use of Japanese caricatures in our media during WWII. just one example. "cartoony" has often been used to insult/minimize/ridicule. hardly a "breaking news" concept, i'd have thought. it has been used a lot, and often "endearingly", by many. this was/is (in most places) commonly acknowledged---even before the hanks movie about walt disney. in it's still done in political cartoons all the time. i don't like to even appear to "support the enemy" in any way, but "cartoony" is often associated with being offensive/dismissive in one way or another. so another "plain dumb" to me is that the reasons for leaving some room for different and still reasonable (inc. negative) reactions to use of "cartoony" images (and other facets of the topic) in these matters would have to be explained to some folks. obviously (imv), the chiefs aren't using it that negative way. i think that should count most, of course. intent of usage should play a big role in making a judgment imo. and, sure, i have lots of people who agree with me (and numbers can matter, though they're not always the final determinant, nor should they be). but that's not all there is to it. i know i make "being German" jokes all the time and some people have been offended over time. my usual attitude is "they're silly" etc. but i have had a (very few) people call me on it in ways i could respect, and i note that with them. but i still hold my position and make the jokes. i'm not sure that's "right." and I would never insult/dismiss/demean those people who made sincere, well-tempered (<---optional but helpful to blockheads like me) and understandable criticisms, but that's where it is with me. i make those jokes here, too. these are some of the things i think good to keep in mind no matter how i post on the matter. the passion can still be there, even when i'm actually "thinking" on it more than just engaging my autopilot. i need reminders to myself for a bit of useful and appropriate humility (and lowered self-righteousness---which is never merited by anyone exhibiting it) when slamming my stupid opposition. one of my normal goals is to be able to notice when not all opposition is inherently stupid (on almost any matter). Redskins forever. ( i probably owe larry some royalties on use of underlines in this one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Dream on. If protestors at stadiums increase and sponsors flee its over. The Owners and the Commish will inform Snyder on his new range of options. Did you see the commercial aired during the NBA Finals? Ouch... Facts and reason be damned. Kardashian Kulture is Konvinced, and that is all that is needed. oh, what a wonderful world this will be.. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 If sponsors flee its over. The Owners and the Commish will inform Snyder on his new range of options. And that's all there is left waiting to happen with this movement imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Evidente Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Do you think the Braves and Chiefs will have to change names? I think NOT so why should give up on our logo and fight song when the main target is the name? There are some fans INSISTING on no name change and are willing to dump the logo and fight song if they lose.. I would rather keep the name and lose the logo. The name is more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.