Larry Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 I don't know about you but I am aware of any changes to currency. If it changes, then is it still currency? Or is is pastancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 People are aware of the Nickels. I don't know about you but I am aware of any changes to currency. Kudos to you for staying on top of coin developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Kudos to you for staying on top of coin developments. As your counterparts, you are intentionally being obtuse to the point. Thus why I feel that most of your argument base is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 If it changes, then is it still currency? Or is is pastancy? Are you talking about currently ? Certainly any currency from the past is still valid and presentable, not to mention to some folks even more valuable than the paper or coin actually states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Are you talking about currently ? Certainly any currency from the past is still valid and presentable, not to mention to some folks even more valuable than the paper or coin actually states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 The logo is fine if you are looking for a representation of the Black Foot tribe, of which Wetzel is a member of. This is Crowfoot, a Black Foot Chief of great renown: When you're trying to create an image to represent the people of an entire continent you're bound to fail, if you're picky and insist the image represents NAs from the US it still fails because it only truly represents a small percentage of Native Americans. When the team resurrected the Native head image in the late sixties and early seventies it had already been in Patawomeck territory for decades. the image certainly does not represent all native americans anymore than the name represent all native americans. 'redskin' would never describe an indiginous alaskan, as their skin is not dark like eastern native americans- they are genetically distinct. Why didn't they use a Patawomeck image instead of the stereotypical "Wild West Indian" ? Even if Wetzel pushed the image on the Redskin executive it's still disrespectful to the Patawomeck in whose territory the team was making hundreds of millions and eventually billions of dollars. disresepectful? thats a little strong. maybe they understand that when the former president of the national congress of american indians comes to you with this idea, you listen. youre really saying that no matter what the organization does, they cant win. Salistala, our logo was designed by a Native American. They asked him to design the logo for the Washington Redskins. He did, nothing more, nothing less and we used it. I don't recall reading/hearing anywhere that we are representing a specific tribe. Not sure why you bothered posting pictures of various tribes and trying to compare it to our logo. If we were the Washington Seminoles, then yeah, you would have a point about the logo design. But we aren't, so exactly what is your point? Is it shocking that a member of the Blackfeet Nation (not Black Foot tribe) created the logo in his tribes image? I would imagine that if they asked another tribe to design the logo, it would resemble their tribe instead. yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 My point is the Blackfoot/Blackfeet Nation/Tribe/Confederacy (all have been used to describe them, but their name for themselves is Niitsitapi) are in Montana and your team is on the eastern seaboard 2000 miles away. All accounts I've read point to Wetzel himself asking the team to use his design, not the other way around, if you have evidence to the contrary I'd appreciate seeing it. I've said before that the team has Native American allies right in its own backyard in the Patawomeck, but instead of pursuing that endorsement they accept an unsolicited request from a politically connected Chief 2000 miles away. In the protocols of my region, that is indescribably rude. Why did I post all those pictures? daveakl answered that question for me: I'm not an expert on NA culture by any means, I had always heard the tribe called the Blackfeet. If more names have been used for them, I had no knowledge, so apologies. If Wetzel asked the team if he could design the logo and not the other way around, then so be it, I was wrong. That still doesn't change the fact that the logo doesn't represent a specific tribe. All it says, which I stated before that Wetzel designed the logo in the image of his tribe, the team liked it and used it. The team wasn't naming itself after any specific tribe, it named itself the Redskins, and used a logo designed by a Native American. Just because his tribe is Montana and the team is on the east coast is irrelevant, imo. How is that rude? If the team called themselves the Washington Patawomecks and used Wetzel's logo, then yeah I'd agree that was disrespectful. Also, that is the current logo, the team had different ones over the years since they formed a team starting out as the Boston Braves. I don't have time to research who designed the other logos, that look similar and some slightly different to see designed them. Now whether or not the team name is considered offensive is the question/argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Holy crap this debate is still going this strong after 283 pages? At least the gun control thread lost steam when people realized the other side wasn't going to change their mind. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Holy crap this debate is still going this strong after 283 pages? At least the gun control thread lost steam when people realized the other side wasn't going to change their mind. LOL I just started getting back into this tread the past few weeks. The fact is, I'm not Native American, so I don't get a say when it comes to determining if the name is offensive or not. I also don't get to tell NA people if they should or shouldn't be offended either, it's not my call. I understand if some NA people are offended by the name, just like I understand some NA people are not offended. If they change the name, they change the name, its not like I can do anything about it. I also am not one to determine how many percent of the NA population in the U.S. has to be offended to force a name change, not my call. Now arguing the whole logo thing, yeah I'll argue that, because I think Salistala is reaching here and trying to make something out of nothing. But he is entitled to his opinion, regardless if I agree with it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Looking forward to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Looking forward to this discussion. Pointing out that they aren't even pretending that it's a discussion. It's an event at which two people are going to educate everybody else about their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Looking forward to this discussion. Lessee here....... The name comes from scalps... (Not true but whatever) ..., NA logos have been proven to cause low self esteem among NA youth...... (Not the Redskins logo, but whatever) ....... NAs say the name is racist...... (~9%,the only time we checked, but whatever).....NAs don't call themselves redskin...... (yea, they do, including their own school mascots, but whatever)..... The dictionary defines redskin as a slur...... (dictionaries dont, by rule, define proper nouns even though the most common use, overwhelmingly, is that of a football team, and rarely cite origins, which would indicate it was a benign word made up by NAs themselves.... But whatever)...... Does that about cover it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Well you won't know unless you attend Larry. It's open to the public. Please come. You might learn something new. You can't say that you weren't afforded an opportunity to speak with the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 lol "discussion". Who are you trying to fool? "Educational forum to discuss the controversy of the name and the unhealthy stereotypes and other problems perpetuated by it's continued use" Sounds like a fair forum to me. I'm sure they'd sit and listen to anythng anyone has to say other than what they have already advertised they are going to 'discuss'. UnWise Mike.. a paragon of intellectual debate. Almost as transparent and disingenuous as you are, RFK. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Oh, and don't forget your complementary pack of Smoky Joe cigs, along with some free poker chips for use exclusively at the new Wizard of Oz inspired Frank Baum casino, courtesy of Mr Ray Halbritter and Oneida Nation (incorporated, LLC, all rights reserved). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Well you won't know unless you attend Larry. It's open to the public. Please come. You might learn something new. You can't say that you weren't afforded an opportunity to speak with the opposition. Actually, I'm pretty certain that, if they say anything that's relevant or true, (I suspect that both is too much to ask for), then it will appear within this thread. Or, frankly, if they say things which are neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I have a walking stick that has a carved Redskins logo on it, made and given to me by a Native American who is immensely proud of his culture and is a lifelong Skins fan because of that. My only question for the forum is "why do your opinions count more than his?" If someone could get me an answer on that, I would appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Salistala, our logo was designed by a Native American. They asked him to design the logo for the Washington Redskins. He did, nothing more, nothing less and we used it. I don't recall reading/hearing anywhere that we are representing a specific tribe. This thread goes in circles. We've had the logo discussion before. And whoever designed the logo for the Redskins ripped them off because it is just a copy of the design of the Indian head nickle designed by Fraser in 1913: http://es.redskins.com/topic/365985-the-official-es-redskins-name-change-thread-all-things-related-to-changing-the-teams-name-go-here/page-260#entry10263245 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 I have a walking stick that has a carved Redskins logo on it, made and given to me by a Native American who is immensely proud of his culture and is a lifelong Skins fan because of that. My only question for the forum is "why do your opinions count more than his?" If someone could get me an answer on that, I would appreciate it. Well duh, because he is obviously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Well duh, because he is obviously wrong. Probably only self-identified as Native. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Here's a recently published report from the USDE. It's loaded with testimony on the impact that Indian themed mascots and imagery have on Native youth in the learning environment. Stereotypes, misconceptions, and hostility are common themes from the educators and students who cope with it daily. http://sites.ed.gov/whianiane/files/2015/10/school-environment-listening-sessions-final-report.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Sterotypes ? haha. Oh boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I didn't read the whole report, just the section on names and mascots. I did find this sentence interesting. "The stereotyping of any racial, ethnic, religious or other groups when promoted by our public educational institutions teach all students that stereotyping of minority groups is acceptable, a dangerous lesson in a diverse society." I'm not going to argue, because I don't know and can only take the data for what it says.But based on that,, a whole lot of teams are going to have to change. based on that, even a Cornhusker can fall under the criteria. (provided Nebraska is public.. i'm just using an example of a name that sounds OK, but...) Granted, that does not say anything about professional franchises, or private education institutions. Including comparisons that have been shot down in this thread. I would argue that the word "minority" does not belong. if it's offensive or if it is to become offensive to use any human mascots or imagery.. representing all groups seems more appropriate. i am not a believer in the notion that only majority groups can be racist. Even if the Redskins became a big toppling domino,, does the crusade end there, or do the crusaders apply this uniformly? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 And yet these are all just fine with the USPTO http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/12-trademarks-declared-less-offensive-than-redskins/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearfeather Posted November 5, 2015 Share Posted November 5, 2015 And yet these are all just fine with the USPTO http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/18/12-trademarks-declared-less-offensive-than-redskins/ None of this is government speech. Nor is the government subsidizing these marks. Registration of trademarks, like copyrights and patents, is not akin to a government loan, grant, or other type of gift. Rather, the government, acting as a regulator, finds that because trademarks meet statutory criteria (namely, being distinctive), they are entitled to legal protection against interference from other private parties. And because trademark registration constitutes government regulation, this case is easy. A ban on registering “disparaging” trademarks unconstitutionally burdens speech based on content and viewpoint, just as would a ban on registering copyrights for “disparaging” books. http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/Pro-Football%20opening%20brief.pdf To our knowledge, of the over three million trademarks registered since 1870, no registration has ever been retroactively cancelled for being disparaging. The Redskins are the first and only. The name is over 80 years old, and the registrations nearly 50. The PTO initially registered the Redskins marks in 1967, and again in 1974, 1978, and 1990. Each time, no one objected. Each time, the PTO did not suggest that the marks disparaged anyone. This was no oversight. By 1967, the Redskins had won two NFL championships. Native Americans, like all Americans, presumably knew of the Team, as did the PTO examiners who registered the Redskins marks. The PTO endeavored in 2014 retrospectively to discern whether an undefined, unquantifiable “substantial composite” of Native Americans in 1967 was insulted by the term “redskins.” And the PTO forced the Team to defend its marks in 2014 even though the passage of time was highly prejudicial, including because key witnesses were long deceased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.