Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)


Recommended Posts

wait people are surprised the redskins own the redskins facts twitter?

 

and that the same person (or people) make posts to both?

 

score another point for internet outrage.


...

Most of the local Native Americans who spoke at the meeting supported the Redskins name, the Oklahoman reports.
 

....

 

Until this sentiment changes, I have no desire to even entertain the 'debate.'

 

This, right here, is all the information I need to understand what is going on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not name it after a military weapon. Like a tomahawk or apache or the like.

Ya man, I mean who wouldn't want a weapon of death named in honor of their people?

 

or a sports team named for a symbol, which has been appropriated to represent a people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya man, I mean who wouldn't want a weapon of death named in honor of their people?

or a sports team named for a symbol, which has been appropriated to represent a people?

I'm of Norweigian and Danish descent. I find Vikings to be badass, ****ing terrifying, warriors. I mean they believed the only way to the afterlife was through death on the battlefield.

What's offensive about that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it insensitive for Germans to say happy Hanukkah to Jews?

Is it insensitive for whites to say happy Kwanza to practicing Africans?

Is it ok for Jews to say happy Ramadan to Muslims?

Are we so thin skinned that we can't distinguish between hate and generosity?

 

I'm an African (Yoruba to be exact), and I detest Kwanzaa, which is a contrived Marxist holiday created by a racist, woman-abusing, ex-con.  Wishing me 'happy kwanzaa' will get you a lecture and a few curses.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-slants-trademark-idUSKBN0U51UF20151222

 

 

Appeals court says government cannot censor offensive trademarks

NEW YORK | BY ANDREW CHUNG

 

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that barred the registration of offensive trademarks because it violates the First Amendment.

 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., vacates the refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the name of the Asian-American rock band, the Slants. It could also impact the decision by the agency to cancel the trademarks of the National Football League's Washington Redskins.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

More in depth article:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-slants-trademark-idUSKBN0U51UF20151222

 

 

A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday struck down a provision of a federal law that barred the registration of offensive trademarks because it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., vacates the refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the name of the Asian-American rock band, The Slants. It could also affect the decision by the agency to cancel the trademarks of the National Football League's Washington Redskins.

"We recognize that invalidating this provision may lead to the wider registration of marks that offend vulnerable communities," Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said in the opinion on behalf of the 12 judges who took part in hearing the case.

"Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others," she wrote.

The Portland, Oregon-based band, which plays what it calls "Chinatown dance rock," appealed because the trademark agency had rejected its name for a trademark twice since 2010 on the grounds that it disparages Asians.

Supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, Slants front man Simon Tam argued the band adopted the name as a way to reclaim the racial slur and should be allowed an official trademark.

In April, a three-judge Federal Circuit panel upheld the agency's rejection, but the court then vacated that decision in order to tackle the prickly constitutional question.

Tuesday's ruling that the law is unconstitutional now sends the case back to the Patent and Trademark Office for further proceedings.

Interest in the case is high because the more high-profile Redskins case is also currently on appeal at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And crickets from the Defenders of the Woefully Offended.

 

If this ruling had come in the Redskins appeal there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Since it came in a case brought by a minority and backed by the ACLU you will hear nothing.

 

This actually is the best possible result for the team.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If this ruling had come in the Redskins appeal there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Since it came in a case brought by a minority and backed by the ACLU you will hear nothing.

 

This actually is the best possible result for the team.

 

You're absolutely right. The team in general needs to say nothing. If it had said nothing in the beginning, we wouldn't have had this backlash. The fuel to the fire was Snyder's "You can put that in caps" comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So barring SCOTUS deciding the appeals court is wrong, being offensive is no longer a reason to revoke trademarks...

Won't stop the demands but I believe that exhausts their legal options?

Helps the Skins in their fight to keep the name, though I'm not sure they wanted to fall back on "yeah its offensive but the court says we can keep it anyway."

Still think the name eventually changes. This might make it more like sometime in the next 50 years vs the next 10 though. Or whenever Snyder no longer controls the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Helps the Skins in their fight to keep the name, though I'm not sure they wanted to fall back on "yeah its offensive but the court says we can keep it anyway."

Still think the name eventually changes. This might make it more like sometime in the next 50 years vs the next 10 though. Or whenever Snyder no longer controls the team.

 

The court didn't take an opinion on whether it was offensive or not--just "potentially" offensive. And it's the right stance. We do not promise the freedom from offense. Granting protection from "offensive" names like this is a slippery slope: where does it end?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still torn on the name. But ultimately, I just want the debate to end. Whether that means that name changes or stays, doesn't matter to me. It's just getting old listening to the same arguments over and over again. I've always been one that says if the name is going to change, then it should be a majority of Native Americans that want it to change, not a bunch of old white guys. If the Native Americans take issue with the name, then go ahead and change it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. The team however did score a new ally with the Asian Rock Band the Slants. They're in a similar situation in which their name is a dictionary defined slur and they were denied TM protection. 

 

Someone on social media asked me why the Wellpinit HS and Red Mesa HS haven't had their "redskins" TMs revoked. I  think the reasons are because they're located on Tribal lands which have sovereignty.  -- however I could be 100% wrong. 

 

Man this issue tugs at me deep. I know people who are offended and they are good people. I just wish we could find a happy medium for all. 

 

It's a football team, not a hate group. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, the ACLU actually backs Dan Snyder and the team. While they don't like the name they stand with the team for legal and constitutional purposes. http://www.aclu.org/blog/redskins-wrong-legal

For some reason, I always have to read the comments section of articles. And I usually regret it.

This one was interesting, though.

I am Native American and I do find the term offensive. The thing that I hate about the term is that is perpetrates outmoded stereotypes. When I was a kid in school (growing up in Cleveland) I was called Chief Wahoo almost on a weekly basis. People are ignorant, especially if they are not in contact with or have exposure to the other cultures that they are spoofing in their team mascots. It is even worse with kids on the playground. This stuff bubbles up in schools and it does have an effect. Moreover, it is not so much how the team represents the image, it is how the fans of the team adopt it and use it. So many people running around with face paint and turkey feathers. That is all they know about Native American culture and it does not represent who we are today (or even who we were in the past). I am a doctor and I don't wear that stuff at home (as I have been asked previously by one of my ignorant classmates). But that is one of the results of keeping those absurd mascots and team names.

Alot of things to say about that.

He says the name is offensive. Then talks about chief wahoo. And perpetuating stereotypes, fans spoofing culture. Things that may be true of other fanbases or mascots - and much of it I might agree with - but aren't really true of the Redskins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Jumbo changed the title to The Official ES All Things Redskins Name Change Thread (Reboot Edition---Read New OP)
  • Jumbo locked this topic
  • Jumbo unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo pinned this topic
  • Jumbo featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unlocked this topic
  • Jumbo locked and unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...