War Paint Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The dictionary isn't sacred scripture written by Moses. Modern dictionaries are probably written by bleeding heart lexicographers, not by some sacred scribe. What if there is an ultra right wing coup d' etat at Websters dictionary and they change the word "liberal" to mean terrorist lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The dictionary is nowhere near the be all end all. I mean, theres a particular word that the filters will absolutely not let me type, and I guarantee it has MANY more uses than what it is defined as. Some can be good, and some can be bad. Absolutely, and interesting Stern is apparently against the term, since in his own movie he included the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUZ_3AKox8w **** willow **** a doodle doo oh, and that video is not safe for work. At one point, pig vomit yells "god dammit" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The dictionary is nowhere near the be all end all. I mean, theres a particular word that the filters will absolutely not let me type, and I guarantee it has MANY more uses than what it is defined as. Some can be good, and some can be bad. Since the dictionary defines "redskin" as "often offensive".. if you walk into a place and say "What about the Redskins", everyone in the place will think you want to talk football. Is there any doubt to that? the dictionary defines the N word the same way. no one will argue. But then there's those millions and millions of record sales.. ~Bang Absolutely. The Dictionary is not really even pertinent to our discussion. But it is "EVIDENCE" that the term redskin is derived from "red skin" a refference to the percieved pigmatation of the skin of native americans; and was coined as and is used as a slur. The fact it is primarily defined as a slur in our language in seveeral of our popular dictionaries ( all of those I consulted)... I presented this information not to justify the name change, but in order that one Redskins fan could be aware of these general definitions and usage of the term; which he stated he was ignorant too... Because obvioujsly his and my lifetime of rooting for this team has otherwise not exposed us to these facts. which is also not pertinent to our disussion. Nor is it pertinent that you can invisioned a usage of this term which would not be derogatory; although no such definition really exists outside of the case in question. As I have said the only determinitive facts in this case are... How many native Americans are offended and is that enough to deny Danny his trademark..... Clearly historically native Americans have a reasonable case to be offended by the use of the name and I'm not just talking about the on field play over hte last two decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Absolutely. The Dictionary is not really even pertinent to our discussion. But it is "EVIDENCE" that the term redskin is derived from "red skin" a refference to the percieved pigmatation of the skin of native americans; and was coined, is used as a slur, and is primarily defined as a slur in our language... Presented in order that one Redskins fan could be aware of these general definitions and usage of the term... Clearly historically native Americans have a reasonable case to be offended by the use of the name and I'm not just talking about the on field play over hte last two decades. Would a dictionary definition stand up to serious scrutiny? Such as in a court of law or civil litigation? If somebody from Random House or any other commonly used dictionary was sitting on the stand, could they produce tangible evidence that would show how they arrived at their definition? If Native Americans clearly have a reasonable case to be offended by the use of the name, why are they not coming out in droves against the name then? Why do 9 people show up to protests? Why have we heard only from a number of "Natives" you can count on two hands, instead of a large percentage of the 2 million living in the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 The dictionary isn't sacred scripture written by Moses. Yes but they are generally a good place to go if you are looking for the definition of a word. I mean we wouldn't want the other side just making up the meanding and history of terms to win an argument would we. And I'm pretty sure Moses was just considered the middle man for those tablets and wasn't credited with writing them himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Would a dictionary definition stand up to serious scrutiny? Such as in a court of law or civil litigation? If somebody from Random House or any other commonly used dictionary was sitting on the stand, could they produce tangible evidence that would show how they arrived at their definition? If Native Americans clearly have a reasonable case to be offended by the use of the name, why are they not coming out in droves against the name then? Why do 9 people show up to protests? Why have we heard only from a number of "Natives" you can count on two hands, instead of a large percentage of the 2 million living in the country? I think a dictionary definition would absolutely hold up in court.. especially if the term was supported by several other reputable dictionaries. Also I would think that any arguement which begins with "the definition of the word is wrong in all of our cultures dictionaries" would not be pursuasive in court. Especially if all the oposition had to show was that a group of folks were offended by the term regardless of how it's used in the dictionary. If Native Americans clearly have a reasonable case to be offended by the use of the name, why are they not coming out in droves against the name then? Why do 9 people show up to protests? Why have we heard only from a number of "Natives" you can count on two hands, instead of a large percentage of the 2 million living in the country? Well these lawsuits have been going on for decades so clearly some American Indians are pretty hot about it. I mean they protested the Skins in the 1992 superbowl... that's hard core. Also the controversy over the name is part of the reason why the Skins don't play in DC anylonger, a native American senator attached a clause onto the stadium funding measure which would require the team to change it's name if Cooke tried to rebuild in DC; so Cooke moved to Maryland.... But I agree with this point of yours. How many folks are offended? and How many are enough to cause us to abandon the trademark.... In order for this case to go against the Skins the oposition is going to have to be able to show a substantial number are..... The local CBS News affiliate recently ran a story that their are Native American schools who's mascot is the Redkins. They also state that 90% of those who identify themselves as native American don't find the term offensive. If CBS news is creditable, I would think these are the determinative facts in the case. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/ I suspect the congressional act against the Skins will go nowhere in this congress. However that too could become a problem for the franchise if the sentiment in Congress goes against the team in future Congresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yes but they are generally a good place to go if you are looking for the definition of a word. I mean we wouldn't want the other side just making up the meanding and history of terms to win an argument would we. Who is doing this? The "red paint" argument was also listed in one of your dictionary definitions. All I am saying is the definition in and of itself is not evidence of anything. Let's define the word "evidence" then http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence?s=t ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing. noun 1.that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of hisfever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his fullsupport. 5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters. A dictionary definition is not "evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Another interesting perspective from the Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/22/redskins-foes-take-offense-where-none-intended/OTWgf5fCMUYPktGXcwzdQP/story.html and here is the heart of the matter from the above link I’m not a sports fan. I have no interest in Redskins football. And I have no trouble understanding why the team’s name genuinely rubs some people the wrong way. But there is no limit to what may rub people the wrong way. Start scrapping names and emblems on the basis that someone finds them offensive and you’ll be scrapping names and emblems forever. Institutions and societies can’t function that way. No one is guaranteed the right to go through life unoffended. You may not like the name of a sports team, or a company logo, or a school’s mascot. But disapproval isn’t an argument, let alone a definitive one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Hey, JMS is involved. This certainly won't devolve into 40 pages of massive posts arguing over the minutest of minutae. I think this is I where I abandon the field. I'll be back in 18 months or so when we become the Washington Aborgines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 A dictionary definition is not "evidence" A dictionary definition is certainly evidence.. Creditable evidence on the meaning of a word and how it is used broadly. Likewise the more dictionaries which corroborate this definition makes the evidence more creditable. Hey, JMS is involved. This certainly won't devolve into 40 pages of massive posts arguing over the minutest of minutae. I think this is I where I abandon the field. I'll be back in 18 months or so when we become the Washington Aborgines. I think you must have some Injun blood in you..... hit and run.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 so we just ignore the fact that the definitions conflict. See your definition of the origin of the world from World Dictionary, or did you not read past "now considered taboo" Who considers it taboo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jms, you are arguing that the term has its origin as a racial slur? " But it is "EVIDENCE" that the term redskin is derived from "red skin" a refference to the percieved pigmatation of the skin of native americans; and was coined as and is used as a slur. " Or that someone somewhere may have used an otherwise benign term as a slur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 and here is the heart of the matter from the above link Yeah that's not the heart of the matter. The heard ot the matter is US copyright law. Specifically Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, which bars any mark that Quote "Trademark Act" [c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 several definitions define the term as offensive, taboo, or disparaging, but I believe that when it comes to forcing a private institution to change a name they have held in honor for 80 years, you need more than just a "modern take," a conclusion arrived at with no context or tangible evidence whatsoever. How do I know this? Nobody can produce any that's why. I DEFY someone to produce tangible evidence/proof/facts that the term is/was largely offensive to Native people, Yeah that's not the heart of the matter. The heard ot the matter is US copyright law. Specifically Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, which bars any mark that Quote "Trademark Act" [c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute Fine, prove to me that the term "Redskins" does any of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 so we just ignore the fact that the definitions conflict. See your definition of the origin of the world from World Dictionary, or did you not read past "now considered taboo" Who considers it taboo? The reason word have multiple definitions is because the meandings of the words conflict. That doesn't mean the words don't have meaning or the definitions are wrong. It's not important to US trademark law that you and I don't find the term offensive. All that matters is whether there are enough folks out there who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Yeah that's not the heart of the matter. The heard ot the matter is US copyright law. Specifically Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, which bars any mark that Quote "Trademark Act" [c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute That's a good argument, somewhat compelling. The only issue of course being that it was already taken to court and decided on. Redskins maintained the trademark. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/10/15/a-look-at-the-legal-fight-to-change-the-washington-redskins-name/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 do the Washington Redskins comprise "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter?" do the Washington Redskins bring Natives into "contempt or disrepute?" do the Washington Redskins "disparage" Natives? Show me PROOF and answer me this JMS. Who is offended? How do we know they are offended? The reason word have multiple definitions is because the meandings of the words conflict. That doesn't mean the words don't have meaning or the definitions are wrong. It's not important to US trademark law that you and I don't find the term offensive. All that matters is whether there are enough folks out there who do. but you said a dictionary definition was "evidence" How can something that is not rock solid and indisputable in and of itself be evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 That's a good argument, somewhat compelling. The only issue of course being that it was already taken to court and decided on. Redskins maintained the trademark. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/10/15/a-look-at-the-legal-fight-to-change-the-washington-redskins-name/ Actually the Redskins lost Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo in 2005.... United States Patent and Trademark Office's Traidmark and Appeal Board ( TTAB) ruled to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins, based upon the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. This ruling was overturned by a lower court because the plantifs waited too long to file their case after turning 18 years of age. The federal court did not address whether the team name was offensive to Native Americans. The parallel case in which all the plantifs were 18-20 when the case was filed still in progress and yet to be rule upon... But it's likely the TTAB will find again in their favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jms, if you are going to claim that the actual origin of the word was as a slur (you said "coined " which is a bit ambiguous), I'm going to call bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Who is offended? American Indians. How do we know they are offended? Because they've spent decades in court trying to get the Redskins to change the name in this multi generational issue..... Hell they protested us at the super bowl more than 20 years ago. How can something that is not rock solid and indisputable in and of itself be evidence? See dictionary. I would say how a series of reputable dictionaries definie a word is rock solid, and indispurable evidence of the way the term is used in our language... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 at the most the idea and opinion that "Redskins" is disparaging and offensive would be by legal definition "hearsay" without any tangible evidence to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jms, if you are going to claim that the actual origin of the word was as a slur (you said "coined " which is a bit ambiguous), I'm going to call bull****. Only I said it after quoting the definition given in the Douglas Harper Online Etymology Dictionary under the heading Origins and History, which tied the term to the color of hte skin of native Ameircans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 American Indians. Because they've spent decades in court trying to get the Redskins to change the name in this multi generational issue..... Hell they protested us at the super bowl more than 20 years ago. See dictionary. I would say how a series of reputable dictionaries definie a word is rock solid, and indispurable evidence of the way the term is used in our language... So essentially, if ONE Native American decides they are offended by the name, that is enough for you? Do you realize the precedent something like that would set? and secondly, when in your life have you ever heard the term "Redskin" and did not think of the football team? Who uses the term any other way in our language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 at the most the idea and opinion that "Redskins" is disparaging and offensive would be by legal definition "hearsay" without any tangible evidence to back it up. Actually your position is void of any tangible evidence or support. The disparaging and offensive folks can rely on several centuries of use of the term in literature, historical documents, and of coarse many popular modern dictionaries writen by folks without an ax to grind in this discussion.. What the term has meant and does mean outside of DC is not even worth discussion. It's a known. So essentially, if ONE Native American decides they are offended by the name, that is enough for you? Do you realize the precedent something like that would set? No actually I think that is the meat of this case. How many folks are offended and how many folks need to be offended to get the trademark vacated. I don't know quantitatively what that number would be, but certainly it would have to be in the tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands I would think. and secondly, when in your life have you ever heard the term "Redskin" and did not think of the football team? Who uses the term any other way in our language? Again I agree with you. Inside of the DC metro area, never. Do you think If we were a native American Indians living on a reservation somewhere our answers might change? As I understand it it's their opinion which counts with regard to the trademark issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Has anyone actually called anyone who cheers for this team a racist? I would like to see that example. This discussion has now largely devolved into each side building up strawmen and knocking them down. The post burgundyrush was temp-banned for previously did just that. "Not too surprised Redskins has so many racists fans. There is a reason this team is loved by so many below the Mason-Dixon Line. If a name change can drive those kind of people away then I'm all for it." UnWise Mike has alluded to it many times as well. Many others in the media have called the team the Washington Racist Names or Racists, what would that imply about fans defending the name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.