Well shouldn't the Gov't lead the way? All US Army helicopters need to be renamed. (Apache, Chinook, Kiowa etc) And why just Football, go get those Chicago Blackhawks, and Atlanta Braves!
Lets make sure we erase any mention of indigenous peoples from public view lest someone be offended.
The Atlanta Hawks were once the Blackhawks (before moving to Atlanta). Maybe that's the solution, just shorten the Redskins name to "Skins".
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-18-2014).]
I could not care less about the Redskins name, logo, mascot or much else. While I do find the name Washington Redskins offensive, that could easily be fixed by moving the team anywhere else and dropping the Washington part.
I don't really have much of an opinion about the Redskin name. They can start calling themselves Whitey for all I care but, I suppose someone will be offended by that also. Shrugg I think we've lost most of our values now anyway.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Well shouldn't the Gov't lead the way? All US Army helicopters need to be renamed. (Apache, Chinook, Kiowa etc) And why just Football, go get those Chicago Blackhawks, and Atlanta Braves!
Lets make sure we erase any mention of indigenous peoples from public view lest someone be offended.
The Obama conspiracy to distract the public (at large) from other issues is working. It's manifest--here. We are all finding the numerous minutes (beyond our day jobs) to become experts in the burgeoning field of trademark law and litigation. I think it all comes down to a fine point of trademark law--a legal technicality :
quote
Whatever [Washington Redskins owner] Mr. Snyder and his allies believe now, the legal question is whether the trademark disparaged Native Americans when the first trademark at issue, from 1967, was granted. It doesn’t matter, for trademark law purposes, how much Mr. Snyder says the name celebrates Native Americans now, or how much money he gives to tribes.
The trademark panel wrote: “Respondent [Mr. Snyder] has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging. The ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term ‘Redskins’ to be disparaging when the respective registrations issued.”
The board found that at a minimum, 30 percent of Native Americans viewed the term, used as a name for a football team, to be disparaging in the years the relevant trademarks were created, ranging from 1967 to 1990.
Whatever happens with the team name, and whenever a change eventually comes, that’s the message of the ruling to Mr. Snyder: In the past this term was disparaging, and you can never undo that.
My personal sentiments are in line with these remarks from "Peter", who commented after a report in FootballPerspective.com :
quote
No one thinks to call people Negroes or colored people these days, despite the existence of the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Those names have long histories and are tied, historically, to the words used in the organizations’ names. The continued use of those now long-passe words in the honorific names of the organizations is not inappropriate or racist, even though the use of those words might be cringe-worthy or reflect racist attitudes of the speaker in most other situations.
No one thinks to call people Redskins these days either, despite the continued existence of the Washington Redskins football team. The continued use of the honorific and historic name is not racist, even if calling people redskins in other situations might be cringe-worthy or reflect racist attitudes of the speaker in most other situations.
Those are sentiments. The Patent and Trademark Office would seem to be bound not by sentiment, but by the letter of the law, and the Office has just decided. Yet this decision, to terminate Daniel Snyder's ownership of the Washington Redskins trademark, could be overturned by the appellate court system, if Mr. Snyder (as seems most likely) petitions to contest it.
This could be the second time around the same legal roundabout.
Some years ago, the Patent and Trademark Office already came to this same decision, to cancel the Redskins trademark on the grounds that it was disparaging to a substantial number of Native Americans at the time when the trademark was registered in 1967. But that decision was nullified by a determination that this earlier case against the Redskins trademark was brought on too many years after 1967, when the trademark registration was granted. A statute of limitations kind of dealie. Maybe that ruling--the ruling that the original complaint against the Redskins trademark was not presented within an acceptable time frame--got pushed out of bounds or something. I dunno. Could the Redskins team ownership yet win out by using that same "the case was filed too late" argument--again? Whobody knows?
Now add up all the TIME that has been invested in this thread. Minutes that could have been used against Obama and the Dumb-o-crats, but minutes that all went to waste, diverted into this cleverly invented Redskins sinkhole. And realize that Time's Arrow flies in only one direction. We've all been had. Again. QED.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-19-2014).]
There is that label AGAIN! If you are against obama its labeled hate! You don't like obama its a hate crime thats what these race baiters want. I see Ray be is full of white guilt.
Personally I think the Washington team should just be renamed the Washington Foreskins. Put new meaning in the phrase "cut from the team".
How about we just honor the Constitution? People have a right to be offended if they dont like something that is said. It does not mean the offender has to change what they say.
It is just another distraction put forth by this administration to redirect attention away from the important news of the day, like the so-called "lost" emails from top IRS officials. Which, undoubtedly, I'm sure will prove to be incriminating to this administration.
Funny, I could care less about the news coverage of this, but those who are anti-obama are all over this story (as seen here). Seems like people can be easily distracted... hmmmm
The Obama conspiracy to distract the public (at large) from other issues is working. It's manifest--here. We are all finding the numerous minutes (beyond our day jobs) to become experts in the burgeoning field of trademark law and litigation. I think it all comes down to a fine point of trademark law--a legal technicality :
We all pick our bones. But to say that the USPTO is issuing a ruling based on the disparaging opinions of an ethic group is a technically legal decision is not necessarily all true.
The Boards of the USPTO are appointed positions that are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.
It wasn't just the name "Redskins" that was found disparaging to 30% of Native Americans, but the logo itself as well. And that maybe true and that maybe a case to say that the name and logo is disparaging, which in itself is considered something that you cannot federally registrar a trademark for.
If the USPTO Board is setting precedent of 30% threshold disparaging opinion, then that sets up a huge problem. Because many names and logos can cross that threshold. From "Redneck" to "Hooters".
But the goal of this ruling may appear to be a legal one on the surface, but actually it is a political one. Because when you have (D) Senator Maria Cantwell and 49 other Democrats in the Senate send a letter to the NFL to change the name of the 'Redskins" and when just after this ruling came out, Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid come on the floor of the Senate demanding the Washington Redskins organization to immeditaly change their name and logo and when you have the President making remarks in public about the same sentiment. Then by all means this is all motivated by politics. Harry Reid said that it was a matter of time before the team owner will be "FORCED" to change the name. Forced?
The Democratic Political Machine has used the Washington Redskins as a political football because they know it is the most visible. But if any reference to a name or logo of any ethnic or subgroup in America can be disparaging, then this is just the start. Any name or logo that reference Indians, Braves, Warriors, Aggies, Trojans, Fighting Irish, Pirates, Buccaneers, Texans and etc. Meaning that organizations from schools to businesses will have to remove any reference to any person or group of people.
I wonder if Harry Reid would have a fit if the UNLV have the name and logo of "Rebels" removed from trademark protection? I bet he would make a big stink if UNLV should be "forced" to change their name. He would have just the opposite attitude then.
This has very wide implications. That is why this topic is important and worth debating. It isn't a waste of time.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 06-19-2014).]
I anticipate the day when PETA sues on behalf of all those poor creatures we've named different teams after.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Funny, I could care less about the news coverage of this, but those who are anti-obama are all over this story (as seen here). Seems like people can be easily distracted... hmmmm
Yes, Americans can be and its pretty trivial these days to .. hey, wait, is that a squirrel over there?
well, we could just update the name to a more recent species of human we enjoy decimating: the Washington Muslims. Yes, skip the negros and go straight to Muslims. Or perhaps the Washington Wetbacks? kinda keeps the same "feel" to it that way.
tho, I am amazed this is actually a worthy of a debate. I fully get that the nature & definition of "conservative" means change nothing.
redskin is a descriptor. By itself, it holds no intrinsic insult or compliment.
It becomes a slur if it is used in a certain way and in a certain context within a society. When in the world in the last 40 years in the United States have you even heard anybody try to insult an american indian by calling them a redskin? Really. I'm seriously asking.
I remember reading historically that in the U.S. it was used that way. I can't remember any actual use of it that way in half a century.
But I admittedly don't get around that much, so those of you that do, please fill me in on the contemporary use of redskin as an insulting term for american indians. And then if you can't, its time as an insult has passed and now it is just a descriptor, and the only reason you ever even hear of the word is due to the football team.
You want an actual potential insult to indians? Watch the incredibly idiotic group of 30-40000 people in a stadium in Atlanta standing around doing a "tomahawk chop" and doing that moronic chant. Or chief wahoo of the Cleveland Indians. But hey, if american indians aren't insulted by that, good for them. Thick skins. (and I dare not mention what color that thick skin might be. Shhhh.)
well, we could just update the name to a more recent species of human we enjoy decimating: the Washington Muslims. Yes, skip the negros and go straight to Muslims. Or perhaps the Washington Wetbacks? kinda keeps the same "feel" to it that way.
tho, I am amazed this is actually a worthy of a debate. I fully get that the nature & definition of "conservative" means change nothing.
I was kind of hoping changing the Detroit Tigers to the Detroit A-Rabs. Could make a nice hat logo out of that. And fits the population demographic way better than D.C. If we are going to be offensive, then let's go all in, shall we? Regarding actually worthy of debate, you miss the point. This is about a business owner and having his rights to do with his business what he wants. Why congress and the president would get involved with something so trivial, is because they want to squelch as much freedom as they can. That is the historical behavior of this administration.
Political speech we don't like? Let's try to intimidate private citizens via the IRS.
Don't like the name someone has on their business? Try to find people insulted by it, and use that as an excuse to take their naming rights away. If you believe in civil liberties, you ought to fight the government from taking them, no matter how trivial you consider the issue.
I hate cigarette smoke. Especially when I'm trying to eat. But I fought for the rights of individual business owners to decide whether their restaurant allows smoking or not. Care to join me in the defense of government infringing on individual rights, no matter how trivial the actual issue, to try to send the government a consistent message to knock it off?
The business can use the name, it just isn't trademarked.
It's meant to force the name change for the team. If they don't have trademarks on their team name or logo, anyone can now use it for merchandising. The team will start losing gobs of money due to others freely using the team's name and logo. Rather than lose all that money, they'll have to change the name and logo and then have that trademarked.
The business can use the name, it just isn't trademarked.
I agree he wasn't directly involved in this situation. He did make his comments known about how he felt about it. I doubt that the trademark people didn't know how he felt, and how they could ingratiate themselves to him.
I'm sure the IRS people heard all the president's comments as well about his opinion of the ruling that allowed groups to do "issue ads", that led to emboldening the IRS to ingratiate themselves to his highness by blatantly targeting groups that funded issues against his policies.
And congress wasn't directly involved in this trademark case, either. But they have stuck their nose into this issue in the past as well.
Originally posted by frontal lobe: I agree he wasn't directly involved in this situation. He did make his comments known about how he felt about it. I doubt that the trademark people didn't know how he felt, and how they could ingratiate themselves to him.
I'm sure the IRS people heard all the president's comments as well about his opinion of the ruling that allowed groups to do "issue ads", that led to emboldening the IRS to ingratiate themselves to his highness by blatantly targeting groups that funded issues against his policies.
And congress wasn't directly involved in this trademark case, either. But they have stuck their nose into this issue in the past as well.
The issue is that your hatred of this administration may be clouding your judgement.... you seem to want to believe that Obama is everywhere, and involved in everything. They must be cloning him, as he is everywhere!
No, we know he can't be involved in everything. In fact, he doesn't appear to be involved in anything. He finds out what his administration does from the newspapers. It is tough to be head of the executive branch and make your tee time.
He (his administration) is involved in anything political to forward his agenda. He may not be directly involved, but you can bet his foot is stuck in the door of everything. And yes, I too hate this so called president. (hes not even worth capitalizing the title for)
It's meant to force the name change for the team. If they don't have trademarks on their team name or logo, anyone can now use it for merchandising. The team will start losing gobs of money due to others freely using the team's name and logo. Rather than lose all that money, they'll have to change the name and logo and then have that trademarked.
From the articles that were posted at the beginning of this thread:
quote
But its effect is largely symbolic. The ruling cannot stop the team from selling T-shirts, beer glasses and license-plate holders with the moniker or keep the team from trying to defend itself against others who try to profit from the logo. And the trademark registrations will remain effective during any appeal process.
[...]
Trademark lawyers say the decision largely is inconsequential to the team, even if it loses an appeal. The team would maintain “common law” rights to the name, allowing it to make a case against any individual or organization looking to profit from it. “I think it’s a stronger moral victory for the Native American community than a financial detriment to the Redskins,” said Joe Lewis, a District-based trademark lawyer.
And it's not a current development at all and thus probably not Obama-related:
quote
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to register trademarks containing the word “Redskins” about a dozen times since 1992 on the grounds that the term may disparage Native Americans. Among the rejected: Redskins Fanatics, Redskin Pigskins and Washington Redskins Cheerleaders. The latest to be turned down was “Redskins Hog Rinds,” which was submitted on behalf of a Capitol Heights, Md., man. In a letter from the agency in December, an examining attorney wrote that it was denied because it contained “a derogatory slang term.”
But facts be damned when you can be righteously OUTRAGED!
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 06-19-2014).]
But facts be damned when you can be righteously OUTRAGED!
Never said it was Obama related. Just pointed out that if people want to do away with something and hitting it head-on doesn't work, they'll simply find a different way of approaching it and still achieve their goal. Just for the record, I'm not in the slightest bit outraged about this. Perturbed yes. But only because this is being made out to be something much greater than it really is by both sides while this country has much bigger problems to address at the moment.
