...about news coverage... as I said. I read the comments here as entertainment.... it is the anti-obama channel.... where they try to connect Obama with everything they are against. Pass the popcorn.
Soo... What about the 'Apache' helicopter? Or the 'Blackhawk'? They gonna ground them and take them out of service because they are offensive?
I guess I could sue Burger King for their use of the term "french fries" next. As a matter of fact now that I think about it I am pretty PO'd right now. And hungry!
Hardly anyone that was a Native American would have taken exception to being addressed or referred to as an "Apache" or a "Blackhawk", if they actually were that. And if they were some other tribe, they would have just said, with perfect equanimity, "I beg your pardon good sir, but I actually represent the equally prestigious Okefenokee tribe." Or something like that.
But if you addressed or referred to a Native American, back in the day, as "redskin"--exception taken. That was an insult.
That's why there is a point of law to be argued for canceling the Redskins trademark that was granted to this NFL franchise.
This decision, which is (as I understand it) put on "ice", pending an appeal process, will not prevent the franchise from using "Redskins" as a trademark. But it will no longer be a registered trademark. It will have to be annotated with TM (trademark), and not ® (registered trademark), as it has been for all the years since it was registered.
The franchise will continue to be able to use the legal system to contest against any would-be competitor that tries to duplicate the "Redskins" trademark, but the franchise will be somewhat disadvantaged in this way, because it will not be defending a registered trademark. I think this is expected to make it more challenging for the franchise to preserve its trademark exclusivity. But would that be significantly more challenging, or just a little bit more challenging?
So I don't have the background to predict whether this U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decision (if upheld upon appeal) is actually likely to have the effect of causing the Redskins franchise to drop the "R-word" and take another name for itself.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-22-2014).]
Hardly anyone that was a Native American would have taken exception to being addressed or referred to as an "Apache" or a "Blackhawk", if they actually were that. And if they were some other tribe, they would have just said, with perfect equanimity, "I beg your pardon good sir, but I actually represent the equally prestigious Okefenokee tribe." Or something like that.
Black Hawk was a war leader and warrior of the Sauk American Indian Tribe. Black Hawk was not a Tribe, he was a person.
edit: His name is used with honor to identify many things such as parks and colleges in the upper mid-west.
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-22-2014).]
No one (as far as I know) objects to the artistic rendering of the Native American that is reproduced on their helmets.
The argument is only about the use of "Redskins" :
quote
The nickname dates to 1933, when the NFL’s Boston Braves moved their games from Braves Field to Fenway Park and were renamed the Redskins. The team moved to Washington in 1937.
The legal case has centered on the period from 1967 to 1990 when the Redskins obtained the six trademark registrations. The federal board needed to decide whether the term “Redskins’’ was considered disparaging by contemporary society at that time.
In its ruling, the board cited testimony from language specialists that the word’s usage was increasingly considered derogatory from the 1960s to ’90s. The panel also noted that at least 30 percent of Native Americans from 1967-90 viewed the nickname as offensive.
“Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite’’ of the Native American population at the time, the board’s majority stated in the ruling. “To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out every 3 individuals.’’
And there is the issue.
If it were up to me, "Redskins" is perfect. As someone who has never had any significant conversation with any Native American, and as someone who follows the NFL a fair amount and watches many games every season (on TV), the "Washington Redskins" has a very positive ring to my ears. But it's not up to me.
If Dan Snyder petitions for a reversal of the trademark cancelation (or "de-registration"), then it will be up to an appellate court to examine the Patent and Trademark Office ruling. That court could examine the credibility of the prior testimony that "at least 30 percent of Native Americans from 1967 to 1990 viewed the nickname as offensive". They could consider whether "30 percent" is an applicable and significant threshold in the context of trademark law and regulations. They could weigh the relevance of the referenced 1967 to 1990 timeline, with respect to the wording of trademark law and regulations. They could (I suppose) consider the intent or purpose of the laws and regulations, apart from the exact wording of the laws and regulations. Maybe the pivotal trademark law or regulation could be found invalid or unconstitutional.
The court could even accept "Rallaster" as an expert witness or "friend of the court".
The point I'm trying to make isn't about where to go from here, it's that the complaints should never have been lodged in the first place and we shouldn't be here at all. Do you think a leader of a Native American tribe would have approached the leadership of the Redskins organization and offered to design and develop a Redskins themed logo if they had found the name to be offensive? Even on his deathbed the tribal leader defended the name and the logo calling Native Americans collectively "Red Nation" and saying they should be proud, not offended.
I, personally, want nothing to do with the court proceedings as it's all a feel-good farce at this point. It's all pomp and circumstance that really means nothing other than the T&P office can now use a result of "30% of people find this offensive" as a legitimate reason to reject/revoke your trademark. Seriously? 30%? That's the tipping point? Kinda low target, don't you think?
the T&P office can now use a result of "30% of people find this offensive" as a legitimate reason to reject/revoke your trademark. Seriously? 30%? That's the tipping point? Kinda low target, don't you think?
The implications of this, to me, is the most interesting part. Distilling the case to the basics, potentially anyone who is offended by any trademark could bring it up for revocation. Should certain religious conservatives be able to revoke the playboy bunny trademark? Or certain anti-gun groups be able to revoke Ruger's trademark? Where is the line drawn? Should there be any of this to begin with? Or should the owning of a trademark be non-revoke-able aside from situations where it has been shown the owner has not attempted to protect it (as I understand the law)?
On a lighter note, I saw someone say in regards to the specific issue at hand the team should change the logo to a redskin potato
Just saw on locl news last nite theyre now going after the Cleveland Indians..... Wonder if Buddists are going after the Bulls ? What about Cincinatti Reds ? Then expect the tree huggers to go after the OSU Buckeyes....LOL. When would it end.
Next on the agenda....The Cleveland Indians. Chief Wahoo. The three people that protest on front of Progressive Field on opening day every year don't like it. This stuff makes me sick. I know it's only sports, BUT this is the way of the world now. It spreads like a disease across all of society.
I posted this on this thread 4 days ago.....Here we go!
The Atlanta Braves, the Cincinnati Reds and the Kansas City Chiefs will be next. My wife doesn't think so, but she's an FSU graduate. I believe they WILL come after the Seminoles. Just give them time. The Seminole Tribe is in full support of the team name and representation. But I don't think that matters because there are some guilty-feeling white people out there who must clean their conscience.
"...In its ruling, the board cited testimony from language specialists that the word’s usage was increasingly considered derogatory from the 1960s to ’90s..."
Did the board acknowledge that being offended became a cottage industry from the time period 1960's to 1990's, as people recognized being aggrieved gave them power over other people?
I have never, and I mean never, heard anyone saying anything bad about a native american, call them a redskin as their way to try to insult them.
But I'm not around native americans that much. Anyone that lives more near to a population where they are bumping into native americans more often, hearing them being insulted by being called redskins?
But I'm not around native americans that much. Anyone that lives more near to a population where they are bumping into native americans more often, hearing them being insulted by being called redskins?
Do casinos count?
But seriously, I've only heard the word use as an insult in old 'B' western movies along with "pale face" for white people.
Cincinnati Reds were supposedly named after red socks initially.
Honestly I dont see a problem with the Braves for example. But I did wonder if it was over the top to do the tomahawk chop movement and say heya heya heya. http://www.slate.com/articl...long_tradition_.html
Obama and his anointed Staff are the most Racist Individuals that I've seen in my lifetime. We didn't have anywhere near the Racism we have today, prior to these people taking office. They continue to stir this crap up for any personal grain they can achieve from it, with total disregard for impact to living in the USA.
Neptune, you didnt say anthing to bust my bubble. You just wont admit you were wrong, thats the facts. Libs NEVER admit to anything wrong...look at Obuma. Theyre ALWAYS right even if it is wrong....even if theres proof.