Two Minute Commericial Anti-"Redskins" Tonight

[southwest1]

So, if I complain about being called a 'Brit', I have a right to have the word either removed from the English language, or I can sue people for calling me it? Is that how it's all going to work out? In that case, why don't we just ban all colours for our vocabulary, just in case we offend someone.

You also raise a valid point BHC. How do you tabulate the resistance? In other words, as you so correctly inferred, is any objection to the Redskins name worthy of it's dismantling as a franchise name? Of course not. Most people operate from the premise of majority rule meaning that a tiny fraction of critics should possess the same level of authority as say 85-90% of the population who has no problem with the term Washington Redskins. 

 

My point is simple: Minor resistance to a name should not be allowed to supercede or replace the will of the majority if the majority is resounding in it's overall conclusion. BHC made a valid point in my estimation not a straw man argument in the use of the phrase "Brit." JMO. I get where he is coming from & he is exactly right. Change is about magnitude & the proportion of endorsement for or against something.  

[NFLfan]

What if that team was owned by a black man who named the team?

Yes, I would have a problem with it regardless of the race of the owner.

You?

[OffensivelyPC]

Yes, I know you were charting the evolution of the word redskin over time. I get that & you did a masterful job articulating your case to keep the name based purely on the epistemology of where the word came from. Yes, you are also correct that treaties did in fact use the term redskin in them, but these same treaties were written by the white man who often forced tribes to sign documents that they could not read or the US government said put an X on this line & we will give you a ton of free whiskey to celebrate the occasion along with smallpox disease ridden blankets but come you can trust us we have nothing but the best intentions here. [Wink. wink. Not really.] 

 

I will concede OPC openly that if SW1 went out & interviewed various tribes in the DC area & only a tiny fraction took offense to it. The name does not change either. If the American Indian population says keep "redskins" as the NFL name we keep it. My point here is this: Don't go out interviewing people with a pre determined thesis. Let the vote speak for itself 1 way or another. Just because a result might not end in a believed fashion of a scholar, they do not have a right to lay a guilt trip on people or shame them into changing the name if the Indian public says "We have no problem with the term redskin in an NFL team context."

You'll hear no argument from me.  I dont' really care what the tribe's answer is, I just want to know what they all think.  And maybe that in and of itself is wishful thinking that we can interview them all or at least have tribal leaders from a substantial number of the various tribes.  I just feel that if they all spoke in unison, instead of one speaking for them all, this issue would be resolved so much quicker, less litigiously, and more economically.  But absent that, it'll always be a debate.  I don't think that the NFL or the tribes want to disrespect or shame the other.  Just come up with a unified voice and poof, problem solved.

[Dustin]

What if that team was owned by a black man who named the team?

Yes.

[Blackhawk4]

What if that team was owned by a black man who named the team?

That wouldn't make the word "redskin" any more or less offensive to Native Americans...It does literally nothing to change the offensiveness of the word. 

[Vance]

Yes.

 

Thanks.

[NFLfan]

That wouldn't make the word "redskin" any more or less offensive to Native Americans...It does literally nothing to change the offensiveness of the word.

I believe he was asking whether "Blackskins" would be considered offensive if the owner was black.

[Vance]

Yes, I would have a problem with it regardless of the race of the owner.

You?

 

I would actually like to see that happen, just so I could watch people's reactions.

[NFLfan]

I would actually like to see that happen, just so I could watch people's reactions.

That has zero chance of happening.

[Vance]

That has zero chance of happening.

 

Maybe not that exact scenario, but similar things to it happen quite a bit.

[Superman]

1) Yes, but the N-word is universally held to be a racially motivated term with a very dark history.  Every person, black, white, or otherwise understands and intimately knows the hatred that was once associated with this word.  The word redskin doesn't have the same racial hatred embedded in the word.  Ives Goddard, who has written extensively on the topic, has written a detailed analysis on the origin of the word, where it's most common usage in the late 1700s to early 1900s was descriptive, one in which the natives themselves used to distinguish themselves from europeans, whom they called whiteskins.  How and hwen it became a racist term is uncertain, which is why no one can agree on whether it disparages natives.

 

2) In the 2004 study (and there have been others since with similar results, but different methods of study and pointed questions), yes, 90% of natives do not care.  http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf.  You can google it, but I haven't seen any studies that really refute this.  Even when Bruce Allen (GM who just got promoted) brought this to light, there has been nothing since then that has disputed those findings.  Even my own personal research, which I wouldn't call exhaustive, hasn't really seen much to the contrary.  Certainly nothing that would indicate any more than and 80/20 spilt, the 80% being indifferent toward the name.

 

3 and 4) Yeah, I agree with you here.  From a business perspective, you wouldn't name your team, clothes, or whatever other product you sell something to be racially disparaging, even if it was 10% of subcategory of American citizens.  And at the time, that's why I think that there was nothing racist about calling them the redskins in the beginning.  Even the logo was reportedly designed by a chief (or some high ranking) native.   I'd look it up, but you'll find it if you google the Bruce Allen story mentioned in #2. Now as the times changes adn meanings of words change, so does your business also need to change if you want to keep a competitive product.  And perhaps he could gain more support by being a bit more sensitive to the topic.  He certainly hasn't looked very empathetic when he said he'll never change and you can put "NEVER" in all caps.  I do empathize with those that find it offensive, which is why I would never refer to a native as a redskin.  I also empathize with Snyder.  It's his business, and if he chooses to be insensitive to that 10%, that's his choice, even if it makes little sense business-wise to the rest of us.  But as I said in the beginning - redskin is just a word and therefore, the Washington Redskins is just a team name and logo.  Throw in emotions, and redskin can be an extremely offensive term, or it can be a word which invokes a ton of history and at one time respect towards a culture of natives.  To me, the issue is just one of egos more than it is anything else.   

 

1) If I find a word offensive, a word that is directed at my race, I'm not really interested in what the consensus opinion is. That's what I was saying earlier -- it's condescending to respond to someone who is offended by saying: "You know, this term originated here 300 years ago, and there was nothing offensive or hateful about it then; as a matter of fact, most people of your race don't find it offensive at all, so it's not really clear that it's actually a disparaging term." Again, who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by this term?

 

2) That's interesting, and I know that there are many studies. I'd just like to point out that it's easy to undermine a study about what Native Americans find offensive when the study uses the word "Indians" throughout. Makes me wonder about its credibility. It's also ten years old. Yes, I'm nitpicking, and maybe the study is sound despite that, but I think it's kind of dogmatic to say "90% of Native Americans don't find the word offensive." 

 

3 and 4) Like you say, it's mostly about ego at this point. Daniel Snyder has dug his heels in, and I don't really understand why. He's running a business; you don't stubbornly hold on to a name and logo that people are increasingly becoming aware has potential negative connotations. Seems like he's holding on to a time that's either past or quickly will be. Usually a business wants to be ahead of the curve, when possible. It even calls into question the way he runs his team, in a time when football is becoming more progressive.

[OffensivelyPC]

1) If I find a word offensive, a word that is directed at my race, I'm not really interested in what the consensus opinion is. That's what I was saying earlier -- it's condescending to respond to someone who is offended by saying: "You know, this term originated here 300 years ago, and there was nothing offensive or hateful about it then; as a matter of fact, most people of your race don't find it offensive at all, so it's not really clear that it's actually a disparaging term." Again, who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't be offended by this term?

 

2) That's interesting, and I know that there are many studies. I'd just like to point out that it's easy to undermine a study about what Native Americans find offensive when the study uses the word "Indians" throughout. Makes me wonder about its credibility. It's also ten years old. Yes, I'm nitpicking, and maybe the study is sound despite that, but I think it's kind of dogmatic to say "90% of Native Americans don't find the word offensive." 

 

3 and 4) Like you say, it's mostly about ego at this point. Daniel Snyder has dug his heels in, and I don't really understand why. He's running a business; you don't stubbornly hold on to a name and logo that people are increasingly becoming aware has potential negative connotations. Seems like he's holding on to a time that's either past or quickly will be. Usually a business wants to be ahead of the curve, when possible. It even calls into question the way he runs his team, in a time when football is becoming more progressive.

1) And I think we agree that if someone finds something offensive, it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks.  My only point is, at what point do you make the rest of the world modify their conduct so that you aren't offended?  On a person to person basis, the solution is simple, I try not to offend you by not calling you that word.  Your perception of what's offensive and my conformity to do that out of mutual respect is remote from the rest of the world.  The analysis becomes much more complicated when we're looking at it from a national and cultural perspective - which is why we ended up discussing what a good bsuiness man would do and whether he should be required to do so as a matter of law.

 

2) You know, I thought the same thing regarding the word "Indian" in the study.  As I stated before, some hold that word to be more offensive than "redskin."  I think to some extent, when you refer to all the tribes as a single entity, you may offend someone.  My understanding is that they prefer to be called by their tribe - a sioux, seminole, etc.  But to refer to them all, some don't like redskin, some don't like indian, some don't like native, and others don't like native american.  It's difficult, really, but the safest word as far as I understand it is "native."  But I think we both can agree that hte least preferred out of all 4 mentioned names is "redskin."  Even if the percentage is minor, I'm sure if someone did a study of which they preferred the least, "redskin" would be at the top of hte list. 

 

 

3 and 4)  Don't disagree with you here, especially given the fact that the Redskins have really not been that good of a franchise since he's owned the team.  They've been okay, but certainly not very accomplished.

[jvan1973]

If you want to see a truly offensive mascot, google the Rhode island school of design

[Superman]

If you want to see a truly offensive mascot, google the Rhode island school of design

 

Yikes.

[jvan1973]

Yikes.

yeah, lol

[OffensivelyPC]

If you want to see a truly offensive mascot, google the Rhode island school of design

It's just a piece of skin!!

[jvan1973]

It's just a piece of skin!!

did you actually see a picture of the mascot

[Dustin]

If you want to see a truly offensive mascot, google the Rhode island school of design

 

[NewEra]

Real pathetic how this country is turning so pc

[ruksak]

Real pathetic how this country is turning so pc

Says guy that isn't Native American. 

 

...and what's with all these blacks sitting at the front of the bus? 

[braveheartcolt]

Dear Blackhawk4, please change your username, or I'll tell the President, write to the Washington Post, and tell Roger Goodell.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Strawman

[OffensivelyPC]

did you actually see a picture of the mascot

Yeah, I was just referencing The Cable Guy.  You know, when they're playing the game.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

Real pathetic how this country is turning so pc

What is pathetic is that people cry and b!+ch about any little thing anymore. People are so thin

skinned and made of glass these days, every little thing makes people have a come apart.

 

The Redskins have had this name for how many years now 60, 70, 80 years and all of a sudden

it's a racist slang and needs to be changed??? Waaaay too much whining and crying going on

in this nation within the last decade, grow a pair people it's just a name.

[lollygagger8]

If you want to see a truly offensive mascot, google the Rhode island school of design

 

Should I find that mascot offensive since I'm a man??  Lol 

 

A couple of thoughts......

 

1) The owner of a team can name a team whatever he wants. He's the owner and this is America, not a communist dictatorship. 

 

2) If the owner names it something offensive to a certain group, then guess what? He loses the that certain group's sales and support. The other people NOT offended still support the team. He will lose out on that offended group.The End. Not endless whining about how this and that hurts people's feelings.

 

3) It's pathetic how much of this country is getting changed due to people getting butt hurt over something that doesn't have anything to do with them. If you don't like how a company is ran, then don't spend your money there.

Yes, it's that simple. 

[BlueShoe]

Something has changed this morning, and this story is about to actually become entertaining.

 

I really did not care much about this story, because usually these kinds of issues are more about a political agenda then they are about a real issue.

 

Early this morning, the US Patent Office cancelled the Redskins trademarks.

 

That should get the NFL's attention; as people and company's are free to infringe on the Redskins logo, and counterfeit the Redskins.

 

Let the circus begin. Calling all clowns, midget's and Go-Go dancers. You're up!

[House]

R.I.P Redskins team name.

[jvan1973]

Something has changed this morning, and this story is about to actually become entertaining.

I really did not care much about this story, because usually these kinds of issues are more about a political agenda then they are about a real issue.

Early this morning, the US Patent Office cancelled the Redskins trademarks.

That should get the NFL's attention; as people and company's are free to infringe on the Redskins logo, and counterfeit the Redskins.

Let the circus begin. Calling all clowns, midget's and Go-Go dancers. You're up!

they still have a patent on the logo Just not the name

[BlueShoe]

they still have a patent on the logo Just not the name

 

Point is, we can see the issues involved here with brand ownership.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/18/news/companies/patent-office-redskins/

 

"The Patent Office said it will continue to treat the trademark registrations as though they are valid while the team appeals the decision. The team has two months to do that, and the whole process could take years. In the meantime, the Redskins can continue to use the logos. But if the decision is upheld,it will be hard for the team to claim ownership of its brand. If it wants to go to court against a counterfeiter making T-shirts with the team's logo, for instance, it will be harder to show that the organization owns the brand."

 

It my opinion, this is the dagger. The writing is on the wall and the name will be changed.

[braveheartcolt]

They have provided zero new evidence to the case that was lodged in 1999. And which was thrown out in 2003. Apparently. So no change, pending appeal.....Not sure that the law changes due to peoples 'feelings'....

[DougDew]

Message to all readers:  Don't succumb to the PC brainwashing that has occurred over the past 20 years.  When discussing the issue of speech...the LISTENER i.e, the one claiming to be offended, is the troublemaker.....not the SPEAKER.  Sensitivity courses and PC mindthink always focuses on how the speaker needs to be MORE SENSITIVE...and not how the listener needs to be LESS SENSITIVE.  Its one sided propaganda...period.

 

There are only a few words in language that are always offensive.  Every other word...including Redskin...is subject to interpretation, based upon the context it is being used.

 

The fact that somone can say, or write, a word and many people are NOT offended by it, PROVES that the word is not inherently offensive and it is a matter of personal opinion if it is.

 

It is the LISTENERS judgment and perception, poorly at that, or just plain ignorance, that causes the problem.

 

And since they are they are the ones who are offended THEY have a problem...not the rest of us.

 

My advice to people who are (or claim to be) offended:  Change your opinion, your life will be happier.   

[Nadine]

Message to all readers:  Don't succumb to the PC brainwashing that has occurred over the past 20 years.  When discussing the issue of speech...the LISTENER i.e, the one claiming to be offended, is the troublemaker.....not the SPEAKER.  Sensitivity courses and PC mindthink always focuses on how the speaker needs to be MORE SENSITIVE...and not how the listener needs to be LESS SENSITIVE.  Its one sided propaganda...period.

 

There are only a few words in language that are always offensive.  Every other word...including Redskin...is subject to interpretation, based upon the context it is being used.

 

The fact that somone can say, or write, a word and many people are NOT offended by it, PROVES that the word is not inherently offensive and it is a matter of personal opinion if it is.

 

It is the LISTENERS judgment and perception, poorly at that, or just plain ignorance, that causes the problem.

 

And since they are they are the ones who are offended THEY have a problem...not the rest of us.

 

My advice to people who are (or claim to be) offended:  Change your opinion, your life will be happier.   

It's not about being PC

It is about evolving

 

Could not possibly disagree with this more

[NewEra]

Says guy that isn't Native American.

...and what's with all these blacks sitting at the front of the bus?

That was one * response

[The Fish]

This issue is now about so many things other than football. The .gov, overreach, private property rights, the first amendment ect. 

 

I'm more interested in the common theme and thinking of those who are really all for the .gov forcing Snyders hand in the manner they are, than anything else. 

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

Some of my forefathers came from Ireland so the Notre Dame mascot offends me. WAAA WAAA WAAA change the

Fighting Irish name WAAAA WAAAA!!!!

[jvan1973]

Some of my forefathers came from Ireland so the Notre Dame mascot offends me. WAAA WAAA WAAA change the

Fighting Irish name WAAAA WAAAA!!!!

That is probably next. Those drunken Irish can't help but fight each other.

[ColtsHoosiersBB]

That is probably next. Those drunken Irish can't help but fight each other.

Drunken Irish? Now that offends me......not really. I'm not a thin skinned whine bag.

[Yehoodi]

Point is, we can see the issues involved here with brand ownership.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/18/news/companies/patent-office-redskins/

 

"The Patent Office said it will continue to treat the trademark registrations as though they are valid while the team appeals the decision. The team has two months to do that, and the whole process could take years. In the meantime, the Redskins can continue to use the logos. But if the decision is upheld,it will be hard for the team to claim ownership of its brand. If it wants to go to court against a counterfeiter making T-shirts with the team's logo, for instance, it will be harder to show that the organization owns the brand."

 

It my opinion, this is the dagger. The writing is on the wall and the name will be changed.

 

It would be interesting to see which marks were cancelled . . . It is very likely only just the marks with the team name "Redskins" incorporated in the mark . . . as for the logo that in and of itself is not offensive and likely was not cancelled as there is no basis for doing this  . . . otherwise there would be a lot of trademarks that would have to be cancelled, Chicago Blackhawks to name one . . .

 

With that said one's rights in a mark does not come from federal registration but from usage.  Given that and that the Redskins have been using the name and logo for some 80 years of usage, the team still retains all the common law trademark rights . . .

[BlueShoe]

It would be interesting to see which marks were cancelled . . . It is very likely only just the marks with the team name "Redskins" incorporated in the mark . . . as for the logo that in and of itself is not offensive and likely was not cancelled as there is no basis for doing this  . . . otherwise there would be a lot of trademarks that would have to be cancelled, Chicago Blackhawks to name one . . .

 

With that said one's rights in a mark does not come from federal registration but from usage.  Given that and that the Redskins have been using the name and logo for some 80 years of usage, the team still retains all the common law trademark rights . . .

 

 

I disagree, because in a court of law, it would be very tough for a court to rule against others using a trademark that does not have a patent.

 

Lots of money made selling jerseys and other merchandise. This is where even if the team is stubborn, the NFL would have to step in to protect its investment.

[Superman]

Should I find that mascot offensive since I'm a man??  Lol 

 

A couple of thoughts......

 

1) The owner of a team can name a team whatever he wants. He's the owner and this is America, not a communist dictatorship. 

 

2) If the owner names it something offensive to a certain group, then guess what? He loses the that certain group's sales and support. The other people NOT offended still support the team. He will lose out on that offended group.The End. Not endless whining about how this and that hurts people's feelings.

 

3) It's pathetic how much of this country is getting changed due to people getting butt hurt over something that doesn't have anything to do with them. If you don't like how a company is ran, then don't spend your money there.

Yes, it's that simple. 

 

1) False. The team's ownership is subject to the rules and bylaws of the league, and that includes league approval for the team name, logo, and other branding. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't be surprising to find out that the NFL can force a team to change their name and logo. I'm sure that would be met with legal challenges, but the point is that "this is America" isn't really going to hold sway here. The NFL is more of a communist dictatorship than a democracy.

 

2 and 3) I tend to agree. Vote with your dollars, and if enough people feel the way you do, change will come. However, I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend that nothing is offensive, and nothing is worthy of attention. I've said already that I don't have strong feelings about this particular issue, but just because other people do doesn't mean they are whiners, whose viewpoint is unworthy of recognition. That's a rather close-minded approach.

[lollygagger8]

Wait a minute......

 

Where's the uproar and whining and crying about......