1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Change the Name

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by SixofNine, Jun 10, 2014.

  1. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    I will be in bed, but apparently this ad is going to air during game 3 of the NBA finals. Ironically, the song used in the ad was written a couple of years ago by a lifelong fan of the Washington Redskins.

  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I have no argument here but I will just say that Redskins to me, was never in a negative and always been in a positive.
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  4. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    If one more Redskin calls me "white eyes" I swear...

    No one has a constitutional right not to be offended.
    ethics likes this.
  5. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    I don't have a dog in this hunt, I'm a Giants fan for crying out loud, but I wonder how the usage of the word hundreds of years ago has anything to do with its meaning today.

    I'm the polar opposite of politically correct, but this seems like a no-brainer to me, though in an introspective moment I wonder how much of that is nothing more than schadenfreude directed toward the easy-to-dislike owner Dan Snyder. :)

    Somebody posed an interesting question recently. Would you be willing to call a Native American "redskin" to his face in everyday conversation, treating it as the equivalent of "white," "Caucasian," "black," "African-American," etc.? And if not, why not?
  6. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Hell, the PC crowd changes things so often, who the hell knows what's currently acceptable and what isn't? The bar has to be changed on a regular basis in order to keep the victim mentality alive.
  7. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Well, like I said, if *I* were the owner, I'd change it and let the fans divert attention to the team vs some idiotic issue of a name.
  8. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    Pulling your attention away momentarily from more important issues such as black cat/dog bias :D , this just in:

  9. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Apparently this has been an ongoing case, so I'm not really sure how much this decision really means to the issue.
  10. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    This happened in 1999, but the NFL won on appeal 10 years later. However, that appeal was based on a technicality, not the merits of the plaintiffs' case.

    The upshot is that the team doesn't have to change its name, but it limits their legal options when others use the logos and the name on T shirts, sweatshirts, drinking glasses, and any other merchandise you can think of.

    My guess? Another 10 years of wending through the appeals process, though the final outcome might be different this time.
  11. Andy


    If the redskins owner had any balls, he would either shutter the franchise completely to directly impact the local economy of the PC Police run amok state, or move it to Texas and change the name to the White Devils.
    cmhbob likes this.
  12. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I don't understand why disparaging Native Americans--or any race or ethnicity--isn't considered Constitutionally protected free speech.

    When did the government get into the business of enforcing political correctness? What gives them that right?

    I say if you don't like the name, don't watch or attend the games. If enough people do that then it shows the Redskins a financial reason to change the name. If their audience doesn't decline then that shows that the majority of the public don't want this bullshit about political correctness.
  13. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    OMFG I just realized that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a part of the Executive branch of the federal government. Funny who runs that branch. That tells me where this bullshit is coming from.
  14. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Well...once these Politically Correct Nazi's are done bullying a NFL franchise, they will have lot's of work to do going after these other 450 companies.

    What a STUPID and DUMB waste of time this whole thing is. We have real problems in this country, but THIS is what many are choosing to waste their time on?
    cmhbob likes this.
  15. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    I'm not passionate about this, and still derive guilty pleasure out Dan Snyder's discomfort, but just to leaven the discussion:

    A complaint was brought before the USPTO by five Native Americans. They ruled on it. It was not a case of a government agency actively chasing this issue.

    This does not mean that they have to change their name. It only means that they can't stop other parties from making money off of the name or the logo. Which is kind of paradoxical -- the ruling actually opens the floodgates to a bombardment of "Redskins" products with the NFL team helpless to stop it.

    Lots of other such names don't bother me, e.g., "brave," "chief," (any tribe name). One question I asked earlier that nobody answered is that if "redskin" is so inoffensive, would you use it to address directly a Native American? If not, why not?

    However, I do feel uncomfortable about the USPTO stepping into speech regulation territory. The libertarian in me leans toward letting any corporate entity using as racist a term as they please and letting the market sort it out.

    And yes, corporate America has made a lot of money off of dead Indians (though I wonder if they have the tax breaks and anti-trust exemption of the NFL). As sports columnist Sally Jenkins writes:

    So maybe we should treat living Indians a little better. :) This gets thrown up a lot, e.g., "What about the Indian on Land 'O Lakes butter?" That smacks to me of "Others are doing it, therefore the Redskins should be allowed to do it." I would prefer to focus on whether "it" is right or wrong.

    In like manner the "this is such a minor issue" retort strikes me as a red herring, however well-meaning and/or unintentional. Are we not capable of paying various levels of attention to multiple issues? Should we do nothing else but focus on Iraq or Syria until those are solved? Where do you draw that line?
  16. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    For me, the line is drawn when the current Administration attempts to use one of it's department to bully a private entity into meeting it's own will when they can't find or create a law that will do it for them.

    It's fairly simple to see that the Redskins are being targeted simply because it's an NFL franchise with lots of visibility to give those against them the high pulpit to show everyone just how PC they are. If they were truly and honestly concerned with any possible offense to Native American's, they would have been going after any number of companies long before now.

    To me, this situation is just another in a long list of what I would call "silly things" that some of our elected officials are wasting their time on. They don't have the balls or mental fortitude to tackle the long and exhaustive list of real problems, so they stand up on their pulpit and yell about this to make sure people know they are working hard for them.
  17. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    That's a good point, that some political actors couldn't give a rat's ass about the team name, but are using to issue for political mileage. It's a variation of "for the children." :)
  18. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    The Native Americans AKA "Indians" were there before the USPTO's inception and had plenty of time to trademark the name "Redskins." USPTO is stepping outside its authority and violating its charter in ruling against the Redskins, and are also violating the Redskins' freedom of speech.

    It's almost as if they are doing the same thing as Obama is doing, ignoring the Constitution and doing what they want.
  19. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I cannot think of any legal or Constitutional support that any governmental agency has the right to prevent a person or corporation from offending Native Americans. There is no Constitutional right to not be offended. Being offended is just tough shit, deal with it, not a problem the government should intervene in.

    If the Native Americans want to do anything about it they should start a publicity campaign aimed at hurting the Redskins financially until they are forced to change the name. Under any Constitution I know that is their only recourse.
  20. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    It's typical liberal bullshit. Liberals: the party of "nanny." The same people who think that there should be no athletic games with scoring because winners are hurting the losers feelings. Same people who send a child home from school because he made a gun shape using his fingers and said "bang, bang."
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014

Share This Page