Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by SixofNine, Jun 10, 2014.
Just FYI you can quote multiple parties within the same post.
And now the newspaper for this city named after a Native American tribal leader is saying they'll no longer print "Redskins" in stories about the team. Except for stories about the name controversy. -_-
Chief's name, tribe name, etc... are not the same as this.
Let's start off with a poll for everyone:
Do you think Redskins is derogatory?
Sorry. I know that. I'm in the end stages of a financial deal almost $1M that I've been setting up since February. Signing contracts, on the phone, on email most of the day, analyzing financial data, making decisions. The deal should be closed in a few weeks, and I'll regain my focus again. I used to always multi post.
Except they don't want to trademark that name.
That's not even close. Actually, they're following the law. I already mentioned the tension between the USPTO's statutory obligations and speech regulation in my TL;DR post, but the legal basis for the ruling was pretty cut and dried:
There is a reason why the legal concept of statute of limitations exists. And there are consequences in cases where it should exist but does not. This is one such case.
It is unfair for a group to come along 40 plus years after the fact and say, "Hey, after 40 years of thinking about it we have decided we don't like it. Revoke it. It's offensive to us.
Also who is "us?" Do the "us" actually have standing to speak for all of their peers?
Should statute of limitations apply to language and its evolution?
If I am the owner, I change the name. End of story and forces the d-bags to focus on something more meaningful.
I think there's too much branding behind the current name to allow for an easy change. Not only that, local fans will be pissed.
I find it intriguing introducing the concepts of "standing" and "statute of limitations" into the discussion.
Also, prove that the trademark Redskins disparages Native Americans. Laugh, but this is an essential step in a logical legal argument to prohibit the term.
Intent doesn't need to be proved as far as disparaging words are concerned. The righteous indignation brigade just needs to show the word in of itself is disparaging, whether it's contextual or not.
And here's commentary from the Committee for Understanding and Respect, which supports the Fighting Sioux nickname:
We are very disappointed in the decision by the US Patent Office to cancel the trademark for the Washington Redskins, and we would be in shock if we had not just gone through this same deception in North Dakota with the Fighting Sioux issue.
We believe there is an agenda to eliminate all true Native American history and remove us from view. One can only guess as to why. The intention, we believe, is to make us a forgotten people by using the divide and conquer tactic. Just as the Fighting Sioux name was removed – not by Native Americans but a handful of non-natives who were able to use a small group of Native Americans as a pawns.
Make no mistake there is a national effort to remove us, which includes Native American tribes being denied use of their own heritage.
That is funny to me. The other extreme of the issue.
DING DING DING! We have a winner!
And while I don't necessarily agree with the premise that a removal from view is the intent, the liberal mantra of "we know what's best" has gotten rather old.
Well, I wish those forces of political correctness hadn't dropped "Carry Me Back to Old Virginny" as the Virginia state song in 1997. After all, it was written by a black man for crying out loud, and see, they called each other "darkey" back then, so that makes it OK -- doesn't some sort of statute of limitations apply? Besides, it celebrates the struggles of the black man to find work after being freed from slavery after the Civil War.
Carry me back to old Virginny.
There's where the cotton and corn and taters grow.
There's where the birds warble sweet in the spring-time.
There's where this old darkey's heart am long'd to go.
There's where I labored so hard for old Massa,
Day after day in the field of yellow corn;
No place on earth do I love more sincerely
Than old Virginny, the state where I was born.
Been discussing this over at Absolute Write, and I found some links that show this is hardly a cut-and-dried issue with regards to the origins of the word, and who finds it offensive.
This one from October of last year points out that not all Native Americans find the term derogatory:
And the Wiki link (which led me to the CBS article) suggests that the scalp connotation may be somewhat revisionist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang) Several good links in the footnotes at Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that a Native American school on the Navajo reservation is called the Red Mesa High School Redskins.
Two more pieces on the "redskins = scalps" idea:
This. Liberals enacting their agenda not to help anybody but to further liberal interests.
Bob, not all black people are offended at "nigger" either.
I get where everyone is coming from but it will get worse before it gets better and it's a name of a football team.
Honestly, this (the PC stuff, not the thread) is getting ridiculous. I can think of some more important problems to deal with right now. The southern border is one of them. It's almost like the people who start this stuff are trying (a) to distract from failures in other areas; (b) to look a lot more noble than they really are.