• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

Mithros said:
What is your issue with Native Americans? Savages????? That's an accurate term???? Do you not realize how incredibly racist it is to classify an entire race of people as savages because they didn't live in stone houses and own guns? Sheesh..I suppose you think that they should be grateful to be genocided by a much nobler race.

And then you conflate Redman with Redskin. Seriously? If you can't understand why someone else would find the term offensive, then you pretty much lack any human empathy.
Click to expand...

If you read her post, she said this:

a people sometimes represented historically as savages--which was accurate in many cases

And she is correct. If Anne Hutchinson and her children who were slaughtered and scalped by the Indians and were alive today, and if the entire population of Deerfield, MA who were slaughtered by the Indians in a surprise raid and they were alive today, they would agree with her.

She also said "sometimes" represented historically "in many cases" which means she ISN'T classifying "an entire race" as "savages".

You shouldn't put words in her mouth.
 
tres borrachos said:
I would have thought that was obvious to everyone who understands what a trademark patent is. Maybe I was wrong.

I hope Dan Snyder sues the **** out of someone for this.
Click to expand...

The NFL collects revenue on the team names merchandise. I wonder if they will now get involved?
 
AlbqOwl said:
I will tell you the same thing as I told Gimme. I did NOT classify an entire race of people as savages, but to deny that the Native American peoples had their savage side in their history would be absurd. It would be as absurd as saying that medieval Europeans were never brutal feudal lords or that 18th century descendants of Europeans never owned slaves. To acknowledge that am I saying that a whole race of people were or are slave owners or supporters of feudalism? Is saying that it is historically accurate that at least some black Americans descended from jungle tribes suggesting that an entire race of black people are jungle dwellers? A little intellectual honesty here please.
Click to expand...

If it is universal to all races and all peoples across all times why did it need a special mention for Native Americans. Also, who were the savages; the people who were cheated, murdered, rounded up, murdered some more, then deported to camps in the middle of no where or the people who carried out those crimes?

No, you made a special point of saying that "some" of the Native Americans were savages.. as if that somehow justifies our treatment of them. Intellectual honesty says that our treatment of the Native Americans and slavery are the two darkest moments in our history.
 
1750Texan said:
Apache is the name of a tribe. How is the name disparaging? What tribe is the redskins?
Click to expand...

He's calling Apaches rats! It's despicable! That cannot be tolerated!

Or is he calling rats apaches? Hmmmm....
 
Beaudreaux said:
Anyone can use any name that isn't protected by trademark. What this is, is an attack on the ability of the team owners to protect their brand and make money from that brand. It was the government saying that the name of the company was "offensive." How many other companies are next?

Should the federal government have the power to harm a private company that is not breaking any laws? Because that's exactly what they just did.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally changing America...
 
Red Skin potatoes should be offended, better come up with something else to call them quick.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063421116 said:
Yes but now every T-shirt maker in China can copy their logo and sell it, taking revenue from the NFL.
Click to expand...

They already do.

You can get some really nice jerseys for $30 from China.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063421116 said:
Yes but now every T-shirt maker in China can copy their logo and sell it, taking revenue from the NFL.
Click to expand...

They can't sue Chinese bootleggers now. There are no international trademark laws. They can sue if the distributor is here in the US.
 
The Washington casino owners. Howaboutthat?
 
HenryChinaski said:
I just asked someone I've known for 30 years who is full blooded Chippewa as well as an advocate of Native American rights, reparation and all that stuff about this. Her sentiments mirror mine. "Red-Skin is about as offensive as "White Dude" is
Click to expand...

Or black dude or Chicano or Hispanic guy or Asian guy or referring to somebody as racially ambiguous. Only those who see their race as somebody offensive or inferior minds that somebody notices that they are of a particular race or ethnic group.

Meanings of words change all the time. I think if we just all joined together and started a national trend to make words like "Chink" and "Wop" and "Polack" and "Dago" and "redskin" etc. etc. etc. terms of endearment instead of some artificial idea that they are somehow racial slurs, we could make one huge block of political correctness nonsense go away.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I just asked someone I've known for 30 years who is full blooded Chippewa as well as an advocate of Native American rights, reparation and all that stuff about this. Her sentiments mirror mine. "Red-Skin is about as offensive as "White Dude" is
Click to expand...
Good for you, you and your anecdotal friend don't represent everyone or every tribe, now do you?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063421124 said:
The NFL collects revenue on the team names merchandise. I wonder if they will now get involved?
Click to expand...

Well, the reason that so many on here were screaming for Donald Sterling's head was because they decided that he tarnished the NBA and it would cost them money, which is why they cheered like high school girls when the NBA banned him for life.

I wonder if they'll be as concerned with the NFL's loss of revenue, and declare this an UNWISE decision because it will hurt the NFL. :ssst:
 
1750Texan said:
The is no right for any company to have a trademark.
Click to expand...
You may want to rethink that.

1750Texan said:
There is no requirement that any company have a trademark.
Click to expand...
Requirement? No, there's no requirement. The requirement is on other companies not to use the trademark of other companies. That has been protected in every state since colonial times in this country. In 1870, the Congress passed the federal trademark law to give protections across state lines when it became apparent that more an more companies began to do business in multiple states.

1750Texan said:
A trademark gives a company the "benefit" to sue to protect their image or word in federal court.
Click to expand...
That's just but one of the benefits, and only applies to federally protected marks. Any company in any state has trademark protection within their own state for their trademark even if they haven't registered it with the federal government. And all they have to do is show they have used it in that state before for it to be protected.

1750Texan said:
The DC team lost that privelege.
Click to expand...
It isn't a privilege. It's right granted by application and law, and until now, could not be revoked. This action is unprecedented and will in all likelihood fall in court.

I'm not an attorney, but I do have three federally registered trademarks, and I do know this law because of the trouble it took and the amount of time and money it took to get them.

Friendly advice, check you facts.
 
HenryChinaski said:
I'd wager that the majority of Native Americans do not care one iota about this Non-issue.
Click to expand...

The majority of any group are too busy to consider the sociological implications of institutionalized racism. That's why we have the Constitution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I'm sorry. But if you cannot represent what I say honestly and without politically correct revisionism, we have nothing to discuss. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
I'm not sorry that you cannot bring yourself to stating consistent, logical argument that doesn't contradict itself in nearly every post I respond to.
 
shrubnose said:
Lots of good info at this link: 4 burning questions from U.S. Patent Office’s decision to cancel Redskins trademarks | For The Win




So, will the Redskins change their name?

I don't know and I really don't care, I'm 1/8th Native American and the name doesn't offend me.

I know that other people have other opinions (Which they are entitled to.).
Click to expand...
I am 50% Italian, should I sue Paramount Studios for distributing that vile anti Italian movie the Godfather that made us all out to be soul less killers.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063421131 said:
Fundamentally changing America...
Click to expand...

The one overriding goal of the Obama Administration. He admitted it (warned us) in both of his campaigns (hope and CHANGE).
 
1750Texan said:
Apache is the name of a tribe. How is the name disparaging? What tribe is the redskins?
Click to expand...

Actually Apaches aren't a tribe, Apache's are collective group of tribes related by culture, customs and language. Some of those tribes referred to as Apache's are the Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Lipan, Western Apache and Kiowa Apache.
 
I was born and raised in Detroit and I don't recall anyone ever being offended because they were called a Polack.
 
Give it a shot, they might settle out of court and give you a few bucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom