• 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

The Man said:
You're arguing that Redskins is a racial slur, but over 90% of Native Americans don't think it is.
Click to expand...


My native friends seem to be much more offended by how Thanksgiving is celebrated as a national holiday than the name Redskins.
 
rocket88 said:
Then they're a person right?
Click to expand...

It might have been a pan cake mix or something.

There were many products that had the word "nigger" with in the label before the word became derogatory.

Remember when the not so educated thought a geological form "niggerhead" was derogatory ?

Or when stupid people thought that the adjective "niggardly" was derogative and racist ? :lamo

Political correctness dumbs down society.
 
Zyphlin said:
To my understand, the only trademark that was killed off was that of the team name "Redskins".

So, if they weren't going to fight it, anyone could go out and print a "Washington Redskins" T-Shirt or Jersey with "Griffin III" and 10 on the back.

I don't believe the Logos themselves were part of the trademark that got stricken down...only the name.
Click to expand...

I edited and linked the ESPN article. From my understanding, it is the trademark patents of the name Redskins, and all logos from 1967 to 1990 that were cancelled.
 
The Man said:
You're arguing that Redskins is a racial slur, but over 90% of Native Americans don't think it is.
Click to expand...

Look in the dictionary:

Redskins noun
dated or offensive
An American Indian.

The number 90% is a bit dubious as there are serious questions about the cultural credentials of the respondents. But even so, we all agree that at least 10% of all Native Americans are offended by the term. Why isn't that enough? I mean, this isn't some random group of people. These are the remnants of a series of independent nations which spanned the continent which we murdered and stole their land to make room for our "manifest destiny". We "negotiated" them into the middle of nowhere, then stole that back when we found that the middle of nowhere was a great place for gold and oil.

So it may not be offensive to you, but it's certainly offensive to a large number of people.
 
Thorgasm said:
They already do.

You can get some really nice jerseys for $30 from China.
Click to expand...

You can, but it's not amazingly simple to get ahold of. It's not HARD, but it's not as simple as buying officially liscenced stuff.

The problem for the NFL and the Redskins if this is to ever be upheld is that you could have people on Amazon, for instance, selling "Washington Redskins" stuff where previously they couldn't without a penny going to the NFL or the Skins
 
The Man said:
I edited and linked the ESPN article. From my understanding, it is the trademark patents of the name Redskins, and all logos from 1967 to 1990 that were cancelled.
Click to expand...

I'll have to give it a read. I was under the understanding this was only the name.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This is very common throughout the ages. You are right. It is not a good thing but it is a common thing.
Click to expand...

A common thing that the Constitution and First Amendment was intended to free us from. It was the principle that no dictator, monarch, feudal lord, pope, or any other authoritarian government could dictate what we were required to believe, think, practice, speak, or embrace. So common in other places and other times yes. But not common to the USA until just recently.
 
Mithros said:
The number 90% is a bit dubious as there are serious questions about the cultural credentials of the respondents. But even so, we all agree that at least 10% of all Native Americans are offended by the term. Why isn't that enough?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't matter what they think. Just like it wouldn't matter what they thought if it was 100% of native americans. They don't own the team, and they can just not watch the teams games or do any business with them at all if they are so offended over word usage.
 
The Man said:
That's not what the ESPN article that I linked says.
Click to expand...

I know, which is why I posted the correction. Everything was cancelled, the logo, the name, all of it.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'll have to give it a read. I was under the understanding this was only the name.
Click to expand...

I re-read it. You are correct, it is six trademarks of the name redskins, not the logo. The article was worded weirdly, but the box on the right explained it better.
 
Are the females here offended by the company named Hooters?
 
Zyphlin said:
You can, but it's not amazingly simple to get ahold of. It's not HARD, but it's not as simple as buying officially liscenced stuff.

The problem for the NFL and the Redskins if this is to ever be upheld is that you could have people on Amazon, for instance, selling "Washington Redskins" stuff where previously they couldn't without a penny going to the NFL or the Skins
Click to expand...

It's as easy as Amazon. The only thing is it takes up to 45 days to arrive. It does arrive though. Good quality too.
 
AlbqOwl said:
A common thing that the Constitution and First Amendment was intended to free us from. It was the principle that no dictator, monarch, feudal lord, pope, or any other authoritarian government could dictate what we were required to believe, think, practice, speak, or embrace. So common in other places and other times yes. But not common to the USA until just recently.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it was added into the constitution for a reason?
 
Mithros said:
The number 90% is a bit dubious as there are serious questions about the cultural credentials of the respondents.
Click to expand...

Quibble all you like...if you don't have anything remotely to offer factually to counter it the fact is it's the most accurate scientifically polled data on the subject that's available.

Why isn't that enough?
Click to expand...

Because everyone has their own arbitrary line. And that's all it is, arbitrary.

There's a retired chief of one of the Native American tribes here in Virginia whose gone on record stating he'd be offended if they DO change the name. If 10% of the native american population felt that they'd be upset if the name WAS changed....would that somehow counter the other 10% for you? Since apparently 10% of a populatoin feeling a certain way is enough for you.

But to an even greater extent, the issue with the 10% isn't so much a "do it/don't do it" thing...but rather it highlights the dishonesty by many who attempt to paint this as though it's offensive to native americans as a GROUP. No, in reality, this is offensive to a small portion of native americans. It's entirely reasonable for someone to decide, PERSONALLY, if that small portion is enough to warrant action. But it's NOT reasonable to attempt to take that small portion and portray them as the group as a whole in order to gain further sympathy and emotional weight to your side. It's against that kind of tactic that the "10%" number is most often meant to combat.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'll have to give it a read. I was under the understanding this was only the name.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of stories out there, and each one phrases it a little differently. But there does seem to be some sort of a consensus that this is the skinny:

. . . Snyder and others associated with the team have long argued that the Redskins name is used with respect and honor and is a source of pride among many American Indians.

The ruling involves six uses of the Redskins name trademarked by the team from 1967 to 1990. It does not apply to the team's American Indian head logo.

If it stands, the team will still be free to use the name but will lose a lot of its ability to protect its financial interests. It will be more difficult for the team to go after others who print the Redskins name on sweatshirts, jerseys or other gear without permission.

"Joe in Peoria is going to have a pretty good argument that he could put the 'Redskins' name on some T-shirt," said Brad Newberg, a copyright law expert in Virginia.

Newberg estimated that the ruling, if upheld, could cost the team tens of millions of dollars per year. Forbes magazine puts the value of the Redskins franchise at $1.7 billion and says $145 million of that is attributable to the team's brand. . . . .​
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-patent-office-finds-redskins-210155449.html
 
Ockham said:
I know, which is why I posted the correction. Everything was cancelled, the logo, the name, all of it.
Click to expand...

No I think you were right, it's six uses of the name Redskins that were cancelled, but not the logo.

Aww hell, I don't even know anymore. :(
 
What if Donald Sterling owned the Redskins?
 
The Man said:
No I think you were right, it's six uses of the name Redskins that were cancelled, but not the logo.

Aww hell, I don't even know anymore. :(
Click to expand...

I think they cancelled RGIII's contract. :lol:
 
I wonder if we will see more stories like this?

[h=2]A longtime chief of a major Virginia Native American tribe said he would be offended if the Washington Redskins DID change the team name and said society has gotten too "politically correct" and "touchy" these days.[/h]Speaking on Sirius XM NFL Radio's "The Morning Drive" on Wednesday, Robert "Two Eagles" Green, whom CBS notes "retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March," said most members of his tribe "don’t find" the Redskins name to be "offensive.”
“I’ve been a Redskins fan for years and to be honest with you, I would be offended if they did change it," Green said.
Chief Green said his research indicated the term came from Indians, and it is "not a term that the white man created." He said Native Americans used the term to refer to themselves in negotiations with white settlers and noted "we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”. . . ​

Former Native American Chief: I'd Be 'Offended' if Redskins Change Name
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom