• 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

mike2810 said:
thanks for the clarification.

I heard on the radio, (have not searched the web), that over 90% of Native Americans have no issue with the team name of Redskin.

What I find interesting, the name/trademark has been issued for 47 years. Now it seems its an issue. Makes no sense to me.

I have asked if the word redskin in association with the team has been used as a slur. No one has stated it has and provided a source.

We cannot please everyone. I would bet the owner will take this to court. They have won in the past.

I have also asked why trademarks like Florida Seminoles, Cleveland Indians, Alanta Braves are not being targeted. No real reply.
Seems at one time the calling someone an "indian" was a slur.
This is all PC being used for political gain.
Click to expand...

Can't speak for all but I believe FSU had the blessing of the Seminoles for their use of that. As far as Redskins being offensive... I dunno. I can see it in that it seems like a really really generalized stupid thing as if the Mohawks of the North East had anything in common with the Hopi in the Southwest. I'd think that "nigger" was probably derived from "negro" which is Spanish for black and Redskin was probably thrown out there for all natives whether they have a red color in their skin or not. I think the offense is being called out by your skin rather than your heritage in an over-generalized manner.

Braves... calling someone brave is probably less of an insult. Cleveland Indians... well that's kind of insulting in that Indians is a misnomer being that Columbus was just an idiot who thought he traveled around the whole globe and had landed in India so people there where "Indians".

I just think these people have a right to be heard as does the owner. But the owner has to bring more than just, "because I feel like it" or "it's been that way for a while" or anything petty like that. He needs to actually make a case for himself.

I guess another angle to being offended would be that Washington was the center of basically deciding all the native genocides and broken truces at the same time generalizing them all as the same monolithic crew... when in fact they had a lot of animosity between them in many instances. It's like several years ago when a president of some south American country dared to say to the United States that "we are all Americans after all" and the right-wing just flew the hell off the handle about that. It was all a "How dare you say you are like us!" moment.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
That is ****ing tyranny and absolute bias and this has been done for no other reason than for political reasons and because democrats are epic tyrants.
Click to expand...

Well, it's official. Being against the continued marketing of a racial slur used to discriminate against NAs is... tyrannical. Lol.
 
poweRob said:
My apologies



The whole thread's premise from mostly the right is that those offended by the Redskin logo shouldn't be heard or their voices should be dismissed out of hand. They where offended and they spoke up about it and now people are hating on them for being offended. I'm here saying you can say all the offensive crap you want and they can be offended all they want and neither of you should shut up. Everyone should show their true colors.



And they spoke their piece to the patent office and now Snyder can appeal and make his case. Free speech is great ain't it?
Click to expand...

Free speech is great, I agree. I've said that a lot in this thread.

The thread's premise is that the Federal Government through the Patent Office (not usually a target of the right or left) declared that a long established trademark was offensive to 5 people and thus should be abolished. You are saying that people on here are mad at those 5 Native Americans, and I'm saying that isn't so, unless you can point to repeated posts that contradict that.

The obvious frustration from everyone I've read is that the Federal Government is now deciding what is offensive and what isn't, and most noteworthy in this case, based on the complaints of 5 people only. Not 5000 or 5 million, but 5. You don't have an issue with that, but a lot of us do, and our reasons have been laid out in this thread over and over again. A slippery slope is obvious in this situation, hence the jokes and probably some real concerns about what will happen to names, logos, etc. going forward.

It isn't about the people who complained. By the way, there were 3 judges on that panel. One dissented. In his dissent, he said that the 5 people presented no evidence whatsoever of any harm that was being inflicted on them by that name being used by a football team. That is a red flag to me. And that's pretty much what has spurred the discussions here, not that anyone is calling for the First Amendment rights of those 5 people be ignored or attacked which is what you keep saying has happened.
 
mike2810 said:
thanks for the clarification.

I heard on the radio, (have not searched the web), that over 90% of Native Americans have no issue with the team name of Redskin.

What I find interesting, the name/trademark has been issued for 47 years. Now it seems its an issue. Makes no sense to me.

I have asked if the word redskin in association with the team has been used as a slur. No one has stated it has and provided a source.

We cannot please everyone. I would bet the owner will take this to court. They have won in the past.

I have also asked why trademarks like Florida Seminoles, Cleveland Indians, Alanta Braves are not being targeted. No real reply.
Seems at one time the calling someone an "indian" was a slur.
This is all PC being used for political gain.
Click to expand...

As for the Braves, not this time and not by the patent. But some 10 to 15 years ago there was a real big push to get the Braves to change their name.
 
Perotista said:
As for the Braves, not this time and not by the patent. But some 10 to 15 years ago there was a real big push to get the Braves to change their name.
Click to expand...

That one I never got. Braves were warriors, in a good way. The other commonly used word "brave" is a compliment, not an insult.

The opposite of "Braves" IMO would be "Mighty Ducks" or something equally as weak. I'd rather be a brave than a duck.
 
tres borrachos said:
Clarification - 5 natives were offended by the Redskin team name.

None of this changes the fact that the federal government sided with 5 offended people over millions who weren't offended. That is the very definition of PC Police.
Click to expand...

You need to get over the 5 people thing. It's 5 people who brought the case. I don't think you can say that only five people are offended total.
 
poweRob said:
You need to get over the 5 people thing. It's 5 people who brought the case. I don't think you can say that only five people are offended total.
Click to expand...

The case was decided on the testimony and arguments of those 5 people, Rob. And only those 5 people. So how many were really offended is 1, not known, and 2, wasn't relevant, assuming the judges applied the law and the testimony when making their decision.

That's like saying "well while we're considering whether to convict this guy of killing his neighbor or not based on the evidence we should also ponder whether he may have killed more people somewhere along the line." That isn't the way our justice system works. You look at the case and the case alone.
 
tres borrachos said:
That one I never got. Braves were warriors, in a good way. The other commonly used word "brave" is a compliment, not an insult.

The opposite of "Braves" IMO would be "Mighty Ducks" or something equally as weak. I'd rather be a brave than a duck.
Click to expand...

Native Americans: The Noble Savage: The Brave

This fabrication of the American Indian by White American culture began around the 1820s, driven by the desire to create a mythic American past. Other heroic mythologies created around this time include imagery about Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims and their first Thanksgiving, and the casting of the Founding Fathers as demigods. With the Indians East of Appalachia subdued (and ultimately removed by the 1830s), anxiety about them subsided temporarily, allowing for national feelings about Indians to develop into a kind of schizophrenic depiction of them. There were still plenty of "bad" Indians in the American consciousness, but now there was room for re-invention, and the noble savage was created. Perhaps the single largest contribution to the creation of the Noble Savage was the publication of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's epic poem, The Song of Hiawatha in 1855. Longfellow's Hiawatha was an Indian with magic powers from the Lake Superior region who became a prophet and a guide. From the body of a stranger he conquered, Hiawatha got corn. He defeated disease-bearing Pearl-Feather with
Click to expand...

http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/mascots-justif.pdf

This history has led to a legacy of internalized oppression that comes from centuries of
dehumanizing practices intended to promote American Indian self-hatred and
encourage non-American Indian’s to believe that they are heroic conquerors (Munson,
2001; King & Springwood, 2000; Staurowsky, 1998; Adams, 1995; Drinnon, 1980).
Oddly enough, even though most American Indian leaders and organizations have been
voicing their discontent with the mockery and trivialization of their religion and culture,
no one seems to be listening (Sheppard, 2004; Springwood, 2001; U. S. Commission
on Civil Rights, 2001; Sigelman, 1998; Pewewardy, 1991; Mechling, 1980). In fact many
people, including some American Indians, continue to believe that American Indian
mascots and symbols serve to honor American Indian people, even though less than
ten percent of American Indians surveyed in a 2001 Indian Country Today poll felt that
mascots and symbols generally honored American Indian communities.
Click to expand...

- CCAR

WHEREAS, two professional sports teams by the stereotypical nature of their names, "The Washington Redskins" and "The Atlanta Braves" persist in encouraging stereotypical thinking about Native Americans and further by their names and emblems encourage us to think stereotypical thoughts,
Click to expand...

I wish you'd do research on this topic.
 
poweRob said:
There is no such thing as PC police. Anyone pushing that whiny diatribe is doing nothing but playing the victim card. No one is out to get you. There are no PC police. You can say all the heinous crap you want... just like you did in that last post... and I'll bet that there have been no police knocking on your door since you said that heinous crap have there?
Click to expand...

There certainly are PC police. They inhabit some of the public schools for instance....where a child can get suspended or expelled for eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun. They inhabit congress...for instance Harry Reid insisting on the Washington Redskins changing their name.
 
ObamacareFail said:
There certainly are PC police. They inhabit some of the public schools for instance....where a child can get suspended or expelled for eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun. They inhabit congress...for instance Harry Reid insisting on the Washington Redskins changing their name.
Click to expand...

There is no PC police. Just people trying hard to be a victim who need a bogeyman to blame. It's all in your head.
 
Hatuey said:
Washington isn't in question here. It's the use of the term redskin.



And this has already been shown to be nothing more than a whitewashing. Redskin has clear implications of race and little to do with "warrior".
Click to expand...

Who will you liberals go after next? The Cleveland Browns? You can probably find at least one or two African Americans offended by that name.
 
poweRob said:
Can't speak for all but I believe FSU had the blessing of the Seminoles for their use of that. As far as Redskins being offensive... I dunno. I can see it in that it seems like a really really generalized stupid thing as if the Mohawks of the North East had anything in common with the Hopi in the Southwest. I'd think that "nigger" was probably derived from "negro" which is Spanish for black and Redskin was probably thrown out there for all natives whether they have a red color in their skin or not. I think the offense is being called out by your skin rather than your heritage in an over-generalized manner.

Braves... calling someone brave is probably less of an insult. Cleveland Indians... well that's kind of insulting in that Indians is a misnomer being that Columbus was just an idiot who thought he traveled around the whole globe and had landed in India so people there where "Indians".

I just think these people have a right to be heard as does the owner. But the owner has to bring more than just, "because I feel like it" or "it's been that way for a while" or anything petty like that. He needs to actually make a case for himself.
Click to expand...

I heard the same when it comes to Florida State. We went through this BS around 10-15 years back for the Braves, even ESPN announcers started referring to the Braves as the Bravos. I assume ESPN received a ton of complaints about the Bravos as about a week of so calling the Braves that, they went back to using the correct name of the Atlanta Franchise. This stuff goes on every 10-15 years, but this is the first time the Federal Government has stepped into the fray.

I do not think the feds have any business telling a sports team what name they can use or not. Now I could understand this more if the patent office refused to issue a patent to a new team, but one that has been around for 80 years?

here:

History[edit]
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[6] Dietz's ancestry has been questioned by some scholars, as a birth certificate and census records recorded his parents as white. This does not preclude his having had Sioux ancestry as well.[7] In 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.[8] There was however, no logo on the Braves football uniform of 1932. The Washington Redskins current logo, which was inspired by Native American, Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians, was introduced in 1972.[9]

And for the full story

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
poweRob said:
There is no PC police. Just people trying hard to be a victim who need a bogeyman to blame. It's all in your head.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the little boy who was suspended from a public school for eating a pop tart into the rough shape of a gun. And another little boy who was suspended for pointing his finger at another student and saying: "bang".
 
Perotista said:
I heard the same when it comes to Florida State. We went through this BS around 10-15 years back for the Braves, even ESPN announcers started referring to the Braves as the Bravos. I assume ESPN received a ton of complaints about the Bravos as about a week of so calling the Braves that, they went back to using the correct name of the Atlanta Franchise. This stuff goes on every 10-15 years, but this is the first time the Federal Government has stepped into the fray.

I do not think the feds have any business telling a sports team what name they can use or not. Now I could understand this more if the patent office refused to issue a patent to a new team, but one that has been around for 80 years?

here:

History[edit]
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[6] Dietz's ancestry has been questioned by some scholars, as a birth certificate and census records recorded his parents as white. This does not preclude his having had Sioux ancestry as well.[7] In 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.[8] There was however, no logo on the Braves football uniform of 1932. The Washington Redskins current logo, which was inspired by Native American, Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians, was introduced in 1972.[9]

And for the full story

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you but I think it's the government's business in that a patent is a government contract. If there were no government contract involved then the government's role might be a different scenario.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Tell that to the little boy who was suspended from a public school for eating a pop tart into the rough shape of a gun. And another little boy who was suspended for pointing his finger at another student and saying: "bang".
Click to expand...

PC police does not exist. People make decisions good and bad everyday for whatever reason. Declaring there is this organized crew doing something just because someone in Whothefukknowswhere, Oklahoma made a judgement call they thought was prudent at the time... it's ridiculous. There is no PC police. Just people you disagree with who you wish to make seem bigger than they are. You are not a victim.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Who will you liberals go after next? The Cleveland Browns? You can probably find at least one or two African Americans offended by that name.
Click to expand...

Brownie (folklore) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

250px-Cleveland_Browns_game_program%2C_September_1946.png


Research is your friend. I wish you'd stop arguing that it is the use of a color itself that offends people when it's actually the historical significance of the name within the American sociocultural lanscape.
 
poweRob said:
I'd agree with you but I think it's the government's business in that a patent is a government contract. If there were no government contract involved then the government's role might be a different scenario.
Click to expand...

I could understand a new patent not being issued, but not one that goes back 80 years and has already been issued.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Who will you liberals go after next? The Cleveland Browns? You can probably find at least one or two African Americans offended by that name.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't mean the Chicago Blacks Hawks have to change their name. They have the best uniforms in the NHL.

And anyone who has ever met a Native American knows their skin isn't really red. Would anyone complain if they called them The Washington Whiteskins?

This might well go down as The Age of Pettiness.
 
Perotista said:
I could understand a new patent not being issued, but not one that goes back 80 years and has already been issued.
Click to expand...

I don't think time makes a case though. The "tradition" argument is a tough one to try and stand on. Not to be too provocative but we traditionally had slaves for centuries so making elapsed time the case for keeping slavery isn't really a strong one to make. When slavery started it seemed to makes sense to society. Society changes over time.

I mean 80 years ago natives really didn't have much of any voice at all in this country so if any native said anything negative about it... who knew and who would care back then? They still don't have much of a voice for that matter.
 
poweRob said:
PC police does not exist. People make decisions good and bad everyday for whatever reason. Declaring there is this organized crew doing something just because someone in Whothefukknowswhere, Oklahoma made a judgement call they thought was prudent at the time... it's ridiculous. There is no PC police. Just people you disagree with who you wish to make seem bigger than they are. You are not a victim.
Click to expand...

No one is a victim except the owners of the franchise and any business the government decides to shut down. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Grants Itself Authority to Shut Down Any Business at Anytime - Katie Pavlich
 
Grant said:
By whom? The Redskin Five?
Click to expand...
Perotista just shared the actual history behind the naming of the Washington Redskins in #963, which puts to bed the idea that it was intended as a racial slur. This coupled with the fact that CBS reports that the only poll ever taken amongst the tribes found that 90% were not offended by the name? Leaves me wondering where posters like Hatuey get the idea that their arguments have been proven. Red Skin can certainly be used as a derogatory slur. As was the case with the naming of this team, it has been used in a rather benign non-slurring manner too.

There may be no such literal thing as a PC police, but everybody understands what is meant by the phrase. ;)

For example, the "PC Police" would have us believe that naming the team and honoring team players from teh tribes on the team at the time? Was supposedly racist at the time, as well as now. Yet.......as Perotista showed us the actual history says otherwise!

History[edit]
The Washington Redskins were originally known as the Boston Braves. In 1933, co-owner George Preston Marshall changed the name to the Redskins, possibly in recognition of the then–head coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz, who claimed to be part Sioux. On July 6, 1933, the Boston Herald reported that "the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and the team that is to be coached by an Indian (Dietz)... with several Indian players."[6] Dietz's ancestry has been questioned by some scholars, as a birth certificate and census records recorded his parents as white. This does not preclude his having had Sioux ancestry as well.[7] In 1933, the Boston Braves moved from Braves Field, which they shared with baseball's Boston Braves, to Fenway Park, already occupied by the Boston Red Sox. John F. Banzhaf III, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, cites a newspaper article from 1933 in which Marshall is quoted as saying the name was selected only to save money by not having to change the logo of the Braves, and not to honor Dietz or the Indian players.[8] There was however, no logo on the Braves football uniform of 1932. The Washington Redskins current logo, which was inspired by Native American, Walter Wetzel, former president of the National Congress of American Indians, was introduced in 1972.[9]

And for the full story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom