• 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!

Redskins Name Lawsuit Heard By Federal Board

don't think so

What, so the lawsuits are all of a sudden going to stop?

yes, like coca cola is going to change its established name eventually, too
just as with coke, there is no business basis to necessitate change

There will be, if it is deemed that the name is offensive enough that it shouldn't be trademarked. The last time this happened the case was thrown out due to a technicality. The parties advocating a name change seem to have their ducks in a row this time around. I don't think the organization will change the name out of choice, but rather out of need. And this illustrates one of the possible ways that might happen.

no, it's a brand
one the owners have spent a **** load of money establishing in the minds of the consumers
why, after spending so much to establish a well known brand, would they then choose to change it

That's a good point. But to answer your question, for the reasons mentioned above.


won't be necessary
but this illustrates my point about the folly of changing the name of a well established brand
should they choose to make a change, the replacement name had better be MUCH better than the one they abandoned
so, come up with that better name and re-brand
until then, nothing is going to change

Agreed.
 
"Wizards" was the best option out of several horrendous options. Also "Warriors" just sounds too unoriginal which is why I hope that there's fan input if this happens. Also Snyder would be mad at the Golden State Warriors lol.

I'd actually be okay with Warriors if it had to change. You can keep the colors, use the Spear helmets and logo we've done before, etc. Hail to the Warriors even follows the same cadance. And frankly, IF we are FORCED To change...which is the only way I think a change should ever occur...then I'm all on board with giving a giant middle finger and changing as little as possible.
 
Many of the same people complain about "Indians" and "Braves", also. Not only that, but they used to complain about the Golden State Warriors until the Warriors changed their mascot/logo to be a neutral... and thus neutered... character. (Kinda fits with the Warriors, though)



Where's the line? When is it "...just a name" and when is it worth taking a stand as a matter of principle to keep political correctness from going too far?

I say this as a Redskins fan. Just what "principle" is it your standing on? Tradition? Some irrational and sentimental attachment to a name? That seems rather petty considering the fact that name is offensive to a significant portion of people. I know as an Asian-American that i'd be pissed off if they called some team "yellowskins" or some crap like that no matter how "unoffensive" the original intent of the name was.

It's a damn luxury of being a white male in America that one can afford to dismiss the pain of others as mere "political correctness."

One of the Plaintiffs Explains Claim Against Redskins Trademark « CBS DC

I have no problem with a name change. In fact I advocate it, as long as whatever replaces it isn't completely lame.
 
I say this as a Redskins fan. Just what "principle" is it your standing on? Tradition? Some irrational and sentimental attachment to a name? That seems rather petty considering the fact that name is offensive to a significant portion of people. I know as an Asian-American that i'd be pissed off if they called some team "yellowskins" or some crap like that no matter how "unoffensive" the original intent of the name was.

It's a damn luxury of being a white male in America that one can afford to dismiss the pain of others as mere "political correctness."

One of the Plaintiffs Explains Claim Against Redskins Trademark « CBS DC

I have no problem with a name change. In fact I advocate it, as long as whatever replaces it isn't completely lame.
Two points...
  1. There are plenty of Native Americans who are perfectly fine with the name. According to some sources, much more than who are opposed. But, you never hear about them. The media never interviews them. If the vocal opposition is indeed small, then that is exactly the definition of political correctness... fixing something that isn't broken just to appease a relative few.
  2. From your point of view, why does lameness matter as long as it doesn't offend anybody?
 
I say this as a Redskins fan. Just what "principle" is it your standing on? Tradition? Some irrational and sentimental attachment to a name? That seems rather petty considering the fact that name is offensive to a significant portion of people.

One, what do you base the last assertion on?

Two, are you talking about people specifically in regards to "native americans" or to anyone?

The Principle one could be standing on is a belief that things shouldn't be forecd to change because a loud minority of a particular minority group makes enough noise to get attention. That it's not the place of the courts, whiney douchy white journalists, or activists that like attention to proclaim what is or isn't offensive to an entire group of people without any actual basis for that assertion.

I have no problem with a name change.

Wonderful, you can join Jay Reed and Mike Wise and the other douches in the media that proport to know what is or isn't offensive to native americans better than native americans. How kind of you non-native american males in America to think yourselves so wise as to enlighten them as to what should be "offensive" to them.

If you and the rest of those like you manage to get the name changed then whatever ****tastic changes that happen after it are on your head, spare me your whines of things being "lame" when you're marching along to the drum beat for change.

And really, you dare proclaim yourself a Redskin fan? Look at you, engaging in apparent hate mongering proclaiming fanhood for a hate word like that. You wouldn't possibly have contributed money to such a hateful cause? Have a jersey or a hat or a shirt? Bought a ticket to a game? You tried to compare in a 1:1 manner calling the team the "yellowskins"...tell me, would you by jersey's or go to games if they were named that? And if not, then you highlight wonderfully the type of short sited, egocentric, "feel good for having a cause" mindset of Wise and the rest who just take the easiest path of activism.
 
Last edited:

Oh, and it's funny that in a story where she's complaining about the Washington Redskins name that she puts forward a heartfelt story of a game she went to in 2005....clearly being stated in a way to imply that Washington fans were doing offensive things. Of course, she fails to mention the game wasn't in Fedex or anywhere close to DC. In 2005 we played Kansas City AT Kansas City, not here at FedEx. The VAST majority of individuals she would've been running into at such a place would've been home team fans, not Redskins fans. But then again, pointing that out doesn't help her sob story because they're not going after the Chiefs, they're going after the "Washington Football" team...so it's much easier to just give a partial story and let the obvious assumptions be made hoping people don't think to do a tiny bit of research.

Also...clearly, had the Redskins been called the Warriors or something else, rowdy NFL fans likely engaging in the typical riturals of tail gating would've CLEARLY been amazingly sensitive, kind, polite, racially sensitive, angels that would never think to make disparaging remarks towards another person. I know when I went to a Browns vs Steelers game, two teams obviously not looking to spur hateful racial bigotry, all the fans from both sides held hands before and during the game and proceeded to sing Kumbaya while always being sure to use their inside voices and mind their P's and Q's with each other. It's only when you insert a horrible hateful racial name into a teams imagery that fans would ever seek to be crude and crass.....
 
Even if only 9% have an issue with "Redskins", that's enough for me. It is very easy to see their rationale. It is legitimate, IMO. I think that minimizing the legitimate position they have is fueled by egocentric denial.
 
Even if only 9% have an issue with "Redskins", that's enough for me. It is very easy to see their rationale. It is legitimate, IMO. I think that minimizing the legitimate position they have is fueled by egocentric denial.

So 9% overrule the other 90% in terms of what's "offensive" to the whole?

Less than one tenth of a population finding something offensive is enough to justify forcing an entity to change what they're doing? Something tells me you wouldn't be consistent what so ever with that standard, adhering to it here only because YOU find it offensive and therefore you feel it's fine to ignore the vast majority in a population to focus on those that actually agree with you.
 
So 9% overrule the other 90% in terms of what's "offensive" to the whole?

Less than one tenth of a population finding something offensive is enough to justify forcing an entity to change what they're doing?

I can understand your dissatisfaction with using the legal system to force them to change their name.

I applaud the 90% that don't take offense to the term. That doesn't mean that the 9% don't have a valid issue.

Go check with your HR dept. Ask them if calling Native Americans "Redskins" is acceptable.

"Hey redskin, show me your photo ID."
 
So 9% overrule the other 90% in terms of what's "offensive" to the whole?

Less than one tenth of a population finding something offensive is enough to justify forcing an entity to change what they're doing? Something tells me you wouldn't be consistent what so ever with that standard, adhering to it here only because YOU find it offensive and therefore you feel it's fine to ignore the vast majority in a population to focus on those that actually agree with you.
One of the plights of Native Americans living in America is how does a minority have a voice when 99% of the country that surrounded them doesn't give a **** about them? (made up stats)
 
One of the plights of Native Americans living in America is how does a minority have a voice when 99% of the country that surrounded them doesn't give a **** about them? (made up stats)


Except that in the case of the Redskins name and logo its the majority of American Indians that Victimization Inc. doesn't seem to give a **** about.
 
Except that in the case of the Redskins name and logo its the majority of American Indians that Victimization Inc. doesn't seem to give a **** about.
So in the future when only 1% of the elderly remember racism will it be okay to name teams "The Niggers"? And as I said I dont think any law should force the name change. Indians should come together and entice the "greedy" corporation in some way if money is what they want. Strike a deal if its important.
 
So in the future when only 1% of the elderly remember racism will it be okay to name teams "The Niggers"? And as I said I dont think any law should force the name change. Indians should come together and entice the "greedy" corporation in some way if money is what they want. Strike a deal if its important.

Shock value argument is shocking... but not logical.

No, the term redskin is a translation of the Indian word for Indians. So in a way the arc of offense for the word Redskin is exactly opposite, only lately being taken as offensive by some based on false claims as to it's origin... the other word was used as a slur since it's inception and recently has been adopted by a small number of blacks as a term they use for each other.
 
Shock value argument is shocking... but not logical.

No, the term redskin is a translation of the Indian word for Indians. So in a way the arc of offense for the word Redskin is exactly opposite, only lately being taken as offensive by some based on false claims as to it's origin... the other word was used as a slur since it's inception and recently has been adopted by a small number of blacks as a term they use for each other.
Ive heard my black friends say that white people can be niggers too.
 
I can understand your dissatisfaction with using the legal system to force them to change their name.

I applaud the 90% that don't take offense to the term. That doesn't mean that the 9% don't have a valid issue.

Go check with your HR dept. Ask them if calling Native Americans "Redskins" is acceptable.

"Hey redskin, show me your photo ID."
Probably happens on reservations a lot. :2razz:
 
I can understand your dissatisfaction with using the legal system to force them to change their name.

I applaud the 90% that don't take offense to the term. That doesn't mean that the 9% don't have a valid issue.

Go check with your HR dept. Ask them if calling Native Americans "Redskins" is acceptable.

"Hey redskin, show me your photo ID."

To many 'Indians' the term "Native American" is as offensive as the PC crowd finds the word 'Indian' and for the same reason. Object to Indian because Columbus mistook them for 'Indians'? Ah...so we right that wrong by naming them native "Americans". Because...they lived in "America"...edge of course...Europeans named it the Americas.

Tribal specific names are preferred. But hey...PC rocks.
 
To many 'Indians' the term "Native American" is as offensive as the PC crowd finds the word 'Indian' and for the same reason. Object to Indian because Columbus mistook them for 'Indians'? Ah...so we right that wrong by naming them native "Americans". Because...they lived in "America"...edge of course...Europeans named it the Americas.

Tribal specific names are preferred. But hey...PC rocks.

If Washington wants to keep the "Redskins" they are going to have to buy an NFL franchise named the "Paleface" for the people who were here before Whitey.
 
If Washington wants to keep the "Redskins" they are going to have to buy an NFL franchise named the "Paleface" for the people who were here before Whitey.

No one "has" to buy anyone a franchise, but if a group of Indians want to invest in one and call em The Palefaces...bless their heart. I'd actually like to see who would get all up in arms over it.
 
No one "has" to buy anyone a franchise, but if a group of Indians want to invest in one and call em The Palefaces...bless their heart. I'd actually like to see who would get all up in arms over it.

If a group of Indians wanted to buy one they would call it 7-11, Super 8, or Veggie Delight.
 
That trademark law is unconstitutional in my opinion. The Redskins name may not have been intentionally offensive, but it is archaic, and I can understand why some consider it offensive. (although the Cleveland Indians logo is actually more offensive) Naming team after a specific tribe/nation is OK, but a race name like redskins is insensitive at best. They should drop the name, but not because it is illegal, but because keeping the name honors a time when racism was considered acceptable, whether intentional or not.
 
Last edited:
Even if only 9% have an issue with "Redskins", that's enough for me. It is very easy to see their rationale. It is legitimate, IMO. I think that minimizing the legitimate position they have is fueled by egocentric denial.

Forcing a team to change their name because you're offended is not legitimate behavior.
 
I can understand your dissatisfaction with using the legal system to force them to change their name.

I applaud the 90% that don't take offense to the term. That doesn't mean that the 9% don't have a valid issue.

Go check with your HR dept. Ask them if calling Native Americans "Redskins" is acceptable.

"Hey redskin, show me your photo ID."

I don't rightly look towards my HR department in a government agency for my guidance on what is wrong or right in a society. HR, be it government or private, is focused on covering the ass of the company from even the threat of potential legal action being taken or even a hit to public image...not necessarily giving a damn about what is or isn't offensive to a group of people.
 
One of the plights of Native Americans living in America is how does a minority have a voice when 99% of the country that surrounded them doesn't give a **** about them? (made up stats)

Absolutely, that's an issue they face. On top of that, they face the fact that the little bit of a "****" people seem to give them...such as the douches here in the Washington media...is concern over the name of a sports team that every poll I've seen suggests a majority have no issue with. Meanwhile unemployment is over 90% on reservations, rape is ridiculously common place, elder and child abuse is widespread, amongst other far, FAR greater issues than the name of a Football team. But those causes are a lot harder, a lot more difficult, and a lot less gratifying to the ego of those constantly needing to find a new "Cause" than changing the name of said football team.
 
Back
Top Bottom