• 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

SMTA

Tsuyo Ketsu no Anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
42,348
Reaction score
12,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Fight On: Battle Over Washington Redskins Heard in Court « CBS DC

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — The long-running battle over the Washington Redskins name got a restart Thursday, when a group of Native Americans argued that the franchise should lose its federal trademark protection, based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable.
As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.

Here we go again - it needs to be left alone.
 

Yep. After 45 years, about two generations, it is hard to recognize this "outrage" as legitimate. Back then black was bad and colored people was the prefered PC term, now we have returned to having black leaders, yet still have the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP. What about the Cleveland Indians? Must they now become the Cleveland Native Americans? Perhaps Americans from India should sue forcing these native Americans to drop "stealing" that term; no more Bureau of Indian Affairs!
 
Back then black was bad and colored people was the prefered PC term

I don't think redskin has ever been a preferred term.

What about the Cleveland Indians? Must they now become the Cleveland Native Americans?

Ok, the Washington Indians. See how you've sidestepped the issue?

Perhaps Americans from India should sue forcing these native Americans to drop "stealing" that term;

Haha
 
I don't think redskin has ever been a preferred term.



Ok, the Washington Indians. See how you've sidestepped the issue?



Haha

This is taking thins too far, IMHO. We commonly use white = Eurpoean/caucasian, black = African/negro and yellow = Asian/oriental. Adding "skins" to "red" should not make it offensive, just as redheads is not an offensive term to describe people with that hair color.


The term is arguably most prominent in the name of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League football team. The team was founded in 1932 and was originally known as the Boston Braves, for their landlords, the baseball team called the Boston Braves. In 1933 the name was changed to the synonymous Boston Redskins when they left Braves Field for Fenway Park, the home of the Boston Red Sox. Some accounts state that the name "Redskins" was chosen to honor the team's coach, William "Lone Star" Dietz, who began coaching in 1933, and whose mother was allegedly Sioux. In 1937 the team moved and joining Capitol Hill as the second football team of Washington, D.C., becoming the Washington Redskins.[10]

Redskin (slang) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
No redskins no blackskins. No whiteskins. Case closed.
 
Yep. After 45 years, about two generations, it is hard to recognize this "outrage" as legitimate. Back then black was bad and colored people was the prefered PC term, now we have returned to having black leaders, yet still have the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP. What about the Cleveland Indians? Must they now become the Cleveland Native Americans? Perhaps Americans from India should sue forcing these native Americans to drop "stealing" that term; no more Bureau of Indian Affairs!

I'm sure Native Americans and African Americans are willing to defer to your judgement on what should or should not offend them.
 
I'm honestly lost on why it matters if people are offended over what teams name themselves.
 
Does this mean people won't be able to scalp tickets if they change names? :2razz:
 
Yep. After 45 years, about two generations, it is hard to recognize this "outrage" as legitimate. Back then black was bad and colored people was the prefered PC term, now we have returned to having black leaders, yet still have the United Negro College Fund and the NAACP. What about the Cleveland Indians? Must they now become the Cleveland Native Americans? Perhaps Americans from India should sue forcing these native Americans to drop "stealing" that term; no more Bureau of Indian Affairs!

Do you really want to flaunt the white man's ignorance by highlighting the sheer stupidity that people still call Native Americans "Indians"?

The Redskins should change their name. It really isn't a great team name. They have nothing to gain by keeping it.

Also, I would like the city to change their name to Washington, District of Honduras. :lol:
 
I think the Redskins brass should just give them all some 40's of whiskey and call it a day. :)


Tim-

"40's of whiskey"?

Wow.
 
If you wanna keep the name, better gather some shiny beads.
 
Do you really want to flaunt the white man's ignorance by highlighting the sheer stupidity that people still call Native Americans "Indians"?

The Redskins should change their name. It really isn't a great team name. They have nothing to gain by keeping it.

Also, I would like the city to change their name to Washington, District of Honduras. :lol:

I work with several tribal counselors, relatives of a tribal chief, and people that work at the walk-in center. They refer to themselves by their specific tribe, but as a general term...Indian. They also refer to themselves using a common Canadian descriptor..."first people".

During a multicultural presentation a few years back a young fresh faced masters student nervously asked one of the panel members "I dont want to be inappropriate...but...Im not sure...what to call you..." His response...well...I prefer 'Joe'....
 
I'm sure Native Americans and African Americans are willing to defer to your judgement on what should or should not offend them.

this Native American certainly does


the only thing that will change after this non-issue is the size of the attorneys' bank accounts
 
That's outrageous! Are you in cahoots with Venezuela? I see what you're doing... District of Cuba.

District of Luxembourg is too pretentious.
 
Getting worked up over such meaningless minutiae says more about the offended than the offender.
 
I'm sure Native Americans and African Americans are willing to defer to your judgement on what should or should not offend them.

In terms of native americans, I'm sure they're as willing to defer to someone like him as they are to someone like you or the handful of overly sensitive white individuals, or the handful of "Every minority must think like us" blacks, in the media of the public.

I love when people try to lecture others about telling people what Native Americans "think" while they largely sit there and are doing the same thing. Disparate groups of a statistically insignificant number of native americans do not represent nor indicate any truth of a majority feel. I'd still welcome anyone providing a more current bit of factual information, but till then I'll refer back to what I pointed at before...

Additionally, I don't rely on non native americans in the Public and the Media to dictate to me what should or shouldn't offend or bother native americans on the whole. In 2001, in an admittedly questionable in it's scientific method of being conducted, Sports Illustrated conducted a poll and found that over 80% of native american respondents suggested they didn't believe that teams should change their name. Even amongst those native americans living on a reservation, still 2/3rds of them felt the names shouldn't change (LINK). Meanwhile, if you want something more specific to "Redskins" and more scientific, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania conducted a scientific poll back in 2004. It found that 9% of native american respondents found it offensive. NINE PERCENT. Ten times that number, 90%, found that the name didn’t bother them (LINK).

Now, I fully admit that these studies are old, going on a decade. I’d be happy to see anything more recent. But their age doesn’t change the results that occurred, nor is it unreasonable to think there hasn’t been a seismic shift to put the other side over the top. There are a very vocal activist minority within the native American community that are upset about the name and they make a lot of noise. However, those who make the loudest noise do not automatically represent how the majority of a group feel. And I think it’s hilarious watching non native Americans attempting to tell people what native Americans feel on an issue based not on what the majority of them actually FEEL, but based on what those non natives Americans THINK they should feel.
 
this Native American certainly does


the only thing that will change after this non-issue is the size of the attorneys' bank accounts

Grats? You allow someone to decide when you have a right to be offended?

Actually after this if they win the Washington Redskins will be renamed which is the point of them bringing the case to court.
 
Just change the name to Foreskins. It's perfectly succinct...the team is useless and a cut below the rest all the while it sounds almost the same. :2razz:
 
In terms of native americans, I'm sure they're as willing to defer to someone like him as they are to someone like you or the handful of overly sensitive white individuals, or the handful of "Every minority must think like us" blacks, in the media of the public.

I love when people try to lecture others about telling people what Native Americans "think" while they largely sit there and are doing the same thing. Disparate groups of a statistically insignificant number of native americans do not represent nor indicate any truth of a majority feel. I'd still welcome anyone providing a more current bit of factual information, but till then I'll refer back to what I pointed at before...

Swing and a miss. My grandmother grew up on a reservation and I'm a card carrying member of the tribe I belong to.

I also didn't lecture anyone. I criticized someone claiming they somehow are the arbitrator of what someone should/should not be offended by. In fact the only person claming to have insight on what someone should or should not think is the person I responded to. Maybe you should take your self rightous rant to him?
 
Back
Top Bottom