• 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

Hatuey said:
Kind of like black people who played in the Negro Leagues. But yeah...
Click to expand...

No, because that has nothing to do with what I posted.

Why would Navajo Indians in AZ intentionally slur themselves if the term "Redskins" is a slur?

By the way, most people don't use the term "Negro" anymore. You must be confusing me with Harry Reid.
 
Yeah but the 40 million was good to cover your 4 on Harry wasn't it.
You should have short-quoted me for band-width--I do it all the time.
tres borrachos said:
We aren't talking about the GOP.
Join us on topic or quote someone else's posts.
This was a waste of 40 seconds, 35 of it trying to read your gibberish and 5 typing this response.
Click to expand...
Having a laugh is never a waste, especially when you're learning.

The Redskin apparel, uniforms and insignia should be accompanied with some sort of PC bull**** like a cigarette warning,
proclaiming the virtues of Native American Redskins.

Otherwise, the NRA could push for the Washington Semi-Automatics .
 
Zyphlin said:
That I agree with, though undoubtably for a different reason than you. The Redskins PR staff's incompetence rivals that of John Huntsman campaign managers in the last primary season. They've been RIDICULOUSLY stupid in this whole thing. The worst thing you can do with a ridiculous persons ridiculous bull**** is to actually respond to it as if it's legitimate and worthy of discussion. The Redskins had largely not addressed the issue for years and as such it would flare up once in a while but quickly die out because no one really gave a ****, the majority of native americans included. But for whatever idiotic reason the Redskins thought it'd be intelligent to try and make a comment against it at one those flare up points and then have CONTINUED to make comments over and over again....often in ridiculously stupid fashion...that has kept this going. At this point the various PR backlash (which is bad) and boycotts (Which are in reality largely irrelevant in terms of their impact thus far) are absolutely in large part their own doing.
Click to expand...

Its none of the friggin government business what the teams name is.

The friggin government has enough crap it has gotten itself into to worry about what a damn team is named....

Speaking of teams names, when is Obama's hometown team changing its name? Chicago Blackhawks? Lets see him use the police power of government to force them into changing their name.
 
Zyphlin said:
None of which changes that it was still conducted in accordance with the standards for scientifically conducting such a poll. The entire purpose of polling is to garner a sample that can then realistically be extrapolated to the samples group at large.
Click to expand...
The accuracy of polls significantly degrades when measuring very small subgroups.
I admit, it's an old poll. The data may have changed slightly. But once again I'll note it is the most recent FACTUAL EVIDENCE on this manner that I've seen. if you have something more recent please present it. Otherwise I'll go with scientifically conducted, FACTUAL, information over anecdotal evidenced based primarily over whose loudest and gets the most media attention (Which has been deridingly skewed)
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's the best we have. But it should be weighted according to its reliability which is better than nothing, but not great.
I find this funny that you claim "native americans", stated in this broad fashion, have been complaining since the 60's...but then suddenly you're suggesting that native americans didn't have the knowledge to be introspective on the issue :roll:
Click to expand...
Touche' Point you.
Not all native americans are members of active tribes.
Click to expand...
True, but aren't those the ones we should be most concerned with?
Once again, native americans on reservations are not the only native americans. Secondly, that still provides for a significant sample on reservations that were able to answer a land line poll. Once again, do some research and take some classes on how polling is conducted....the entire purpose for scientific polling is an understanding that you can't reach every single person within a population.
Click to expand...
Yes, but statically understating demographically concentrated areas will skew your polls.
Which is why it's accurate to claim, at the very least, 90% of native americans are not bothered by the name.
Click to expand...
And no, that's not accurate.. In any statistical query you're going to have a confidence measure. I'd say that you could say with 10% confidence that 90% of Native Americans are not bothered by the Redskins name.
You find me something "more accurate" or "more recent" and I'll be happy to have it. If you don't, all you're doing is pissing and moaning with quibbles and casting stones because I'm actually going off something factually sound and you're going off pure and utter anecdotal. You say the poll has issues? I say your factual evidence as to the names offense or the belief of native americans that it should be changed to be nonexistent. I'll take some minor issues over nonexistent.
Click to expand...
There's nothing more recent. But things don't become more true in the absence of other information.

My first take on this was that it was rubbish. The Redskins have been the redskins since forever, how could anyone find that offensive? Then I thought about what the name actually means, who it refers to, and what we did to the people it refers to. Then suddenly I could see why people would find it offensive.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Native Americans and organizations opposed[edit]
Click to expand...

Which would be wonderful if I was suggesting that NO native americans or native americans organizations were opposed to the name. There are absolutely some. I've asked for evidence that "native americans" as a conglomerate group find it offensive, or evidence showing the amount/percentage of the native american population that have issue with it.

Many of those groups were outwardly opposed to the name back in 2004 too. So that doesn't really change things.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Native Americans and organizations opposed[edit]
The following groups have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team:
Tribes[edit]
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians[154]
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma[154]
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma[154]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)[154]
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe[155]
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona[156]
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes[157]
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)[154]
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)[158]
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)[154]
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)[159]
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin[154]
Navajo Nation Council[98]
Penobscot Nation[160]
Poarch Band of Creek Indians[161]
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)[162]
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)[163]
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)[164]
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)[165]
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)[166]
Organizations[edit]
Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Movement[167]
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County
American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University
American Indian High Education Consortium
American Indian College Fund
Americans for Indian Opportunity
Association on American Indian Affairs
Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)
Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance
First Peoples Worldwide
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)
Governor’s Interstate Indian Council
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)
HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Indian Education Association
National Indian Youth Council
National Native American Law Student Association
Native American Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)[168]
Native American Journalists Association[169]
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Native Voice Network
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism[170]
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association
WIEA “Indian” Mascot and Logo Taskforce (Wisconsin)
Woodland Indian Community Center-Lansing (Michigan)
Youth “Indian” Mascot and Logo Task force (Wisconsin)
Individuals[edit]
These prominent Native Americans have put their opposition to the Redskins' name on the public record:
Sherman Alexie (author, Spokane)[171]
Notah Begay (Navajo, PGA pro golfer) called the Redskins' name "a very clear example of institutionalized degradation of an ethnic minority."[172]
Clyde Bellecourt (Ojibwe, co-founder of the American Indian Movement)[173]
Bob Burns (Blackfeet elder)[174]
Vine Deloria, Jr. (Sioux, historian/author)[175]
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Northern Cheyenne, U.S. Senator)[176]
Kevin Gover (Pawnee, director of The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian)[177]
Suzan Shown Harjo (Cheyenne/Hodulgee Muscogee, author/activist)[178]
Litefoot (Cherokee/Chichimeca, rapper) ironically celebrates Native American team names as "recreational genocide" on the track 'Stereotipik'.[179]
Russell Means (Oglala Lakota, activist/actor)[180]
Billy Mills (Sioux, Olympic gold medal winner)[181]
Ted Nolan (First Nations Ojibway, NHL player and coach)[182]
Buford Rolin (Creek tribal chairman)[183]
Shoni Schimmel (Umatilla, Louisville Cardinals guard, class of 2015)[184]
Charlene Teters (Spokane, artist/lecturer)[185]
W. Richard West Jr. (Cheyenne) - President of the Autry National Center in Los Angeles: Redskin is "an openly derogatory term. It always is and it always has been.” West also characterizes the Original American's Foundation as an "attempt to divert attention from the fact that his team’s nickname is coming under increasing heat from people who think it’s an offensive racial term."[186]
Click to expand...

Wow, all 5 of those Native Americans belong to all of those groups?!
 
tres borrachos said:
No, because that has nothing to do with what I posted.

Why would Navajo Indians in AZ intentionally slur themselves if the term "Redskins" is a slur?

By the way, most people don't use the term "Negro" anymore. You must be confusing me with Harry Reid.
Click to expand...

Why would the United Negro College Fund use that term then? ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
Harry Reid is making this political. Did you see that SOB on the Senate floor today throwing lobs at Snyder?
Click to expand...

Does anybody but Harry care about Harry? He probably should concern himself more with the image he is projecting about himself to the world, IMO. A grown man acting overwrought and overly emotional about things like he does is not considered normal for a male.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
My point is that this is human nature and it happens a lot. I think you agree with me but aren't quite willing to admit it. That's fine. ;)
Click to expand...

I won't admit it EVER because for most of my life it simply wasn't part of the American culture and I have a deep enough grounding in history to know that it has NEVER been part of the American culture until recently. In narrowly defined communities and isolated incidents yes. But that was never widespread and it never lasted for long. It was never government policy or a social norm until the last few decades.
 
Zyphlin said:
That I agree with, though undoubtably for a different reason than you. The Redskins PR staff's incompetence rivals that of John Huntsman campaign managers in the last primary season. They've been RIDICULOUSLY stupid in this whole thing. The worst thing you can do with a ridiculous persons ridiculous bull**** is to actually respond to it as if it's legitimate and worthy of discussion. The Redskins had largely not addressed the issue for years and as such it would flare up once in a while but quickly die out because no one really gave a ****, the majority of native americans included. But for whatever idiotic reason the Redskins thought it'd be intelligent to try and make a comment against it at one those flare up points and then have CONTINUED to make comments over and over again....often in ridiculously stupid fashion...that has kept this going. At this point the various PR backlash (which is bad) and boycotts (Which are in reality largely irrelevant in terms of their impact thus far) are absolutely in large part their own doing.
Click to expand...

100% Agree. It's sort of like Sterling's amazing attempt to convince people he wasn't a racist.

PR shapes public perception. They've inflamed opinion rather than calmed it. The N word wasn't quite as verboten before the OJ Simpson trial. When Redskins was just a name, there wasn't much of an issue. Now that everyone has to think about it, it's a much bigger problem.

I mean, this is really an equation. Is the cost of changing the name less than the cost of keeping it? They made keeping it as expensive as possible.
 
polgara said:
Does anybody but Harry care about Harry? He probably should concern himself more with the image he is projecting about himself to the world, IMO. A grown man acting overwrought and overly emotional about things like he does is not considered normal for a male.
Click to expand...

Why worry about unemployment, tension in Iraq, skyrocketing deficits, stifling debt, healthcare costs and other mundane topics when you can carry on about an NFL team's name? Please, pol. He has a busy schedule to keep. He has bigger things to worry about - The Koch brothers still walk among us, the Redskins name makes him cry, and Dick Cheney wrote an Op-Ed.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which would be wonderful if I was suggesting that NO native americans or native americans organizations were opposed to the name. There are absolutely some.
Click to expand...
I SPECIFICALLY responded to your comment:

"I say your factual evidence as to the names offense or the belief of native americans that it should be changed to be nonexistent."

You claimed the evidence for its change among NA to be "nonexistant", I showed it does in fact EXIST.


I've asked for evidence that "native americans" as a conglomerate group find it offensive, or evidence showing the amount/percentage of the native american population that have issue with it.
Click to expand...
I just did, the list of tribes, Indian groups and individuals opposed and demanding a name change IS by definition "made up of parts from various sources or of various kinds" of tribes/Indians

Many of those groups were outwardly opposed to the name back in 2004 too. So that doesn't really change things.
Click to expand...
It does not change....the belief of native americans that the name should be changed?

Really?

What sort of pedantic gymnastics await?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I SPECIFICALLY responded to your comment:

"I say your factual evidence as to the names offense or the belief of native americans that it should be changed to be nonexistent."

You claimed the evidence for its change among NA to be "nonexistant", I showed it does in fact EXIST.


I just did, the list of tribes, Indian groups and individuals opposed and demanding a name change IS by definition "made up of parts from various sources or of various kinds" of tribes/Indians

It does not change....the belief of native americans that the name should be changed?

Really?

What sort of pedantic gymnastics await?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how offensive "redskin" is, nor how many people are pissed off about it, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.
 
Zyphlin said:
Correct. Somethings is derogatory if it's being disrespectful or critical in attitude towards something.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works for slurs though, at all. "Intended use" doesn't make the word any less of a racial slur. Racial slurs make a difference between one race and another. So regardless of what context you're using it in, you're drawing a clear difference between yourself and the other. That difference is never a positive one. Look, before you go posting a wall of text:

https://web.duke.edu/diversitynewslinks/videos-articles/1304_Rosette_RacialSlurs.pdf

First, one of the primary reasons why racial slurs are used—so that dominant racial groups can sustain social inequality—has not been fully explored in the study of racial slurs. Existing research has uncovered important insights, ranging from how slurs can be used to threaten another group’s identity (Boeckmann and Liew 2002, Leets 2001) to how the linguistic complexity of slurs determines their impact on victims (Leader et al. 2009, Mullen and Rice 2003). However, less is known about how group members’ desire for social inequality can drive the prevalence of racial slurs. Given that most organizational settings are predicated on meritocracy, it is important to understand how the use of racial slurs can contribute to the exclusion and subjugation of certain social groups by other social groups.
Click to expand...

Racial slurs comprise a subset of interpersonal aggression that is targeted at racial groups (or individuals who are members of racial groups) to inflict personal or psychological harm, such as damaging their character or injuring their reputation. Accordingly, in our conceptual framework, we consider racial slurs to have three defining characteristics—they are serious, overt, and discriminatory.
Click to expand...

And finally, the really important part:

The content and the linguistic terms that characterize racial slurs are in themselves discriminatory (Graumann 1998). There is a straightforward comprehension that the remark is meant to send a denigrating message to a target because of the target’s racial heritage and to distinguish the targets from other racial groups. Racial slurs place targets into inferior out groups and aggressors into superior in-groups (Allport 1954). The discriminatory nature of racial slurs can be distinguished from most other acts of serious interpersonal aggression that are not inherently discriminatory, including stealing from coworkers, endangering coworkers with reckless behaviors, and behaving in a physically aggressive manner (Robinson and Bennett 1995).
Click to expand...

So yes, in short, this is like calling a rape victim a slut, and then trying to hide behind the fact that at one point it meant "kitchen maid".
 
apdst said:
It doesn't matter how offensive "redskin" is, nor how many people are pissed off about it, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.
Click to expand...

How much do you want to bet that we're going to see a new bureaucracy created to review all patent and trademark requests to ensure that they aren't offensive to anyone?
 
The Man said:
Yeah, the name is not going to change. It'll blow over in a month or two, maybe less.
Click to expand...

No, the sensitive people will continue to melt down about it. The other NFL owners will get pissed because merchandise is pooled and the revenue shared, and they won't want to take a hit. Harry Reid will carry on on the Senate floor again soon enough. One of the Redskin cheerleaders will hire Gloria Allred to represent her. It will re-emerge.
 
apdst said:
It doesn't matter how offensive "redskin" is, nor how many people are pissed off about it, the patent office doesn't have the authority to regulate free speech.
Click to expand...

correct. the government can't silence something simply because they or someone else might find it offensive. that does not pass constitutional muster.
the patent office doesn't have the right to cancel a trademark as long as the team as paid and continued to pay for the trademarking.

I guarantee if you look more into this the Obama administration or harry reid has pressured someone in the patent office to do it.

redskins will fight this an win just like they have all the other times before.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, the sensitive people will continue to melt down about it. The other NFL owners will get pissed because merchandise is pooled and the revenue shared, and they won't want to take a hit. Harry Reid will carry on on the Senate floor again soon enough. One of the Redskin cheerleaders will hire Gloria Allred to represent her. It will re-emerge.
Click to expand...

There won't be a revenue hit as long as it's in court, the Redskins still have the trademark patent until it's all resolved. The Redskins' best plan of attack is simply to ignore any further protests, which is what they should have done all along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom