• 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

By whom? The Redskin Five?

I hate it when you come into a thread without reading. But here it is again:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ls-redskins-trademarks-57.html#post1063422665

Such contexts and, more importantly, the violent history of U.S. Indian policy, help explain why the 1898 Webster's Collegiate dictionary labeled red-skin "often contemptuous," as Peter Sokolowski of Merriam-Webster has pointed out. But our lexicographical take on the word remained complicated.

During the entire history of America until the turn of the twentieth century, Indigenous Americans were hunted, killed, and forcibly removed from their lands by European settlers.[18] This includes the paying of bounties beginning in the colonial period with, for example, a proclamation against the Penobscot Indians in 1755 issued by King George II of Great Britain, known commonly as the Phips Proclamation.[19][20]

..

[21] However, a historical association between the use of "redskin" and the paying of bounties can be made. In 1863, a Winona, MN newspaper, the Daily Republican, printed among other announcements: "The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."

Again, your statement is easily proven false.
 
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".

Then why wait 47 years for the change?

Should team names of indians, or seminole be dropped from use?

Should the State of Oklahoma change its name?
 
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.

and. it didn't happen.

You do know that this is not the first attempt to get the Redskins to change the name. Past court cases were won by the team owner.
 
Then why wait 47 years for the change?

Should team names of indians, or seminole be dropped from use?

Should the State of Oklahoma change its name?

as already said in this thread, FSU sought and got the blessing of the Seminoles to use their mascot. Native words and names like Oklahoma are not pejoratives. There are just words. No one is saying that all native words are insulting.
 
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.

Did you read how the name came about? It was in one of my posts to you. Someone also posted on this threat a poll done by Gallup I think of Native Americans/Indians which 90% said the name means nothing to them. 90% finds it inoffensive. Perhaps 10% is enough to try to get it changed, I don't know. But there is a certain segment of our society that will take offensive at anything.

Being they tried to get the Braves to change their name, that stiffens my back to this change. Then we usually find out the ones pushing for the change is some white guy with nothing better to do than to think such and such should be offended by such and such name. When they aren't, it makes no difference to that white pushing it as he then thinks they are dumb for not being offended. At least that is how it was 15 years ago when the push was put on trying to get the Braves to change their name.

Now the patent office, it has to be another goody two shoes behind that. But you're right, this might be a younger generation thing where us, at least me, old farts can't see or tell the difference. It all seems so asinine to go after a sports team nickname and logo. Like no one has anything better to do.
 
and. it didn't happen.

You do know that this is not the first attempt to get the Redskins to change the name. Past court cases were won by the team owner.

The Redskins, Indians were also part of that push. So too were some colleges. I know the St. John's Redmen caved. I haven't the faintest idea what their name is now.
 
as already said in this thread, FSU sought and got the blessing of the Seminoles to use their mascot. Native words and names like Oklahoma are not pejoratives. There are just words. No one is saying that all native words are insulting.

So a team name of Redskin is insulting
A State name meaning "redskin" is not.

interesting how you think.
 
Did you read how the name came about? It was in one of my posts to you. Someone also posted on this threat a poll done by Gallup I think of Native Americans/Indians which 90% said the name means nothing to them. 90% finds it inoffensive. Perhaps 10% is enough to try to get it changed, I don't know. But there is a certain segment of our society that will take offensive at anything.

Being they tried to get the Braves to change their name, that stiffens my back to this change. Then we usually find out the ones pushing for the change is some white guy with nothing better to do than to think such and such should be offended by such and such name. When they aren't, it makes no difference to that white pushing it as he then thinks they are dumb for not being offended. At least that is how it was 15 years ago when the push was put on trying to get the Braves to change their name.

Now the patent office, it has to be another goody two shoes behind that. But you're right, this might be a younger generation thing where us, at least me, old farts can't see or tell the difference. It all seems so asinine to go after a sports team nickname and logo. Like no one has anything better to do.

There are definitely more important things out there to accomplish. I'm not very passionate about this topic and I'm rather shocked at seeing people REALLY passionate about this topic. I can see taking a side but this thread is filled with as much if not more fervor than any other on this site. Kind of weird. As I said in a post way back, I can understand seeing varying angles on why Redskins can be viewed as rather offensive.
 
Last edited:
Then why wait 47 years for the change?

Why did it take 100 years to strike down Jim Crow laws? Why did it take 3000 years for women to be given equal footing in our society? Why did it take 5000 years of recorded history to recognize that slavery was inherently wrong? I don't know. Change takes time apparently. 47 years isn't that long of a period.

Should team names of indians, or seminole be dropped from use? Should the State of Oklahoma change its name?

To be honest, I'm not fond of names that emphasize race. Specially when they come at the cost of profiting from a people who were historically oppressed. Why is it there are no teams called "The Oakland White Boys" or the "Arizona Slaves"? Well, obviously those names would be considered offensive even if you whitewashed the names to give the impression that you are paying homage. So why the exception with Native Americans? It seems there is an unwritten exception when comes to creating a false narrative for a people who were oppressed, murdered, raped and enslaved. Trivializing their struggle with false narratives about "bravery" and being "warriors" when the reality is far more complicated doesn't serve an interest of any sort regardless of the race of people involved.

Even the team name viking for all of its anachronisms (including the viking helmet) does a better job at being positive than redskin which has a factual connection to the noble savage complex that comes with "redskin".
 
The Redskins, Indians were also part of that push. So too were some colleges. I know the St. John's Redmen caved. I haven't the faintest idea what their name is now.

I'm completely blanking on the state and college, but in a similar caving case the Indian mascot became more popular than before the banning. While the official mascot changed and they pulled down the statue outside the stadium, anywhere you go in that town you see the mascot. It is on everything and there are even several statues of him outside local restaurants and bars. My brother worked there for a few weeks and sent along pictures of the place, I just can't recall where right now. It actually created a cottage industry in the town, with shops selling shirts, mugs and touristy trinkets all with the banned mascot outselling the new approved mascot merchandise. If only I could recall where, but my brother is not answering so I'm doomed to wonder until it finally comes to me!
 
So a team name of Redskin is insulting
A State name meaning "redskin" is not.

interesting how you think.

A Choctaw word for a people of a small region versus a pejorative saying all you Indians look alike... yeah. I'm the weird guy here. lol
 
There are definitely more important things out there to accomplish. I'm not very passionate about this topic and I'm rather shocked at seeing people REALLY passionate about this topic. I can see taking a side but this thread is filled with as much if not more fervor than any other on this site. Kind of weird. As I said in a post way back, I can understand seeing varying angles on why Redskins can be viewed as rather offensive.

Yeah, I am waiting on the wife to go to bed. So here I am. Ah, good. it is bed time. But if we hadn't went through this stuff with the Braves, I wouldn't give a care about the name change either. I am on the Redskins side, only because they had tried to get us to change the Braves name before. Good night my friend.
 
Yeah, I am waiting on the wife to go to bed. So here I am. Ah, good. it is bed time. But if we hadn't went through this stuff with the Braves, I wouldn't give a care about the name change either. I am on the Redskins side, only because they had tried to get us to change the Braves name before. Good night my friend.

Good night Pero... I'm all alone in good silence. The wife is in NY for some computer classes. She's actually landed tickets and is front row at the Daily Show tonight.
 
I'm completely blanking on the state and college, but in a similar caving case the Indian mascot became more popular than before the banning. While the official mascot changed and they pulled down the statue outside the stadium, anywhere you go in that town you see the mascot. It is on everything and there are even several statues of him outside local restaurants and bars. My brother worked there for a few weeks and sent along pictures of the place, I just can't recall where right now. It actually created a cottage industry in the town, with shops selling shirts, mugs and touristy trinkets all with the banned mascot outselling the new approved mascot merchandise. If only I could recall where, but my brother is not answering so I'm doomed to wonder until it finally comes to me!

That would be Chief Illiniwek here at the University of Illinois at Champaign .
 
I'm completely blanking on the state and college, but in a similar caving case the Indian mascot became more popular than before the banning. While the official mascot changed and they pulled down the statue outside the stadium, anywhere you go in that town you see the mascot. It is on everything and there are even several statues of him outside local restaurants and bars. My brother worked there for a few weeks and sent along pictures of the place, I just can't recall where right now. It actually created a cottage industry in the town, with shops selling shirts, mugs and touristy trinkets all with the banned mascot outselling the new approved mascot merchandise. If only I could recall where, but my brother is not answering so I'm doomed to wonder until it finally comes to me!

I got you, we lost Homer the Brave in that push much like you lost your mascot. I hope that made a bunch of people happy. It got our hackles up.
 
So when's the lawsuit against cracker barrel?
since it does cater to the redneck crowd--
though my wife loves it--she's from Iowa redneck farm country--
and they play real country music, not that burned-out rocker crap--
and have rocking chairs outside--
and a fireplace in--
we're just not that much different when we sit down and eat -
 
I got you, we lost Homer the Brave in that push much like you lost your mascot.
I hope that made a bunch of people happy. It got our hackles up.
You also lost Gavin Floyd for the season tonite with a broken right arm .
 
since it does cater to the redneck crowd--
though my wife loves it--she's from Iowa redneck farm country--
and they play real country music, not that burned-out rocker crap--
and have rocking chairs outside--
and a fireplace in--
we're just not that much different when we sit down and eat -

Yeah I love the cracker barrel food myself. I don't like the whole having to wade through a trinket shop just to get to the restaurant thing though.
 
I got you, we lost Homer the Brave in that push much like you lost your mascot. I hope that made a bunch of people happy. It got our hackles up.
As you noted earlier, back when ESPN tried to call the Braves the Bravos but it did not stick? I just read that several newspapers are claiming they will no longer call the redskins by their names, in their publications. Which sounds like a guaranteed way to turn off lot of readers at a time when newspapers are having a hard time staying in business in the first place. Should be interesting to see what comes of the inevitable court case coming from Synder.
 
I wonder if the Red Mesa Highschool Redskins are being 'racist' as well….

Unknown.jpeg

I wonder as well, if say the Navajo nation were to get a new football or baseball major league team, would it then be fine for them to use such names?
 
A Choctaw word for a people of a small region versus a pejorative saying all you Indians look alike... yeah. I'm the weird guy here. lol

Actually, a characterization saying "all 'us'Indians are similar as opposed to all you white skins" that was then used by "us"
 
I got you, we lost Homer the Brave in that push much like you lost your mascot.
I hope that made a bunch of people happy. It got our hackles up.
I might have told you about Dad being stationed in Richmond during the '50s--they still have the AAA Braves.
And grew up with the Boston Braves in Maine--don't remember any problem with that name.

Just add a great word like "PRIDE" after the Redskin logo and gear, as a new beginning.
"INSPIRE" is another great word that does justice to all races and ethnics.
I'll try to track down my 10 Indian commandmants poster .
 
If I don't find the word slut derogatory, is it no longer derogatory? Of course not because words have a history behind their usage, context, inference, origins, etc..

You feel that naming a team The Washington Redskins, a name given as a compliment by the way, is the same as 'slut'? The team song is 'Hail To The Redskins' and the majority of Native Americans took the name as a positive..

We call Blacks, 'Black' because that is the color of their skin with no offense intended or, I assume, taken. The same is true of Whites.

To assume that calling a football team racist for something intended as a compliment smacks of paternalism rather genuine concern. Skin color should never be an issue unless it is being used in a disparaging way, which is certainly not the case here.
 
Back
Top Bottom