US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Football Team Trademark...

  • 165 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#101 Edited by xdude85 (4385 posts) -

What a bunch of pussies, really shows that the government has its priorities straight.

#102 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

#103 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1467 posts) -

A somewhat similar incident occurred with the University of North Dakota and issues over their team, Fighting Sioux, or simply shortened to Sioux. It was thought that having the UND Sioux would be offensive and racist, something the school has had for decades. With Redskins, you could potentially make a case for "offensive" language, but what about here with the case of the UND Sioux? I'm not trying to necessarily highjack the thread, but trying to ask what exactly can or can not be allowed when it comes to team names?

Is Braves ok?

Vikings?

etc?

Logo of Sioux for those interested.

#104 Posted by playmynutz (5982 posts) -

As a DC metro area native I say they should call them The Skins

#105 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

Why is this small degree of cultural sensitivity being deemed a bad thing

it is picking one of a bajillion teams that has ethnic or social caricatures, even ignoring the slippery slope, it is wrong for the government to do so. if people did not like it they would not support it, and i dont see anyone calling the fans racist and rightfully so.

BS is BS

feel free to talk shit about it but dont call big daddy to fix a nonexistent problem that will disadvantage one player against all others.

#106 Posted by ferrari2001 (16873 posts) -

The should change it to something far more worse, that way people will beg them to change the name back to the Redskins. Besides how exactly is that in any way offensive?

#107 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Why is this small degree of cultural sensitivity being deemed a bad thing

it is picking one of a bajillion teams that has ethnic or social caricatures, even ignoring the slippery slope, it is wrong for the government to do so. if people did not like it they would not support it, and i dont see anyone calling the fans racist and rightfully so.

BS is BS

feel free to talk shit about it but dont call big daddy to fix a nonexistent problem that will disadvantage one player against all others.

You're acting like the government just came out of nowhere and randomly decided to pick on the redskins. That isn't the case.

If other groups are offended by another team's name they are free to put in all the time, effort and money to protest and litigate against its use.

#108 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Besides how exactly is that in any way offensive?

Read the board's ruling if you're that curious as to know why. They relied heavily on expert linguistic analysis and other evidence when making this decision.

#109 Edited by dave123321 (33979 posts) -

Let the system work guys.

Don't try to impede it

#110 Posted by ferrari2001 (16873 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

Besides how exactly is that in any way offensive?

Read the board's ruling if you're that curious as to know why. They relied heavily on expert linguistic analysis and other evidence when making this decision.

How can you use linguistic analysis to figure out how it's offensive? Whether or not it's offensive is based entirely on the opinion of other people. Something is only offensive if individuals find it to be so. And as far as I've seen very few people actually find it offensive and the ones that do are a very small segment of society. What's next, change the names of the Chiefs, Patriots, Yankees etc because small segments of society might find them offensive as well?

#111 Posted by dave123321 (33979 posts) -

Are the people ignorant of the system they be rebelling against

#112 Posted by Pewbert (443 posts) -

I think we could all take advantage of this situation and create as much Washington Redskins merchandise as we like (to sell).

The trademark ceases to exist so you won't get into any trouble from anywhere :D

#113 Edited by lamprey263 (23485 posts) -

I heard some black people said they wouldn't be offended if they changed the team's mascot to "Coons", so that's all the okay I imagine the NFL needs...

#114 Posted by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

#115 Posted by gamerguru100 (10572 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:
@jasean79 said:

Even though a 2004 poll of Native Americans determined that 90 percent aren't bothered by the name. My, how far we've come in 10 years' time.

its mostly white liberals getting offended on behalf of indians

This is most likely the truth.

#116 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@ferrari2001 said:

Besides how exactly is that in any way offensive?

Read the board's ruling if you're that curious as to know why. They relied heavily on expert linguistic analysis and other evidence when making this decision.

How can you use linguistic analysis to figure out how it's offensive? Whether or not it's offensive is based entirely on the opinion of other people. Something is only offensive if individuals find it to be so. And as far as I've seen very few people actually find it offensive and the ones that do are a very small segment of society. What's next, change the names of the Chiefs, Patriots, Yankees etc because small segments of society might find them offensive as well?

See if you read the ruling you wouldn't have asked this question. The trademark wasn't canceled because the word was offensive, it was cancelled because it is disparaging, i.e. it's a word that is used with the intent of belittling. Think about this question, for what reason would someone refer to someone as a redskin? Why would they go through the effort of using an atypical term when words that are much more widespread and standard exist, e.g. "American Indian", "Native American", "Original American" and so forth?

Again, read the ruling and you'll have a better understanding behind the logic of the decision. This was not done flippantly.

#117 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

#118 Posted by BranKetra (48418 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

I wonder if the New England Patriots and historical patriots of America have been viewed similarly. If so, one can expect similar action to be taken against them.

#119 Posted by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

Because of lack of protective gear and safety rules. It was Teddy Roosevelt that called for a revamp of the rules in order to save the sport from banning. But, dude you're talking like early 20th century...long before the rules were changed and the Redskins team was named.

#120 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

Because of lack of protective gear and safety rules. It was Teddy Roosevelt that called for a revamp of the rules in order to save the sport from banning. But, dude you're talking like early 20th century...long before the rules were changed and the Redskins team was named.

Right, and what difference has that protective gear and safety rules made? There are literally generations of football players who have been suing the NFL because of the deteriorating health effects football had on them, including players who played during the era that you've describe as "a lot less violent". The only thing that has changed is that we've become much more aware of, and have been able to quantify how violent the sport actually is. For example if back in the day you had a concussion you weren't diagnosed with a concussion, you just "had your lights knock out" and were put right back onto the field once you could stand straight.

Regardless, my point is that what makes football so popular to the public compared to other sports is its violence, and that's something that always gets emphasized when the brand is marketed.

#121 Edited by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

Because of lack of protective gear and safety rules. It was Teddy Roosevelt that called for a revamp of the rules in order to save the sport from banning. But, dude you're talking like early 20th century...long before the rules were changed and the Redskins team was named.

Right, and what difference has that protective gear and safety rules made? There are literally generations of football players who have been suing the NFL because of the deteriorating health effects football had on them, including players who played during the era that you've describe as "a lot less violent". The only thing that has changed is that we've become much more aware of, and have been able to quantify how violent the sport actually is. For example if back in the day you had a concussion you weren't diagnosed with a concussion, you just "had your lights knock out" and were put right back onto the field once you could stand straight.

Dude, that was football in the good old 70's. Guys with concussions and broken fingers going right back in the game. Nothing a little tape and some smelling salts can't cure. And these players knew what they were getting into when they joined the league. That's like becoming a boxer and then suing the WBC for lasting effects of head trauma. Any contact sport is going to be a risk for injury, no matter how much they try to enforce the rules. There are so many factors that contribute to that - weather, playing field type (turf or grass), etc. Even now with the latest additions to the rule book - people still get injured and most times it's not even from a physical blow - a lot of players will twist an ankle or land wrong on their leg and be out for a few games.

Yes it is a physical sport and takes its toll on the body. But, that doesn't justify the name of the Redskins. Like I said, I think you were reaching on that one.

#122 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

Because of lack of protective gear and safety rules. It was Teddy Roosevelt that called for a revamp of the rules in order to save the sport from banning. But, dude you're talking like early 20th century...long before the rules were changed and the Redskins team was named.

Right, and what difference has that protective gear and safety rules made? There are literally generations of football players who have been suing the NFL because of the deteriorating health effects football had on them, including players who played during the era that you've describe as "a lot less violent". The only thing that has changed is that we've become much more aware of, and have been able to quantify how violent the sport actually is. For example if back in the day you had a concussion you weren't diagnosed with a concussion, you just "had your lights knock out" and were put right back onto the field once you could stand straight.

Dude, that was football in the good old 70's. Guys with concussions and broken fingers going right back in the game. Nothing a little tape and some smelling salts can't cure. And these players knew what they were getting into when they joined the league. That's like becoming a boxer and then suing the WBC for lasting effects of head trauma. Any contact sport is going to be a risk for injury, no matter how much they try to enforce the rules. There are so many factors that contribute to that - weather, playing field type (turf or grass), etc. Even now with the latest additions to the rule book - people still get injured and most times it's not even from a physical blow - a lot of players will twist an ankle or land wrong on their leg and be out for a few games.

Yes it is a physical sport and takes its toll on the body. But, that doesn't justify the name of the Redskins. Like I said, I think you were reaching on that one.

Again, my point was and still is that the league has always emphasized the violent nature of the game in its marketing. I was asked why would a proud racist name his team the Redskins. Aside from the fact that I don't think this question matters very much because he was a racist and he did name his team the Redskins so what difference does the particular reason why he used this racial epithet make, but I gave a very plausible reason for why a racist in particular would find value in naming his team this particular racial slur.

And I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue at this point in reference to the violent nature of football - first you say that football didn't used to be a violent sport in the past, now you're saying that it was a violent sport back in the day. You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point.

#123 Posted by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@jasean79 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@musicalmac said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

I'm not sure how certain you can be saying that - the owner of the redskins at the time who chose the name was a proud racist

Was he? That's a surprise to me, I truly was unaware. It does seem weird to me that a racist would name a football team after something he hated, though.

Don't you think?

Not necessarily, especially when considering that football is a very brutal, some might go so far to call it a savage and barbaric, sport. The negative stereotypes attributed to American Indians - that they were a savage, uncivilized, barbaric people - fall inline very comfortably with the qualities one would want to emphasize in a football team name.

That's a stretch.

How exactly?

The Redskins name has been in effect for what, 80+ years? Football 80 years ago is a whole helluva lot different than it is today - a lot less violent, and the rules of the game have changed significantly over the years. Sounds to me that your assumption on the similarities of the two is based on today's game, not the past.

Um, no. Football has always been a violent sport. The game was even close to being banned in the early 20th century because people were dying playing it.

Because of lack of protective gear and safety rules. It was Teddy Roosevelt that called for a revamp of the rules in order to save the sport from banning. But, dude you're talking like early 20th century...long before the rules were changed and the Redskins team was named.

Right, and what difference has that protective gear and safety rules made? There are literally generations of football players who have been suing the NFL because of the deteriorating health effects football had on them, including players who played during the era that you've describe as "a lot less violent". The only thing that has changed is that we've become much more aware of, and have been able to quantify how violent the sport actually is. For example if back in the day you had a concussion you weren't diagnosed with a concussion, you just "had your lights knock out" and were put right back onto the field once you could stand straight.

Dude, that was football in the good old 70's. Guys with concussions and broken fingers going right back in the game. Nothing a little tape and some smelling salts can't cure. And these players knew what they were getting into when they joined the league. That's like becoming a boxer and then suing the WBC for lasting effects of head trauma. Any contact sport is going to be a risk for injury, no matter how much they try to enforce the rules. There are so many factors that contribute to that - weather, playing field type (turf or grass), etc. Even now with the latest additions to the rule book - people still get injured and most times it's not even from a physical blow - a lot of players will twist an ankle or land wrong on their leg and be out for a few games.

Yes it is a physical sport and takes its toll on the body. But, that doesn't justify the name of the Redskins. Like I said, I think you were reaching on that one.

Again, my point was and still is that the league has always emphasized the violent nature of the game in its marketing. I was asked why would a proud racist name his team the Redskins. Aside from the fact that I don't think this question matters very much because he was a racist and he did name his team the Redskins so what difference does the particular reason why he used this racial epithet make, but I gave a very plausible reason for why a racist in particular would find value in naming his team this particular racial slur.

And I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue at this point in reference to the violent nature of football - first you say that football didn't used to be a violent sport in the past, now you're saying that it was a violent sport back in the day. You seem to be arguing with yourself at this point.

I figured you'd mention that about me arguing with myself, which is why I said that all physical contact sports are at a risk for injury. And since the NFL is the only one being targeted at the moment, why aren't there more "insensitive" team names in other sports that are being addressed?

This whole matter is ridiculous, anyhow. An organization that is decades old is pretty much forced to change its name because of a few progressives. Seems silly to me.

#124 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

I figured you'd mention that about me arguing with myself, which is why I said that all physical contact sports are at a risk for injury. And since the NFL is the only one being targeted at the moment, why aren't there more "insensitive" team names in other sports that are being addressed?

This whole matter is ridiculous, anyhow. An organization that is decades old is pretty much forced to change its name because of a few progressives. Seems silly to me.

Have you been living under a rock? Teams with controversial names and/or mascots have have faced (and have complied with) public pressure for decades. The Redskins aren't the first team to deal with this type of controversy. And this is not just a "few progressives". Jesus fucking christ at least do a little research into something before you complain about it so you can at least sound informed.

#125 Posted by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79 said:

I figured you'd mention that about me arguing with myself, which is why I said that all physical contact sports are at a risk for injury. And since the NFL is the only one being targeted at the moment, why aren't there more "insensitive" team names in other sports that are being addressed?

This whole matter is ridiculous, anyhow. An organization that is decades old is pretty much forced to change its name because of a few progressives. Seems silly to me.

Have you been living under a rock? Teams with controversial names and/or mascots have have faced (and have complied with) public pressure for decades. The Redskins aren't the first team to deal with this type of controversy. And this is not just a "few progressives". Jesus fucking christ at least do a little research into something before you complain about it so you can at least sound informed.

Angry, much?

#126 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

How exactly is this a travesty?

The government doing something like this because a small percentage of people (not even Native American) find it offensive....in the "land of the free" this IS in fact a travesty. Just another indicator of how liberalism is destroying this country. 75% of Americans are not into this progressive bullshit that is plaguing the nation, they better get their asses out and vote from here on out.

#127 Posted by sonicare (53458 posts) -

Just have a vote among native americans if they want the name changed or not. There you go.

#128 Edited by dave123321 (33979 posts) -

@jasean79: sun just gets perturbed by people complaining about something they don't really know much about

#129 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

75% of Americans are not into this progressive bullshit that is plaguing the nation, they better get their asses out and vote from here on out.

vfib I thought America wasn't a democracy?

#130 Edited by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@lostrib said:

@Makhaidos said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

braves, cowboys, Yankees, vikings, ect....

. . .None of which are racist or offensive. Find a team called the "Negroes" or the "Wetbacks," then you'll have an equal standing.

Who are you to decide what is offensive?

If 10 percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive, shouldn't it be changed and the patent dropped?

Do ten percent of white people find Yankees to be offensive? Is "Yankee" on the same standing as "Redskin"? Would you be okay with a team called "The Washington Crackers"?

So if we found that 10 percent of white people surveyed found Yankees offensive, you would want to change it?

The point is that polls put it at about 10% of Native Americans find the term "Redskin" offensive

1. Which polls?

2. Way to ignore my point.

3. Why does changing a racist team name bother you so much?

How about you force all of the high schools on indian reservations to change their Redskin team mascot as well since it is so racist. The only people who care about this are the politically correct white guilt crowd who would not give their own land back to the indians if they had the choice. At what point in the future do we start reprogramming people who have views found offensive? Think it far fetched? I find your views offensive, in fact at least 50% of this country finds your views offensive, and your side mine. Precedent set.

#131 Edited by BravoOneActual (563 posts) -

@DaBrainz said:

I care less about this particular case but care more that the patent office has the authority to subjectively label something offensive and reject patents based off of it.

As always, issues & tissues rule the debate and the most salient point is lost in the din.

+1, my good man.

#132 Posted by jasean79 (2371 posts) -

@jasean79: sun just gets perturbed by people complaining about something they don't really know much about

Ahh, I see. I think it's a bit more than that, but thanks for the info.

#133 Edited by musicalmac (22962 posts) -

@DaBrainz said:

I care less about this particular case but care more that the patent office has the authority to subjectively label something offensive and reject patents based off of it.

As always, issues & tissues rule the debate and the most salient point is lost in the din.

+1, my good man.

Very bright point of view. Respect.

#134 Posted by dave123321 (33979 posts) -

Glad that reason seemed to have won out in this thread

#135 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

@dave123321 said:

Why is this small degree of cultural sensitivity being deemed a bad thing

it is picking one of a bajillion teams that has ethnic or social caricatures, even ignoring the slippery slope, it is wrong for the government to do so. if people did not like it they would not support it, and i dont see anyone calling the fans racist and rightfully so.

BS is BS

feel free to talk shit about it but dont call big daddy to fix a nonexistent problem that will disadvantage one player against all others.

You're acting like the government just came out of nowhere and randomly decided to pick on the redskins. That isn't the case.

If other groups are offended by another team's name they are free to put in all the time, effort and money to protest and litigate against its use.

this is a "out of nowhere" event.....

#136 Posted by flazzle (6488 posts) -

@jasean79: Dude, you just made him cry and use the potentially offensive term 'Jesus F'ing Christ', which offends religions that have a larger population than Native Americans!

This thread is going to Hell! Wait, I mean Underworld! Err, make it Limbo!

#137 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@surrealnumber5 said:

@dave123321 said:

Why is this small degree of cultural sensitivity being deemed a bad thing

it is picking one of a bajillion teams that has ethnic or social caricatures, even ignoring the slippery slope, it is wrong for the government to do so. if people did not like it they would not support it, and i dont see anyone calling the fans racist and rightfully so.

BS is BS

feel free to talk shit about it but dont call big daddy to fix a nonexistent problem that will disadvantage one player against all others.

You're acting like the government just came out of nowhere and randomly decided to pick on the redskins. That isn't the case.

If other groups are offended by another team's name they are free to put in all the time, effort and money to protest and litigate against its use.

this is a "out of nowhere" event.....

lol

no it REALLY isn't

#138 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U6SDWLOE_uc.facebook

Why are people offended by it?

“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”

Origin of the Name

“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.

“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their skin darkens.

“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”

The Logo

“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”

#139 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U6SDWLOE_uc.facebook

Why are people offended by it?

“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”

Origin of the Name

“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.

“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their skin darkens.

“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”

The Logo

“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”

Robert Green doesn't speak for all Indians.

#140 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

wait, indian does not count as an indian perspective but a study that does not give parameters for their study does, and what study ends with end?

why would you conduct a survey about estern indians on the west coast? did they dye their skin red as well? might as well call Egyptians niggers (from Nigeria).

i want to know when racial sensitivity became short hand for extra massive racism.

#141 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

wait, indian does not count as an indian perspective but a study that does not give parameters for their study does, and what study ends with end?

why would you conduct a survey about estern indians on the west coast? did they dye their skin red as well? might as well call Egyptians niggers (from Nigeria).

i want to know when racial sensitivity became short hand for extra massive racism.

Ah surreal, still having problems forming coherent sentences I see.

#142 Posted by flazzle (6488 posts) -

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U6SDWLOE_uc.facebook

Hey, that link is pretty interesting. Good food for thought! Just proves there are two sides to every argument.

#143 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

polling Europeans about the opinion of Americans about American opinion is not a valid indication of American opinion.

it is indication of the European perspective.

polling all tribes about eastern tribes is not an indication of the opinion of eastern tribes. redskin does not refer to all natives, just those that actually dyed their skin red.

#144 Posted by flazzle (6488 posts) -

polling Europeans about the opinion of Americans about American opinion is not a valid indication of American opinion.

it is indication of the European perspective.

polling all tribes about eastern tribes is not an indication of the opinion of eastern tribes. redskin does not refer to all natives, just those that actually dyed their skin red.

The USA is the best place in the world if you want to play victim.

Good luck convincing any tribe that wants attention that the term doesn't refer to all natives.

#145 Edited by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

polling Europeans about the opinion of Americans about American opinion is not a valid indication of American opinion.

it is indication of the European perspective.

polling all tribes about eastern tribes is not an indication of the opinion of eastern tribes. redskin does not refer to all natives, just those that actually dyed their skin red.

Um, no. Redskin does refer to all natives. Any dictionary definition would affirm that, as would any etymological analysis of the word. The word originated our of a desire to create more of a sense of solidarity between all the "red" (Indian) people in the country, who traditionally only had solidarity towards their own specific tribe. Western Indians were referred to as redskins just the same.

#146 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

"Bloodroot, also known as bloodwort or Canada puccoon, is a white flower native to the eastern part of North America. “Puccoon” is one of many American plant names to have a Native American etymology: it comes from the Powhatan Indian word poughkone or pohcoons, which was recorded by early Virginia colonists as meaning “red paint” or “red dye.” Both this Indian name and the English name “bloodroot” come about because of the red sap oozed by the roots of these flowers, which was used by many tribes as a dye for clothing and baskets and for face paint. Bloodroot has also been used by Native American people as a poison (the bloodroot plant is highly toxic) and, in small doses, as a medicine herb. In some Algonquin communities bloodroot is associated with love, and men would wear bloodroot paint when they went courting."

http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/native-american-bloodroot-mythology/

redskin only applies to eastern tribes, the areas where bloodroot is found and was used to paint the skin.

love is bad,mmkay.

#147 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

"Bloodroot, also known as bloodwort or Canada puccoon, is a white flower native to the eastern part of North America. “Puccoon” is one of many American plant names to have a Native American etymology: it comes from the Powhatan Indian word poughkone or pohcoons, which was recorded by early Virginia colonists as meaning “red paint” or “red dye.” Both this Indian name and the English name “bloodroot” come about because of the red sap oozed by the roots of these flowers, which was used by many tribes as a dye for clothing and baskets and for face paint. Bloodroot has also been used by Native American people as a poison (the bloodroot plant is highly toxic) and, in small doses, as a medicine herb. In some Algonquin communities bloodroot is associated with love, and men would wear bloodroot paint when they went courting."

http://nativeamericanencyclopedia.com/native-american-bloodroot-mythology/

redskin only applies to eastern tribes, the areas where bloodroot is found and was used to paint the skin.

love is bad,mmkay.

>ctrl-f

>search: "redskin"

>0 of 0 matches found

#148 Edited by Aljosa23 (24841 posts) -

Makes sense, I guess. Don't know how anyone can own a derogatory word.

#149 Posted by Chutebox (36970 posts) -

@sonicare said:

Just have a vote among native americans if they want the name changed or not. There you go.

Already a poll taken and a majority don't find it offensive. How anyone finds this offensive is beyond me and hilarious.

Hail to the Redskins!

#150 Posted by Chutebox (36970 posts) -

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/retired-native-american-chief-would-be-offended-if-redskins-did-change-name/#.U6SDWLOE_uc.facebook

Why are people offended by it?

“Well I think that, first of all, our country has become too politically correct. And you can find it in any number of areas. Little League, where everybody has to get a trophy now, or otherwise, the poor child that doesn’t get a trophy will have his psyche hurt.”

Origin of the Name

“And I think what you have to do is look at where the term Redskin was originated. There’s some that give the term Redskins a negative connotation to indicate that it was created by the white man, to offend the Indians. But in reality, the term Redskins came from the Indians. And they referred to themselves often times, in treaty negotiations and meetings with the early settlers, as Redskins.

“So it’s not a term that the white man created. It’s actually a term that the Indians themselves created. I just think we have people in this country that try and gin up problems that don’t exist.”

“Now, our investigation into the term goes back pretty far – to 1608 – when John Smith was traveling from Jamestown to meet with the Indian people, and he remarked in his diary that when they’re born, they’re as white as we are. It’s only as they age that their skin darkens.

“And we believe that that was a reason for that. We use a bug repellant, for lack of a better term, that was made up of animal fat and the dye of the Puccoon plant. And coincidentally, the Puccoon dye, when it’s crushed and dyed, is red. And so for years, the Indian people were rubbing this red dye into their skin. And some of the other early settlers remarked that their skin turns red. So, was that a comment meant to denigrate the Indian people? I don’t think so. I don’t think the name was created by George Preston Marshall to be offensive.”

The Logo

“And if you look at the logo, there’s nothing offensive about the logo. I think one of the great things about the logo is that it’s an Eastern Indian, and they didn’t go to the full warhead headdress and things. It was never intended to be offensive. I think that sometimes, we’re a little too touchy in our society these days.”

An Indian is actually the person who designed the bloody logo.