ForumsWEPRTM office cancels redskins

16 1807
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
Shepherd

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

So, a bunch of people within nothing better to do with their lives but be offended at anything they can find filed a suit against the Redskins.
I guess the Chicago Blackhawks (hockey team) is next, they have an Indian mascot as well.
I wonder if they'll go after car companies too, because, you know, the Jeep Cherokee's name is offensive, grrr, rage!
Pathetic.

  • 16 Replies
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
Shepherd

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

I wonder if they'll go after car companies too, because, you know, the Jeep Cherokee's name is offensive, grrr, rage!

The difference is that Black Hawk and Cherokee are not/were not derogatory slurs.

As to how much it matters and whether Native Americans actually find it offensive is a question in of itself. My opinion is that it's easy to change a name and that it isn't a big issue anyways and that if people were sensible, they would just change the name and be done with it. If people are going to get worked up about issues Native Americans face, there are far more important things to be dealing with.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

As to how much it matters and whether Native Americans actually find it offensive is a question in of itself.


According to the article, about 33% of Native Americans consider the name "redskin" offensive.

My opinion is that it's easy to change a name and that it isn't a big issue anyways and that if people were sensible, they would just change the name and be done with it.


Um. This is a $343 million team, and the name is 81 years old (1932, but it was called the Braves for one year). You don't just change the name of a sports team this huge. That's a lot of perfectly good merchandise that they'd have to throw away. Including all the legal work, design changes, new uniforms and advertisement and patent office work, this would effectively waste a lot of money and a lot of time.

If people were reasonable, they would have protested the name change that happened 81 years ago. This is not an "overdue" argument. This is a "you're 81 years too late" argument, based on the undying need to not offend anyone ever that has become painfully popular.

This would matter if the Redskins team or the fans/supporters treated Native Americans differently because of the name to the extent that actual damage occurred (slander, hostility, etc). That hasn't happened. Redskins fans associate the name and logo with sports, not a slang term for people and their history.

Face it. The entire argument is a waste of time, and it's 81 years too late to be a worthwhile investment. It's just evidence of how desperate people can be to not "offend" other people, which is especially annoying when two-thirds of them aren't offended and/or don't care.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

You don't just change the name of a sports team this huge


You do when there's a public outcry to do so. You get together a board to create possible new names and a new logo, generate publicity by making it an online vote that fans can weigh in on, profit off the rebranding, while having a great pr day. It's a win-win-win-win-win for them. I don't understand why they don't do it.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

I don't understand why they don't do it.


1. It's expensive and all their current merchandise will not be reimbursed.

2. Redskins fans have been a fan of the name for 8 decades. They aren't interested in a change.

3. The argument is 81 years old. If it was a real problem, it would have been argued over and dealt with back then.

4. The complainers do not outweigh the fans, nor do the offended Native Americans outweigh those not offended.

It is not win-win-win-win-win. The owners aren't interested in forming a board to discuss a name and logo change (expensive and time-consuming), the fans don't want their long-time team name to change (they haven't fought against it for 81 years), you experience a massive loss from the rebranding (wasted merchandise and no guarantee that the new name/logo will compensate for the loss), and your pr department becomes a nightmare (fighting between the angry fans and angry lobbyists).
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
Scribe

You're probably right. I don't understand much about sports mentalities or attachments to a particular name/logo, so to me, it doesn't seem like a big deal to change the name. I probably should know by now not to assume that people will act in a logical way.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,876 posts
Scribe

So, a bunch of people within nothing better to do with their lives but be offended at anything they can find filed a suit against the Redskins.


And how happy would you be if your local team was called the Palefaces?

3. The argument is 81 years old. If it was a real problem, it would have been argued over and dealt with back then.


Because in 1933 native Americans completely had the same rights and resources as everyone else.

2. Redskins fans have been a fan of the name for 8 decades. They aren't interested in a change.


Or in anything the team does except the stadium they play in, how well they play the sport, and the drippy foods they can eat while doing it.

the fans don't want their long-time team name to change


Neither do they want it to not change.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

And how happy would you be if your local team was called the Palefaces?

Couldn't care less. It's an outdated insult to Americans who hated Native Americans. No one uses it anymore. No one calls Apaches, Iroquois and the other 500+ tribes "redskins" anymore, and they don't call Caucasians &quotalefaces" anymore. When you hear "Redskin," you think of a game, not a demographic.

Accept it. The term "redskin" as an insult is dead. People don't connect it to modern-day tribes, nor do they connect it with wars and abuse from the 18th century. They connect it with football, and they have for many years.

Because in 1933 native Americans completely had the same rights and resources as everyone else.

All Native Americans were granted full U.S. citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. In other words, they DID have the same rights as everyone else. As for resources, scholars have predicted that the population of "Indigenous peoples in the Americas" was about 10 million (this included those in South America, but by the end of the 19th century the numbers had reached 50-100 million.) As of 2012, the population of Native Americans in the U.S. alone is 308.7 million.

That's a considerable number of US citizens to go up against a brand-new team, wouldn't you say? I think upwards on as few as a million people, with the same rights as every other American nine year before the name change, would have a case.

Or in anything the team does except the stadium they play in, how well they play the sport, and the drippy foods they can eat while doing it.

Irrelevant sarcasm. This doesn't change the fact that the team has a lot of long-term fans of the name "Washington Redskins" and do not associate it with an actual demographic.

I mean, come on. The current symbol of a Redskins fan is a hog nose of all things, and that came from trainer Joe Bugel calling the players "hogs" in a 1982 training camp.

Neither do they want it to not change.

Feel free to run the numbers of Redskins fans who don't want a change vs those who do want a change. I'd safely assume the "don't want it to not change" number is lower.

MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

You're probably right. I don't understand much about sports mentalities or attachments to a particular name/logo, so to me, it doesn't seem like a big deal to change the name. I probably should know by now not to assume that people will act in a logical way.


I'm not a sports fan either, but I do know that sports fans are some of the most insanely stubborn, dedicated people on the planet, who value tradition far above logic. Some guy named Tim Conners tattooed his team, the Seahawks, as winners of the XLVIII Superbowl on his wrist...before the game happened. Feel free to Google it ("seahawks fan gets super bowl tattoo&quot because it's not even worth posting a link.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

When you hear "Redskin," you think of a game, not a demographic.

I think of potatoes. It would be interesting if they pick a potato logo to keep the name rights.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,865 posts
Bard

I think of potatoes. It would be interesting if they pick a potato logo to keep the name rights.


I meant as a generalization, but I get your point. Wait...how would picking a potato logo let them keep the rights to the name? Because no one would be offended by it?

Either way, it still stands that "redskins" does not make one think of the demographic it was originally assigned to in general.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,079 posts
Scribe

All Native Americans were granted full U.S. citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. In other words, they DID have the same rights as everyone else. As for resources, scholars have predicted that the population of "Indigenous peoples in the Americas" was about 10 million (this included those in South America, but by the end of the 19th century the numbers had reached 50-100 million.) As of 2012, the population of Native Americans in the U.S. alone is 308.7 million.


Rights in name are not rights in action. All slaves in the US were given full citizenship in 1868, yet black people didn't receive the right to vote until 1964. Not to mention the discrimination they faced in the hundred year period between those two times, do you really think Native Americans had it any better?

Also, you want to recheck your figures, or are you actually claiming that 85% of the US population is Native American?

I do agree with you though, the name "Redskins" while derogatory origin is not being used derogatorily. Also, I have a feeling that the Native Americans speaking out against the name are not the majority but a very vocal minority. At this point, to change the team's name, is, as said earlier, a waste of money and resources. Not to mention a potential loss of fans who associate themselves with the Redskin brand and the team.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

Because no one would be offended by it?

Pretty much. If it no longer references a demographic, it wouldn't legally be considered derogatory. If they changed their name to the "Boobies" and their logo was the type of bird, legal action couldn't be taken against it directly for vulgarity. That would be a great name to pick. They could sell tons of "I [heart] boobies" shirts.
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,991 posts
Scribe

Tampa Bay Rays were once called the Devil Rays before changing their name for no other reason than to not have Devil in their name...albeit they weren't an 81 year franchise.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

just change the name and earn more cash by selling the new merchandise. just look for the + side.
everybody happy and after 2 seasons the new name will be sticked and nobody calls it redskins anymore...

Showing 1-15 of 16