Forums → WEPR → TM office cancels redskins
| 11 | 7051 |
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.
- 11 Replies
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
3. The argument is 81 years old. If it was a real problem, it would have been argued over and dealt with back then.
This is bunk. I think it's pretty common knowledge that Native Americans have been denied confrontation with the US government for a ridiculous amount of time. Hell, the last president that paid them any real attention was Nixon.
You must be logged in to post a reply!