US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark

[BALTIMOREFLACCO]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark

 

Interesting to see how the NFL and Redskins respond. Essentially, this will force Snyder to change the name if it's upheld when Snyder appeals. 

 

 

[Moderator 2]

Mod Note--Please keep political comments our of it. Thanks

[berad]

I lol'd, Redskins fans cried.

 

Now let's drag it out in appeals for a while longer and get more media involved and more people aware - that's what we want! Right, Dan?

[-Truth-]

I've reserved my judgement on the matter because I haven't looked into enough details to have a fully educated opinion. However, generally speaking, if there is a group who a certain title directly affects or at least pertains to, their view on the matter should be regarded higher than others. I believe that people get caught up too much in tradition. It's difficult not to when regarding a sport. But tradition itself should never bypass the assessment of rights and wrongs, at any stage and any time. There were numerous practices decades and centuries ago that were once implemented without second thought, and they aren't only no longer in practice but are also heavily looked down upon in retrospect. I'm not attempting to draw a parallel between the past wrongs and the current situation with the potential name change. I'm merely stating that a custom and tradition isn't always synonymous with righteousness. The one argument I've heard repeated is that it may be offensive, but that it shouldn't be changed because it wasn't changed in the past. That's one notion that I feel comfortable commenting on and one that I disagree with entirely. There are few things on this planet worse than recognizing an error and willingly choosing to avoid changing it for the better. If the name is indeed changed at some point, I would presume that the process was given its due from both sides of the issue and was resolved accordingly.

[BmoreBird22]

I've reserved my judgement on the matter because I haven't looked into enough details to have a fully educated opinion. However, generally speaking, if there is a group who a certain title directly affects or at least pertains to, their view on the matter should be regarded higher than others. I believe that people get caught up too much in tradition. It's difficult not to when regarding a sport. But tradition itself should never bypass the assessment of rights and wrongs, at any stage and any time. There were numerous practices decades and centuries ago that were once implemented without second thought, and they aren't only no longer in practice but are also heavily looked down upon in retrospect. I'm not attempting to draw a parallel between the past wrongs and the current situation with the potential name change. I'm merely stating that a custom and tradition isn't always synonymous with righteousness. The one argument I've heard repeated is that it may be offensive, but that it shouldn't be changed because it wasn't changed in the past. That's one notion that I feel comfortable commenting on and one that I disagree with entirely. There are few things on this planet worse than recognizing an error and willingly choosing to avoid changing it for the better. If the name is indeed changed at some point, I would presume that the process was given its due from both sides of the issue and was resolved accordingly.

I agree that if it were ever viewed as offensive that the past should not dictate what happens, but to me, I don't know how it's offensive. Their using it as a name for one of the most popular sports in America, almost raising it up. They aren't being malicious or anything. I live by William and Mary and they had to change their mascot because the Tribe was offensive, apparently. I just don't see how being named after one of the most popular sports franchises in America or one of the oldest colleges in America is offensive.

At the same time, I can see how it was used for so long as a racial slur and just the reputation of the word

[Inqui]

I agree with Truth that the Native American perspective should be the most important factor in this. Incidentally, a quick Google search brings up this (not the gospel truth, but the methodology sounds better than the 2004 survey Goodell cited) and this (a pretty lengthy read, but an interesting one).

 

From my end, we have a similar example in NZ with a team called the Chiefs (as a reference to the high Maori population living in the region. In fact, two of the country's most prominent iwi live there) and no-one has a problem with it that I know of. Imo the difference between a name like the Braves, Chiefs or Blackhawks is like the difference between calling these guys the Chiefs or the Brownskins. That last word's bad enough imo, and that's without the same historical weighting.

 

As far as I'm concerned, tradition can [use your imagination] itself if Native American opinion dictates. Even an 80-year tradition in sports shouldn't supercede a matter like that. If the majority of Redskins fans could tell me what coach the team was believed to have been named after, I might find it a stronger argument.

[K-Dog]

I am curious as to how legal it is for them to not hold the trademark for that reason....

[Willbacker]

Basically it comes down to whether you can name a team Yellowskin, Whiteskin or Blackskin and use that as a mascot. Just dwell it on a little bit.

[-Truth-]

I agree that if it were ever viewed as offensive that the past should not dictate what happens, but to me, I don't know how it's offensive. Their using it as a name for one of the most popular sports in America, almost raising it up. They aren't being malicious or anything. I live by William and Mary and they had to change their mascot because the Tribe was offensive, apparently. I just don't see how being named after one of the most popular sports franchises in America or one of the oldest colleges in America is offensive.

At the same time, I can see how it was used for so long as a racial slur and just the reputation of the word

 

Within the beginning of your comment lies what I consider to be a crucial point. Being on the outside looking in, we generally don't know the extent of its offensiveness. While it runs contrary to the human nature of discovery, the lack of personal experience by the outsiders is not an abnormality. We must accept that there are certain things in this world that will never have the means of truly understanding. It's akin to the fact that males will never comprehend the pain of childbirth.

 

This most certainly does not pertain to you, but I've seen an overwhelming amount of non-Native Americans attempt to personally quantify the aforementioned extent. Even more alarming has been the fact that those opinions speak with enough confidence to paint a misleading picture of a leveled playing field between all parties involved. Honestly, I find that to be discouraging. Unless one is equipped with a specific background in the history of Native Americans and the views of its tribes, it's reasonable to question any attempts said individual has in diminishing the significance of the negative affects. I can only speak for myself, but given that I'm not of a Native American background and don't have the proper educational background to argue against the culture, hypothetically speaking, I would expect any attempts of mine to downplay the offensiveness to be perceived as at least partially ignorant and insensitive. Frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

With regards to the notion of raising it up, the end result strongly depends on the definition or interpretation of the term, specifically to the ones it directly affects. Unfortunately, the origin and definition seem to be vague and disputable. What I have gathered thus far is that an extensive analysis of texts from that era portrays the notion that negative views toward Native Americans were far more common than positive views. It wasn't solely limited to the term "redskin," considering that the term "Indian" was used in a similarly skewed negative context. However, I would understand if a connection to a specific term from those times was seen as offensive by the people it then portrayed. To be honest, because the views of other races in that time frame were unfavorable, the fact that the name can be traced to that same span arguably does more for the argument against its retention. Therefore, I personally don't find its usage in a major sport as an indication of whether it should be morally acceptable. The views have subsided, relatively speaking. However, there's typically an aversion to changing historic customs simply because of their place in the record books, and I feel that it's having an effect on the overall debate in present time. That being said, I don't find it acceptable to be willing and able to tell a group what they should and should not find to be offensive. It also shouldn't be acceptable to point out specific individuals or groups that don't mind the use of the term and requesting that the rest follow suit. The actions themselves promote a sense of superiority and presume that the group is incapable of steering their own wheel themselves. The intent itself was likely harmless. But some of the worst actions are done with the best of intentions. The latter should be taken into account when appropriating blame, but if the former can be changed, then it should be considered. I'm hoping for a peaceful resolution that puts an end to what is a relatively high state of racial tension in a debate that should be focused purely on logic.

[BmoreBird22]

Within the beginning of your comment lies what I consider to be a crucial point. Being on the outside looking in, we generally don't know the extent of its offensiveness. While it runs contrary to the human nature of discovery, the lack of personal experience by the outsiders is not an abnormality. We must accept that there are certain things in this world that will never have the means of truly understanding. It's akin to the fact that males will never comprehend the pain of childbirth.

I'm shortening up the post here to save space, but I do agree that it's hard to know what it's like for Native Americans because I am not one and I don't know any full on Native Americans.

 

It's a tough spot for me because at one point, it was a racial slur meant to demean and offend, and I'm sure it still carries that reputation with it, but the Redskins and the organization aren't using it in that way. I view it personally as just a name and nothing more, but again, I do understand the background to it.

 

The one thing that I'd worry about with this name change is what happens with the Braves or the Indians? Or any other team named after an ethnic group? I think you start opening up a can of worms with that name change.

 

I hope it gets resolved in a way to make everyone happy. I'm personally not for or against a name change because I can see both sides to an extent, but it's a tough position to be in to make that call.

[K-Dog]

The Braves are an actual tribe. I doubt ( doubt I say ) that would be offensive.

[Inqui]

The Braves are an actual tribe. I doubt ( doubt I say ) that would be offensive.

Yeah, I think the difference is some of those words are references to specific Native American culture, while one's a slang applied in the 1930s (hardly a golden era for people of First Nation descent, I'm sure we can all agree). Going back to my other example, Chiefs is fine, Brownskins isn't.

 

It's a tough spot for me because at one point, it was a racial slur meant to demean and offend, and I'm sure it still carries that reputation with it, but the Redskins and the organization aren't using it in that way. I view it personally as just a name and nothing more, but again, I do understand the background to it.

I get that argument, but I disagree. The impact on those affected should be more important than the intent.

 

 

Also, for anyone who brings up tradition as a reason to keep the name, tradition was the big defence for those vuvuzelas in the 2010 World Cup. Traditions aren't always good.

[BmoreBird22]

Yeah, I think the difference is some of those words are references to specific Native American culture, while one's a slang applied in the 1930s (hardly a golden era for people of First Nation descent, I'm sure we can all agree). Going back to my other example, Chiefs is fine, Brownskins isn't.

 

I get that argument, but I disagree. The impact on those affected should be more important than the intent.

 

 

Also, for anyone who brings up tradition as a reason to keep the name, tradition was the big defence for those vuvuzelas in the 2010 World Cup. Traditions aren't always good.

I don't know of many people who could effectively use tradition as an argument with something like this.

[BmoreBird22]

The Braves are an actual tribe. I doubt ( doubt I say ) that would be offensive.

William and Mary was literally the Tribe and they had to change it.

[poescrows]

Political correctness run amuck. While we're at it, let's make notre dame change their catch phrase. As an Irishman I find the "fighting Irish" offensive.

[JO_75]

If the Redskins have to change their name then the Chiefs, Braves and all other teams named after Native Americans must be changed for equality for all. Just saying.

 

To anyone defending this, wait until they are forced to change the team name and PETA decides, hey if they changed a sports team name then we'll force teams named after animals to do it too. Then they try to force their hand and say the term Ravens is offensive to birds. Then what would you all say? Then you all saying the Redskins should change their name, will be changing your answer faster than CJ2K's 40 time since it involves YOUR team.

 

Note: If anyone is interested, here is the link to the Redskins forum in case anyone wants to see how their fans are reacting to this.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/365985-the-official-es-redskins-name-change-thread-all-things-related-to-changing-the-teams-name-go-here/

[Purple Punishment]

With all of the terrible things happening today all over this planet, this is what is Breaking News?

Does anyone not see that there is something wrong with the dynamic of what society in general values in this day and age?

It's the name of a football team for crying out loud. I'm going to try to stay on the line without crossing it. What's coming next is a fact. Historical, not political.

Native Americans had this country ripped from them, so if there was a real sentiment towards pleasing the Native American populace, wouldn't it be better to ya know, maybe give them some of their land back? If you see it my way, a name of a sports franchise is a slap in the face to both parties. I don't care if the name changes or not but it's appealing how much media emphasis is on covering this story when there's much greater problems to worry about.

[-Truth-]

I'm shortening up the post here to save space, but I do agree that it's hard to know what it's like for Native Americans because I am not one and I don't know any full on Native Americans.

 

It's a tough spot for me because at one point, it was a racial slur meant to demean and offend, and I'm sure it still carries that reputation with it, but the Redskins and the organization aren't using it in that way. I view it personally as just a name and nothing more, but again, I do understand the background to it.

 

The one thing that I'd worry about with this name change is what happens with the Braves or the Indians? Or any other team named after an ethnic group? I think you start opening up a can of worms with that name change.

 

I hope it gets resolved in a way to make everyone happy. I'm personally not for or against a name change because I can see both sides to an extent, but it's a tough position to be in to make that call.

 

Glad that we both agree on that.

 

To be honest, I don't see much substance in the intended use of the term, certainly not enough to stand on even footing with the negative effects as the arguments for and against retention, respectively. It seems unlikely that the team name was chosen by a Native American, therefore it doesn't pertain to the creators of the name. How the name is viewed by the creators bears no relevancy when concerning an issue with a racial slur that affects only another group. What does bear relevancy is who it directly pertains to and the perception that it carries.

 

I would disagree. The only other team name I see being potentially affected is the Indians. The others like the Blackhawks and Chiefs are palpable and specific references. Unlike the Redskins, they're not potentially generalizations. They also either imply a higher status or give off a positive perception via word association.

 

I'm with you there, and I agree on the hopeful outcome.

[-Truth-]

The proclamation that a potential end result will at some point lead to teams being forced to relinquish animal titles forgets to account for the difference between species. Birds are not capable of perceiving labels or being emotionally distraught due to the usage of their names by other groups. There are no physical or emotional repercussions for animals stemming from that usage. Any such argument by any organization would have nothing to stand on. Furthermore, there's a clear difference in calling a raven by its proper name, a raven, and associating a picture of a Native American with a potentially disparaging and racially insensitive title, one that the depicted group can actually comprehend. This example is by all means a stretch.

[BloodRaven]

I'm still surprised that this day and age there are people still trying to dictate what other races should find offensive or not.

[-Truth-]

I'm still surprised that this day and age there are people still trying to dictate what other races should find offensive or not.

 

Amen to that.

[D-Rey]

I gotta say if I was a Redskins fan that bought hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of Redskins stuff and the name changed, I would not be happy.

[berad]

I gotta say if I was a Redskins fan that bought hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of Redskins stuff and the name changed, I would not be happy.

 

Collectors edition! LOL

 

But I would be, too. Wonder if there will be some swap-back if it happens.

[JO_75]

The proclamation that a potential end result will at some point lead to teams being forced to relinquish animal titles forgets to account for the difference between species. Birds are not capable of perceiving labels or being emotionally distraught due to the usage of their names by other groups. There are no physical or emotional repercussions for animals stemming from that usage. Any such argument by any organization would have nothing to stand on. Furthermore, there's a clear difference in calling a raven by its proper name, a raven, and associating a picture of a Native American with a potentially disparaging and racially insensitive title, one that the depicted group can actually comprehend. This example is by all means a stretch.

 

I see your point and that yes it was a stretch but that's my point with PC. There is no end to it and if you open the door up to one thing, your going to open the door up to other things(my example of PETA finding teams named after animals offensive) and then it just never ends. Where's the stopping point? I believe if they succeed in changing the Redskins name then by all means it will open up the door for the PC group to one day wake up and say this team name is offensive, we forced the NFL to change the Redskins, let's force them to do change this one. Then it becomes a never ending cycle. 

[-Truth-]

I see your point and that yes it was a stretch but that's my point with PC. There is no end to it and if you open the door up to one thing, your going to open the door up to other things(my example of PETA finding teams named after animals offensive) and then it just never ends. Where's the stopping point? I believe if they succeed in changing the Redskins name then by all means it will open up the door for the PC group to one day wake up and say this team name is offensive, we forced the NFL to change the Redskins, let's force them to do change this one. Then it becomes a never ending cycle. 

 

I understand what you mean about the slippery slope, but I don't believe that it will an issue because there is a finite amount of teams with logos depicting a specific group of human beings. Much fewer are ones that include a generalizing title. Your example with PETA would never occur, so it can't be a fruitful analogy. The argument against the Redskins name can't relate to any team that doesn't depict a human being, an equal member of our society, and that's the stopping point.

[Moderator 3]

I fail to see the correlation between a team name that is a slur and an animal like a raven.

[YYZ66]

Political correctness run amuck. While we're at it, let's make notre dame change their catch phrase. As an Irishman I find the "fighting Irish" offensive.

 

 

I'm still surprised that this day and age there are people still trying to dictate what other races should find offensive or not.

 

Exactly.  How many years have they been around?  Isn't it well over 50 years?  And now we're supposed to be offended?

[darklight1216]

I gotta say if I was a Redskins fan that bought hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of Redskins stuff and the name changed, I would not be happy.

On the other hand it might be a golden opportunity to start selling NFL apparel without actually having to pay the NFL for the right to do so. Of course, it's risky, but that's how it goes.

 

 

 

Exactly.  How many years have they been around?  Isn't it well over 50 years?  And now we're supposed to be offended?

 

-Truth- explained this very eloquently on the first page. Alot of things have gone/went on for a long time, but that does not justify them. 

[BloodRaven]

Political correctness run amuck. While we're at it, let's make notre dame change their catch phrase. As an Irishman I find the "fighting Irish" offensive.

 

Maybe if it was the Notre Dame Fighting Whiteskins you'd be on to something equivalent.

[Inqui]

I fail to see the correlation between a team name that is a slur and an animal like a raven.

This. The slippery slope is a defined logical fallacy that assumes there can't be a middle ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope