2014-2015 NFL Football thread

[Big Hurtin]

I'm one who generally thinks that our society has gotten too PC, but I'm on the PC side on this one. Good job by USPTO. No need for this name to exist any more.

It's an interesting way to "force" a name change. While they can still use the name, people can cut into their merch. $ with impunity.

[cabiness42]

It's an interesting way to "force" a name change. While they can still use the name, people can cut into their merch. $ with impunity.

 

I wonder if there's a way to connect the Redskins to the league as a means of challenging league-wide trademarks.

[whitesoxfan99]

I'm one who generally thinks that our society has gotten too PC, but I'm on the PC side on this one. Good job by USPTO. No need for this name to exist any more.

 

I agree with this. I think people are way too sensitive these days but no matter where you draw the line, Redskins should be on the wrong side of it.

[clyons]

The USPO took the exact same action in 1999, and was reversed on appeal by a federal court.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The USPO took the exact same action in 1999, and was reversed on appeal by a federal court.

"In 1992, Suzan Harjo and a group of Native Americans petitioned the patent office to cancel six trademark registrations." They succeeded in 1999. "The Redskins appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." It overturned the ruling in 2003. Oddly... no one seems to remember this has all happened before. "At least 12 times since 1992 the USPTO has refused to register such marks on disparagement grounds, including seven applications from the Washington team"

 

Quotes pulled from washingtonpost.com

[HuskyCaucasian]

My conservative friends are already proclaiming this an extreme overreach of Obama's powers.

[cabiness42]

My conservative friends are already proclaiming this an extreme overreach of Obama's powers.

 

The USPTO is full of career employees and only the director is a political appointee. If you want to argue that the court's decision is based in politics that is possible, but the USPTO has been pretty consistent in its decisions across administrations.

 

[Soxbadger]

The USPTO is hilariously inconsistent at every level. Ive had TMs approved that I thought would never work, Ive had them give me hassle over ones I never could imagine a problem.

[Quin]

My conservative friends are already proclaiming this an extreme overreach of Obama's powers.

 

First he gets us into a situation with Iraq and now this?!

[Jenksismyhero]

You guys don't think it's a little scary that this office of people can cost a company millions over what they think is appropriate/not appropriate? Not saying it's the wrong decision, but I dunno that these people should be deciding what is offensive and what's not. And going forward, how are the Cleveland Indians, Florida State Seminoles, etc. trademarks going to be treated? Might as well go after them too and hit them where it hurts.

 

Also, while I do think "Redskins" is inappropriate and probably offensive to some, at this point wtf does it matter? It's been the name for decades. People don't associate redskins with indians, they associate redskins with a football team. It's a nice gesture and all, but we really need to start focusing our collective attention on s*** that actually matters.

 

edit: Or hey, how about this one:

 

Edited June 18, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

I'm still not sure how Fighting Irish is less offensive than Redskins? They both are derogatory terms for a group of people based on out of date stereotypes.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm still not sure how Fighting Irish is less offensive than Redskins? They both are derogatory terms for a group of people based on out of date stereotypes.

 

Come on, you know why. White Guilt.

[RockRaines]

You guys don't think it's a little scary that this office of people can cost a company millions over what they think is appropriate/not appropriate? Not saying it's the wrong decision, but I dunno that these people should be deciding what is offensive and what's not. And going forward, how are the Cleveland Indians, Florida State Seminoles, etc. trademarks going to be treated? Might as well go after them too and hit them where it hurts.

 

Also, while I do think "Redskins" is inappropriate and probably offensive to some, at this point wtf does it matter? It's been the name for decades. People don't associate redskins with indians, they associate redskins with a football team. It's a nice gesture and all, but we really need to start focusing our collective attention on s*** that actually matters.

 

edit: Or hey, how about this one:

 

Redskins is the only "racist term" in the bunch you mentioned. Thats the only reason these bored ass people can attack it.

[RockRaines]

Come on, you know why. White Guilt.

Yeah but where are all the Irish Casinos?

[Jenksismyhero]

Redskins is the only "racist term" in the bunch you mentioned. Thats the only reason these bored ass people can attack it.

 

I guess, but how is the photo of a stereotypical "indian" not just as offensive?

[Goober]

"Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that "redskin" was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white "other" encroaching on their lands and culture." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5100201139.html

Huh, how about that, and from way back in 2005

 

"And I definitely don't know how I'll tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- that the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea." http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9689220/...not-easy-sounds Those dummies! Making fun of themselves all these years! Let's save them from themselves next.

[RockRaines]

I guess, but how is the photo of a stereotypical "indian" not just as offensive?

They shouldnt have dressed that way back in the day, or now when they do tribal dances.

[cabiness42]

You guys don't think it's a little scary that this office of people can cost a company millions over what they think is appropriate/not appropriate? Not saying it's the wrong decision, but I dunno that these people should be deciding what is offensive and what's not. And going forward, how are the Cleveland Indians, Florida State Seminoles, etc. trademarks going to be treated? Might as well go after them too and hit them where it hurts.

 

Also, while I do think "Redskins" is inappropriate and probably offensive to some, at this point wtf does it matter? It's been the name for decades. People don't associate redskins with indians, they associate redskins with a football team. It's a nice gesture and all, but we really need to start focusing our collective attention on s*** that actually matters.

 

edit: Or hey, how about this one:

 

 

The actual word 'redskin' carries a negative connotation whereas 'Indians' and 'Braves' do not. 'Seminoles' and 'Blackhawks' are named for specific tribes/people. There was actually a serious PC backlash against the name 'Seminoles' about a 15 or so years ago but then the Seminole tribe in Florida told everybody that they fully approve of the nickname and that everybody else had not right 'being offended' on their behalf, so that one is pretty much settled.

 

As for the Fighting Irish, well the liberals are never going to go to bat for white Catholics, so that name will probably be around forever.

[clyons]

I don't think it matters one bit how a term was "first used." Language is fluid, and what matters is how it's understood today.

 

"f**" used to refer to a cigarette.

[witesoxfan]

I don't think it matters one bit how a term was "first used." Language is fluid, and what matters is how it's understood today.

 

"f**" used to refer to a cigarette.

 

Queer used to mean eccentric too.

[Jenksismyhero]

The actual word 'redskin' carries a negative connotation whereas 'Indians' and 'Braves' do not. 'Seminoles' and 'Blackhawks' are named for specific tribes/people. There was actually a serious PC backlash against the name 'Seminoles' about a 15 or so years ago but then the Seminole tribe in Florida told everybody that they fully approve of the nickname and that everybody else had not right 'being offended' on their behalf, so that one is pretty much settled.

 

As for the Fighting Irish, well the liberals are never going to go to bat for white Catholics, so that name will probably be around forever.

 

 

That's exactly why this issue is nonsense. You can't take an offensive or derogatory term and just unilaterally decide it's not offensive because X number of people say it's not. On the one hand we can't have guys dancing around in a headdress, but we can have a half naked guy running around on a horse with a spear on fire, all because some $$ was handed over. It's got jack s*** to do with how "offensive" something is.

 

And i'm still not clear on the ruling, is it just trademarks with the name in it? Or does it include the logo of the indian face?

Edited June 18, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't think it matters one bit how a term was "first used." Language is fluid, and what matters is how it's understood today.

 

"f**" used to refer to a cigarette.

 

This to me is a better argument for why censoring speech is dumb. Language changes. It doesn't mean the same thing over time. If stigma and connotation can be added over time, why can't it be lost too? Have you EVER heard of anyone refer to an american indian as a redskin? Nope, neither has anyone else still living. We all know it as a s***ty football team in Washington DC.

[gatnom]

This to me is a better argument for why censoring speech is dumb. Language changes. It doesn't mean the same thing over time. If stigma and connotation can be added over time, why can't it be lost too? Have you EVER heard of anyone refer to an american indian as a redskin? Nope, neither has anyone else still living. We all know it as a s***ty football team in Washington DC.

 

This is an interesting point, but I'm having a hard time believing you could walk up to a Native American, call him a redskin, and have him not be offended.

 

 

[RockRaines]

I don't think it matters one bit how a term was "first used." Language is fluid, and what matters is how it's understood today.

 

"f**" used to refer to a cigarette.

In England they still call a smoke a f**

[cabiness42]

That's exactly why this issue is nonsense. You can't take an offensive or derogatory term and just unilaterally decide it's not offensive because X number of people say it's not. On the one hand we can't have guys dancing around in a headdress, but we can have a half naked guy running around on a horse with a spear on fire, all because some $$ was handed over. It's got jack s*** to do with how "offensive" something is.

 

And i'm still not clear on the ruling, is it just trademarks with the name in it? Or does it include the logo of the indian face?

 

Well, Seminole is a specific term referring to an enumerable group of people. That group of people deserves every right to determine what are and aren't appropriate uses of their name. Sioux, Pueblo, Hopi, etc. tribes don't get a say in whether or not it's OK to use the Seminole name, even if the costume/rituals of the mascot aren't obviously different.

 

'Redskin' is a generic term referring to all Native Americans. If even a substantial minority of them have a problem with the name then it's an issue that needs to be addressed.

 

If you call someone a Midwestern Hick then as a Hoosier I can get offended. If you call someone a FIB I don't get offended because I'm not from Illinois.