Redskins Win!

Great Debates
1

No, not the game yesterday. (Well, they did “win” if you want to call a 9-7, no-Washington-TD win against the much-maligned Rams a victory, but I digress.) No, this was a victory earlier this year, in Pro Football v. Harjo; the DC Circuit ruled that whether or not the trademark “Washington Redskins” impermissibly disparages Native Americans, the particular claim filed by these particular plaintiffs came too late: the Redskins registered their current trademark in 1967. The delay between that time and 1992, when the plaintiffs first filed their claim, was fatal.

The Redskins offered the defense of laches: they said that the plaintiffs had had years to complain about the trademark, years in which the team invested a great deal of time and money promoting their trademark. The court ultimately agreed, with some back-and-forth maneuvering on the issue of one plaintiff who was only a year old in 1967, but ultimately the defense was upheld.

The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to hear the issue. In my view, they won’t be successful there.

But they may well be successful, as Cornell Professor Michael Dorf speculates in his blog, with another plaintiff. If they can find an eighteen-year-old who has standing to complain, they may well be able to sidestep the laches defense and get to a final finding on the merits. The law says that a trademark cannot be refused unless it “…disparage[s] … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols…” The plaintiffs believe that “Redskins” is disparaging within the meaning of that law.

I don’t. But Professor Dorf suggests that the team ought to see the writing on the wall and begin a change on their own schedule, under the theory that a new round of litigation might well force them into change.

Should the Washington Redskins change their name?

(I’m sure we’ve done the topic in years past, but given this year’s progress of the case, thought a new thread was the way to go.)

2

Let me go on the record by stating that I wouldn’t be terribly upset over a name change. Political correctness bugs me, but in this case enough people of good will are upset that a change could easily be justified.

It wouldn’t even be the most egregious name change in Washington area sports - that would be the ludicrous renaming of the Washington Bullets in 1997.

3

I’ve always thought that if there is a problem with the name “Redskins”, the there should be a problem with the name “Celtics”, specially when Americans deliberately mispronounce the name.

And the “Cowboys” as well.

4

I’ve always thought that if there is a problem with the name “Redskins”, the there should be a problem with the name “Celtics”, specially when Americans deliberately mispronounce the name.

And the “Cowboys” as well. To refer to the men who handled cattle in days of yore as boys could be contstrued as pejorative. In fact I’ve actually heard the term “cowboy” used that way in recent years.

5

Hey, I voted for ‘Sea Dogs’ in that one, myself. Susan O’Malley was going to put the ludicrous choice in front of me I was going to take it.

I’m with Moto here that I think they could get away with it without more than a minor-to-medium brand hit. But it would also give them an opportunity to move more clothing and logo-gear as the fanbase caught up.

And none of that bullshit about 'redskin potatoes, either. That was a dumbass suggestions fifteen years ago and it’s dumb now.

6

My standard argument is that team names and mascots are really a tribute to the original. People chose mascots from amongst the things they typically held in honor.

However, the Redskins always are a counterpoint to that. There really isn’t anything honorific in that name, unlike ‘Braves’, ‘Chiefs’, or ‘Fighting Sioux’.

As such, I think they should just change their name, simply because it sucks. Find something that represents DC, and go with that.

On the other hand, there is something to be said about taking a potentially offensive word and removing all offensive context from it. I have never heard the word ‘redskins’ invoked without it referring to the football team.

7

I think if it bothers Native Americans (and it clearly does if they are suing against it), it should go. It’s not up to white people to decide what is or isn’t offensive to non-white people.

8

Depends on how many Red people are offended.

9

That’s not because the team took away the negative associations, though. It’s because people gradually accepted the view that term was offensive, so they stopped using it.

With team names like Braves at least there’s an argument that it’s a tribute. Not with Redskins. The name should’ve been dropped long ago, whatever the law says about it.

There’s only one good thing about the Washington Wizards name: it comes off as unintentional sarcasm.

10

I don’t remember seeing where all Native Americans held a vote and the count was unanimous that it was offensive.

11

**RED-SKIN, n. **
A North American Indian, whose skin is not red – at least not on the outside.

– The Devil’s Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

12

Why should there be a vote? All one has to do is look in the dictionary to see that lexicographers generally believe it is an offensive or disparaging term.

13

I really don’t understand what all the fuss is about. The name was most likely chosen in honor of of one of it’s first coaches (cite). And, at worst, it’s nothing more than a physical description of the color of the skin, akin to whites or blacks, not a racial slur. And really, who the hell names a team after something that is intended to be insulting? You want a name that is honorable and fearsome. The Indians being remembered for their courage and skill on the battlefield, which is the imagery Indian-themed mascots raise in my mind, is something to be venerated not forgotten. Sure, there are other things that they should be remembered for as well, but football isn’t the medium for getting across specifics about culture.

And, if people are upset about the use of races, ethnicities, and other groups being used as mascots, these same people should be fighting against all the other Indian mascots, as well as other ones like the afforementioned Celtics, Fighting Irish, Vikings, etc. Even moreso, as I understand the Utes and the Seminoles have specifically given a blessing to the Universities that use their names as mascots, but there’s no specific group to approach about the Redskins, Indians, Chiefs, or Braves.

All of this comes from someone with a significant amount of heritage myself whose family celebrates the cultures of the tribes from which we decend, and most of whom are also Redskins fans. And we’re hardly alone, as according to a poll over 90% of Indians find the name “acceptable” (cite).

Of course, once you add in that the Redskins have been the Redskins since 1933, and have had their current mascot since 1967, considering how much a part of the Washingtonian culture they are and the massive amount of money spent on recognizing that name, I don’t think the Redskins have any good reason to initiate a name change. I will, however, say that it probably would be in Snyder’s best interest to start some programs to raise money and awareness for various Indian causes as well as educate the people on just how diverse the cultures really are.

14

Yes, they should have held a big vote like blacks did with “nigger”, Jews did with “kike” and Asians did with “chink”…wait they didn’t do that either but somehow the rest of us managed to figure out that the words are offensive to them and would not be suitable to use as a logo for a sports team. Why are Native Americans held to a different standard by you?

15

When the issue comes up before the Supreme Court, the argument shouldn’t be about whether or not the term is offensive. Nobody should have a right to not be offended. If a team wants to call themselves the “Stupid Lazy Niggers” they should absolutely have that right, and take whatever bad PR they get. If the combined weight of all the bad publicity and an army of offenderati hasn’t hit the Redskins in the pocketbook yet, I see no reason to bring the law into it.

Not that I’m a fan of the name, but ultimately it should be up to the owners of the team; it just isn’t my decision to make, and it shouldn’t be a judge’s either.

16

My point (lost on some, I guess) is that the statement

has no real defense, since it is equally not up to a tiny tiny fraction of any population to decide what is or is not offensive.

The terms you mentioned, Death of Rats, are deemed offensive by very nearly all people, regardless of race. There is clearly a difference of opinion about the innate offensive qualities of the term “redskin”, and in all of the opinion polls I have seen, it’s only a very small minority who find it offensive.

Certainly there is little, if anything, that can be pointed out about how the NFL team uses the term and the depiction of it’s mascot which can be deemed offensive, beyond the fact that they exist at all.

ETA: On preview, saw DrCube’s post, and agree whole-heartedly.

17

And it always will be up to the owners (and the NFL of course). The court case isn’t about legally requiring the team to change its name. It is about whether the coercive power of the state should be used to protect exclusive use of that name. Trademarks are very valuable things. They represent a benefit from the government, and the government is allowed ot put (constitutional) conditions on receiving that benefit.

This simply isn’t about the big bad government taking away Dan Snyder’s right to call him team whatever he wants and the NFL allows him.

18

These are asinine comparisons. “Redskins” is a racial pejorative. “Celtics” is not. “Cowboys” doesn’t even have a racial or ethnic connotation at all. It’s a profession.

19

There’s something missing from your analysis.

If the suit were brought under some generalized right to not be offended, then you’d be right on the money: there is no general legal right to not be offended.

But trademarks are a creation of the law. The law exists to protect exclusive use of a symbol or phrase to promote or identify a product. And with that same law comes the restriction I quoted above. Here it is in its entirety:

That’s the rule Congress wrote. So it IS for a judge to determine if the name “disparages” persons living or dead.

20

What exactly are the rules about trademarks that the plaintiffs were using as grounds? Is there really language in the trademark laws that anything trademarked cannot be offensive?