Regarding this decision, I wouldn’t be surprised if secretly Dan Snider was pleased. In terms of money, changing the name is a boon. All of the old Redskins merchandise suddenly become collector’s items and flies off the shelves, while you have the chance to promote inaugural Washington Warriors Jerseys, mugs, hats and what not. The problem is that if Dan changes the voluntarily than he is seen to be weak and giving in to liberal whining, and not listening to his fans. Given the fact that the average Redskins fan views Dan Snider with somewhat less respect than toe fungus, he really can’t afford any more bad will. But if he is forced into it kicking and screaming “Please don’t throw me in that Briar patch” Then even if he loses he still looks like he was putting up a fight in CAPITAL LETTERS.
The situation with the Wizards was different. In that case the major force behind the name change was African Americans, who make up a substantial portion of the Wizards fan base. So changing the name was not as likely to lose the fan base.
As to those who claim that the term Redskins isn’t offensive, I ask what then is the motivation for the movement to change the name? Is there some other reason that of all the available football teams only the Redskins have been singled out for a name change? Are all those people claiming to be offended by the name really just pretending to be offended as part of some more sinister reason for wanting the name changed? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Dykes on Bikes situation is somewhat difficult to use as an example because the TTAB never got to rule on it.
The application was rejected twice, once as disparaging and again as both disparaging and scandalous.
However, while the matter was on appeal to the TTAB, the examiner looked at additional evidence, which apparently included footage from the pride parade and allowed the registration.
I phrased that question poorly. What I’m trying to get at is this: Bricker is arguing that the existence of Indian sports teams that use the word “redskin” is evidence that they don’t think the word is a slur. I’m asking if the existence of Dykes on Bikes is similar evidence that lesbians feel that “dyke” is not a slur.
I already posted the words from the superintendent of that school system saying pretty much exactly that.
Just is nobody seems to be reading the 177 page ruling by the Patent Office listing all of the vast amounts of evidence that the term is disparaging to Native Americans, I guess nobody saw that post either.
Agreed. I think the findings are evidence that it’s disparaging. I don’t think you can really prove any word/usage is disparaging, not the way you can prove other things, but you can provide evidence. The court may or may not disagree, but it’s still evidence.
So you read the 177 page ruling with all of the documented evidence that is exactly what’s wade the Patent Office to make the decision that there was overwhelming evidence that the term was disparaging to Native Americans? How do you dismiss out of hand what caused the Patent Office to rule so successfully?
Over 77 tribes and Native American groups petitioned the Patent Office. Earlier in the thread you are very gung ho on quantity. How come that only matters with you in nebulous public opinion polls but not when it comes to the amount of Native American groups who are actively attempting to get the team to change their name in relationship to Native American football teams for embracing the name?
Also, I already posted from the superintendent of the arizona team. He said basically that the team name in the use of native american scissor okay, but not so much for teams with no cultural reason to have the name.
So at least half of your teams still doesn’t think much of an NFL team in Washington DC using the term for their own profit.
Can we petition the patent office to cancel the Dykes on Bikes registration, then? According to you, it’s a slur, yes?
I don’t know about “dykes,” a word standing alone, but I don’t believe that anyone would be offended if I, a straight Hispanic male, were to refer to that element of the pride parade as “Dykes on Bikes.” So in my view, the phrase is not a slur.
I’m wading in late and I know this has already been said but I think it bears repeating: I don’t believe the use of Redskins in this case is a slur. Football teams give themselves positive or “tough” nicknames: The Patriots, Falcons, Raiders, Vikings, etc. Very few (if any) people actively use the term “redskins” as a slur and trying to equate it with the N-word is unwarranted. If we’re going to ban (or remove the trademark of) any name that might offend a significant number of people then a lot of punk rock bands are in trouble. I would consider “The Dead Kennedys” worse than the Redskins.
“Dykes on Bikes” isn’t a slur, but “dyke” certainly is. The fact that an organization comprised entirely of lesbians uses the word to refer to itself doesn’t make the word not a slur. Similarly, the fact that a sports team composed entirely of Indians uses the word “Redskins” to refer to itself is not evidence that “redskin” is not a slur.
Are those words slurs? If someone called me a Raider I’d be confused (or annoyed–I don’t like the Oakland Raiders). I understand your point (I think) regarding Dykes on Bikes; however if any professional team called themselves The Dykes (say a roller derby team) I can’t imagine that in that context it would be a slur.
What about The Dead Kennedys? Should that be revoked if a significant number of people considered it a slur (or obscene)?
The legal standard that’s being applied seems to want it that way. It asks whether a substantial component of the relevant population considers it disparaging.
Since “substantial” can be as small as 20 percent (and possibly smaller) That seems to imply that it doesn’t matter whether 80 percent or more of the relevant population doesn’t consider it a slur.
It would be interesting to see what happens if Snyder directly challenges this standard or even challenges Section 2(a) altogether—at least the disparaging and scandalous portions.
I didn’t propose any sort of rule. I made an observation: minority groups often self identify using terms that were intended to be slurs, usually out of a sense of irony or defiance. Dykes on Bikes chose that name specifically because dyke is a slur. Using that group as proof that dyke is not a slur is missing the point to a comical degree.
I’m not claiming that the various Indian sports teams that call themselves Redskins are engaging in the same sort of thing. It could be that they are genuinely unoffended by the term. But you need to do more legwork than simply point out their existence to make your point, because it’s often the case that these names are chosen by minority groups specifically because they’re offensive to their own group.
No, they’re not slurs. They’re examples of teams that named themselves after things that are generally feared or even despised. Nobody thinks of sharks as “proud and noble,” they’re savage, deadly creatures, and were chosen as a team name because the team wanted to be associated with something savage and deadly. It’s thus possible (but by no means proven) that “Redskins” was chosen not out of “respect” for Indians, but because Indians were viewed at the time as savage, deadly creatures.