Punk bands still have record labels.
Of course, but I didn’t think they registered all their band names. Maybe I’m wrong.
Well said, although I still disagree. I’d put the Redskins in the same category as the Vikings: fierce warriors who instilled fear at one point in history. Using “Vikings” is not meant to be a slur any more than the “Redskins”. The only pertinent difference is that the term “redskins” is nominally based on skin color and our society is sensitive to skin color, perhaps overly so.
Compare that to the Dead Kennedys, who chose the name specifically to be offensive. Why do we make a big deal out of the Redskins but not the DKs? (I have nothing against the DKs and like punk music; they are merely a convenient example.)
Maybe nobody’s complained about the Dead Kennedys. From what I understand, the reason the recent ruling regarding the Redskins came about is because somebody, or some group, complained. If nobody complains about a trademark maybe the PTO never does anything. That’s certainly the way many government offices work.
“Redskin” has historically (and in pretty recent times) been in common usage as an ethnic slur. That’s pretty different than the Dead Kennedys.
There’s quite a few other differences there: “viking” isn’t an ethnicity. It’s what the Scandinavians called their warrior class in the middle ages. The term originates from within Scandinavian culture, instead of being invented by hostile outsiders. The team that carries the name has many people of Scandinavian descent among the ownership and (especially) the fans - although probably not so much among the players. And, of course, the big one is that there isn’t a history of using the word “vikings” as a slur against all people of Scandinavian descent.
“Dead Kennedys” is neither a slur not an insult. It might be viewed by some as being in very poor taste, but I don’t think there’s any rules against registering trademarks for being tacky.
So what about the decision do you find faulty? And what about the hundreds of pages of evidence that caused the Patent Office to find that "the evidence properly before us (is) disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered? It seems pretty convincing to me.
For bonus points, why were they convinced if you aren’t? Surely you are impartial as they are, right, fan of the team?
Which is nice and all but not really the point since this case is supposed to have addressed both the evidence (that you said wasn’t an issue before, even though the ruling that overturned it did say that was a contributing factor) and a “technicality that the plaintiffs say has been fixed in this most recent case,” according to the Think Progress link article that was already linked in this thread.
So you feel that we can vote on whether words are slurs? How come the simple usage of the term isn’t enough?
By your estimation, even if etymologists and scholars and linguists and other experts almost unanimously agree that a term is almost always used as a slur, that as long as 51% of people either say it’s fine or have no opinion on it, the expert testimony means nothing?
Because I can point out a lot of factual things that a majority of Americans will get wrong on the facts. I don’t see how this is different except that you, despite seeing the 177-page document of evidence, still feel the word is not a slur. (I still want you to answer my questions above concerning it, if you don’t mind.)
I find it amusing and also a little sad (though not unsurprising) that some people in this thread will squint to try and make the term “Redskins” analogous to Raiders or Viking or Dead Kennedys or even any color :rolleyes: while ignoring the fact that the term is a lot closer to the likes of kike and nigger or many other obvious slurs based on race.
“Hundreds of pages” is not a measure of either quantity or quality of evidence. Hundreds of pages of evidence can be presented in support of New Earth creationism. That does not mean the world is 6000 years old.
What failed to convince me was the TTAB failed to apply the correct standard.
The law requires that the mark be offensive to a “substantial composite” – not necessarily a majority, but not a tiny fraction – of the entire group who may encounter the team’s services.
The TTAB’s vaunted evidence focused primarily on the reactions of a subset of Native Americans, and that’s not the correct standard.
It’s true I am a fan. But they were convinced because they want to expand the law and do what they feel is social good with it.
Think Progress are not legal analysts.
But tell you what. If you’re confident in the accuracy of the Think Progress analysis, how about we place a bet on the final outcome? Even money: $100 from me to you if the Redskins lose on final appeal; $100 from you to me if the TTAB is again overturned.
Easy money for you, eh?
Which one of you wins if there’s never a ruling on the merits?
If love to see the courts say whether 20 percent of the targeted group is a substantial component or whether Section 2(a) is constitutional but I don’t have high hopes that’s going to happen any time soon.
And the way trademark law gets adjudicated, if you suspect the TTAB of discarding legal standards in order to “do good,” then you should be just as suspicious that the federal courts will rule just because they are Redskins fans and not because they’re fairly administering the law.
I wonder if there is a section of the NFL owners agreement that guarantees games for a team. If not, the rest of the league could just refuse to schedule games against the Redskins in perpetuity.
NFL teams don’t schedule their own games, except preseason games. The league does it for them. And there is no way the NFL is going to get on board with the anti- side. The other owners all know they’re going to need Snyder’s vote on something sooner or later.
Look how long it took the NBA to do something about Don Sterling - and the NBA has black owners.
Then it’s a push.
What I find amusing is that you don’t understand that there is a difference. No professional team calls themselves the dykes or the niggers. Why is that?
I don’t know either. I have some theories. But they are irrelevant. The fact that there are many teams named Panthers and not many - if any - named the Sloths, but that doesn’t mean that a sloth isn’t an animal.
It was to those who made the ruling.
But it would be easy to take issue with that evidence as factually incorrect. That happens all the time in this very forum.
Please let us know which evidence that was submitted is similarly wrong.
There is no way to get 100% of anyone to agree on anything. If that’s the law, then by all mean call your team the Niggers because there is undoubtedly a few people out there who use the term gleefully - some black taking it back, some white who love to disparage black people with that term.
So either you are mistaking it, or they can never revoke a trademark because if nothing else, the person who registered it by themself alone would be enough to show that not everyone is on board with the term being disparaging.
Unsurprisingly, not 100% of anyone can agree on anything.
It is interesting that you feel that one can use a slur that offends 99% of people (hypothetically) as a trademarked team name and the government has to uphold that.
No, but they quoted the ruling and quoted the lawyers who brought the case. I think that those people are familiar with the law.
Why would I do that? I have no faith in the law and the likes of you practicing it it a good reason why. I also have no faith that Native Americans will ever really get a fair shake in this country.
The history of both gives me ample evidence for my cynicism.
Additionally, I already said the name wouldn’t be changed legally or even if they lose their trademark. All I hope is that it will cause increased pressure on the powers that be to get the offensive name changed.
I also don’t need the law to tell me what I have known for years now due to the facts: The term is offensive, a slur based solely on the (supposed) color of the skin of a traditionally oppressed minority.
But you think differently? Okay, here’s an easy $100 for you:
How about if I give you $100 for going onto a crowded bar located at a Native American reservation some Saturday night and walk around the establishment and call everyone in it a Redskin.
Since it’s such a complimentary term according to you, you would undoubtedly not only get my $100 but also drink for free all night from the Natives in their appreciation of your compliments!
Make sure you wear your Redskins gear! They’d undoubtedly love it!
Let me know when you plan on doing it. It’s an easier $100 than you kindly offered me according to your own views, so I know you’ll gladly accept this.
This article on Buzzfeed tells a pretty great story on why few Natives in South Dakota are boiling with daily outrage over the nickname of a football team 1,500 miles away. But that doesn’t mean it’s OK:
Which runs along with what a Doper said earlier - there are other issues that are far more pressing to Native populations than this.
However, the piece concludes as follows:
I think if you say the only reason more Natives are not in arms over this is because they have bigger issues underscores a bigger problem: If we as a society are going to continue using a slur as casually as the name of an NFL franchise, how on earth can we ever hope to address a history of genocide and a current malaise of unemployment, alcoholism and discrimination?
I mean, there are Americans who actually get upset that Natives get to have casinos, as if that’s a pretty good deal for them. That mindset - one that is all too prevalent - is not very conducive to assisting them.
That line: “It’s a difficult sentiment to understand — to find something offensive but not worth worrying about — but when the whole world around you is tinged with racism, you have a high bar for what you deem worthy of worrying about.”
Sounds exactly like how I deal with sexism every day. Dozens if not hundreds of things we see every day are sexist. I can’t get worked up about all of them.
I honestly can’t comprehend not comprehending that.
All the more reason to shrug off vapid accusations of hypocrisy, i.e. “you’ve expressed an opinion on X but not similar issue Y. Gotcha, hypocrite!”
Such accusers deserve an eyeroll, maybe a “you’re an idiot” expressed with casual indifferent effort.
That’s a very good point. To continue on that analogy, its like women dealing with cat calls from construction workers while walking down city streets.
It’s obviously sexist. It obviously annoys women who have to deal with it. Its obviously something that shouldn’t be done. However, if a woman is to make a big issue out of it, she will often be told to just lighten up.
The subtext of that response is that its not a big deal, thereby shifting the blame for the disagreement on the person who is victimized.
And it’s exactly what has happened regarding this issue. Even in this thread. Heck, in both cases they even use the excuse that it’s really a compliment!