Redskins Win!

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@DCnDC

It wouldn’t cost you a dime to fix.

The team is actually paying more to not change the name:

“The biggest cost is not developing a new name and mark,” said Allen Adamson, managing director of Landor Associates, whose past clients include the NFL. “The biggest cost by far is applying it to all the points of touch that a brand like the Redskins exists on: merchandise, signage, training facilities and the stadium. That would be several million dollars, probably under $5 million. They can do it aggressively in six months, sometimes even less. Sometimes it can take a couple years to do the transition.”

Even double that amount would be a drop in the bucket for a team Forbes considers the eighth most valuable franchise in all of sport and third most valuable football franchise.

Court costs, on the other hand, could dwarf the re-branding costs.

“A good patent and trademark attorney costs $300 per hour on the low end and four figures an hour on the high end,” explains Jessop. “It is expected Redskins will appeal this. Depending on how that appeals turns I could see this battle going all the way to the Supreme Court. Whether the Court chooses to hear the case is another issue but it could cost millions to fight legally.”

Bolding for emphasis mine. So they could change the name for a mere pittance… And they could even wind up with more money!

“The sports landscape is becoming a lot more socially aware and conscious,” said Jessop. "If the Redskins do change their name there could be an uptick in sales.”

“So much of the league’s money now is split evenly among the teams from national TV and from revenue that is split evenly among all the teams I don’t see it being a negative,” continued Ozanian. “In fact, the Redskins have had such a poor team over the past decade, it could be a positive. The Redskins have a long history but necessarily a positive one at this point. If they were to change their name and becomes a perennial playoff team or Super Bowl contender it could be a plus for them because any new name they have will only have a positive connotation.”

So what relatively small amount of money it would cost to change the name is dwarfed by how much they are fighting to keep it and could very well be offset entirely with renewed interest in new merchandise.

One only needs to look at how sports franchises and leagues are able to pump out new merchandise all the time - alternate road uniforms, throwback jerseys, pink baseball hats - to see that a whole new name and logo would be cause a lot of excitement.

The revenue sharing the NFL does might mitigate that somewhat for the team but you don’t think think the league would work with the team if it had reason to believe that it’s traditionally mediocre merch sales had the potential to rocket at the same time the team gets a ton of positive press for changing the name?

So yeah, I won’t have to pay for it. The folks who line up to buy new Washington merchandise - which will include fans but also the same types of people who made Jason Collins the best-selling jersey in the NBA - will gladly pony up the cost.

Okay, so the Redskins change their name. This is the first tile in a set of dominoes that’s going to set in motion a revolution in the way Native Americans are treated in this country? That’s complete bullshit and you know it. The PC police get the Redskins to change their name, and the next step in the Native American cause is-- NOTHING! The team becomes something else, and all the PC harpies buzzing around disappear and never think about Native Americans again for the rest of their life, because it never really mattered to them in the first place, it was just the “cause of the week” in The Recreational Activism Newsletter and in the meantime NOTHING ACTUALLY CHANGES FOR NATIVE AMERICANS, because the painful truth is NOBODY REALLY FUCKING CARES.

That’s untrue. Nearly two dozen tribes and 60 Native American organizations have passed resolutions or issued statements regarding their opposition to the name of the Washington NFL team.

The fact that Native Americans have a lot of problems is no secret to anybody; hasn’t been for decades, at the least. The fact that the idea of The Noble Native American is romantic and appealing to Americans translates to exactly jack shit when it comes to actual action. The plight of Native Americans is a complicated issue that we don’t need to get into, but my point is we’re aiming a very large gun at a very small fish; big picture, this solves nothing. This is convincing Jay-Z to stop using the n-word, then declaring victory over said word. It’s meaningless. And the fact that there are any people, Native American or no, who would actually consider that any sort of meaningful “victory” is just sad.

I realize that you don’t seem to understand that dignity is pretty important and how the name takes that away from them, but just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it’s not important.

A lot of the Civil Rights movement was spent discussing what black Americans wanted to be called. Do you think that was a waste of time? Black Americans at the time didn’t. Here’s a story from Ebony Magazine in 1967 discussing at length why the blacks in America felt it was important to distance themself from the term Negro - given to them by whites - and embrace “Afro-American” because many felt that it would be difficult to achieve equality if the name they were called was not one of dignity.

And Redskins has never been about dignity at all, not even a little bit. Natives didn’t call themselves that word to begin with. They don’t really call themselves it now. And if you were to go onto a lot of reservations and start calling them a bunch of Redskins, it might have the same thing effect that Bruce Willis had to deal with in one of his Die Hard movies. (Note that link goes to image that might be unsafe for some work environments).

Maybe it’s hard for you to understand this, and maybe you never will understand, but black Americans in the '60s who fought for equality understood.

And as this 1985 report from the Journal Of Black Studies says, “researchers have argued that these positive and negative connotations are highly influential in the evaluative favorability/unfavorability of the groups who have been associated with racial labels.”

So maybe it’s not a pipe dream after all that if we, as a society, learn that referring to it’s native people as “redskins” is demeaning, that we’ll stop demeaning them on other things as well. So labels are kind of important to how people perceive themself and more importantly to how others perceive those people.

I’m sure they’re not important to you, of course. Because you only see what logic dictates and all. Well, good for you. But the world shows that too many people aren’t like you. And to them, labels are important.

But it’s nice that you’re on board with spending a bunch of money to assist the plight of Native Americans in this country. You do know we can do that… And also get the name changed, right? You do know the two ideas are not mutually exclusive, right?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Was there really a team with that name or are you using hyperbole to make a (valid) point?

For a history of racial sports team names and mascots visit here: Timeline: A Century of Racist Sports Team Names – Mother Jones
During the 1930s a number of black baseball teams barnstormed the country mixing athletics and comedy to appeal to white audiences. Names included The Zulu Cannibal Giants and The Ethiopian Clowns. Yikes.
For a longer term perspective: On “Redskins” - TPM – Talking Points Memo

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

Of course, I notice your name just now, DCnDC. I’m sure that you’re just an impartial observer and don’t have a care in the world about the NFL franchise located in the nation’s capital.

At least be intellectually honest about this. Admit that your team has a racist name and that you would prefer they keep their racist name regardless of how many people it might hurt because the hurt you would feel rooting for the team under a different name outweighs them all.

Because it has been proven in front of the Patent Office that the name is racist. And thus far you have yet to even quibble with that. You dismiss it as not important (it seems pretty damn important to YOU that they keep it though!) and you question why anyone should care about it, but you don’t argue with the fact that the term is disgusting.

So do us all a favor and just admit it. Your favorite team has a racist name and you feel they should keep it. End stop.

[foolsguinea]

@chicagowhitesox1173

That’s BS, why do people care if they change their name? It’s because they have nothing better to do.

I disagree. It’s because they have something better to do that they are trying to avoid doing.

Stuff like this (making federal cases out of football mascots) is misdirection of a kind. The question is, who is being misdirected, and from what?

[foolsguinea]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

What shot do we have of convincing society that Native Americans have a lot of problems, almost all of which have been started by the treatment that they have received, and go about trying to fix them if society is not only willing to allow a team to have the name Redskins but even fight for that name to continue to be used in the face of overwhelming evidence that the term is disparaging to Native Americans?

“Overwhelming evidence”?

Look, there are lots of trolling false etymologies running around for terms like “redskin,” “Eskimo,” and “squaw.” (Cecil has written on this before.) A lot of the offense comes from people believing that stuff when they shouldn’t.

I cannot condone conceding things of this nature to emotions manipulated by* lies.*

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@foolsguinea

“Overwhelming evidence”?

Yes. I linked to it. Here is it again, the 177 page ruling of the Patent Board which lists all of the evidence that was given to them. Possibly you might care to read it?

I cannot condone conceding things of this nature to emotions manipulated by* lies.*

So you’re saying the Patent Board was lied to and manipulated by this? That’s interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

The word is racist. That is not a manipulation or a lie. It’s a fact.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@foolsguinea

I disagree. It’s because they have something better to do that they are trying to avoid doing.

Many of the tribes and Native American organizations who have weighed in on this issue also spend a considerable amount of time on other issues. They would each undoubtedly be happy if you wrote each of them a nice big check for those causes.

[BrainGlutton]

@foolsguinea

I disagree. It’s because they have something better to do that they are trying to avoid doing.

Who’s “they,” American Indians or Redskins team-management, and what are they trying to avoid doing?

@foolsguinea

Stuff like this (making federal cases out of football mascots) is misdirection of a kind. The question is, who is being misdirected, and from what?

That makes little sense. Indians brought the suits, and I can’t see how they would have an interest in misdirecting.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

That’s the “it’s not that important, why do you care” defense. Once you concede the word is racist (and how can you not at this point) all you’re left with is dismissing those who want the name changed as thin skinned people who suck at prioritizing. Because it’s easier to blame those who want change for being the bad people than admit that you think it’s peachy that a team in 2014 be named a racist word.

[spifflog]

I’m fairly ambivalent on this issue. But was surprised to read that there is a high school on an Indian reservation with a mascot - you guessed it - Called Redskins.

Hard to see how American Indians largely view this as the N-word and yet have it as a mascot of their very own team.

Makes me wonder how much of this outrage isn’t more of a left flavor of the month issue.

I guess this is one way you could call it “not racist.”

[Raygun99]

Or, you could not view Native Americans as a monolithic group with homogeneity of opinion.
It’s hard to consider this a “flavor of the month” issue when people have been working to get the name changed for decades.

[spifflog]

People (on this site) want to end dog and cat slavery too. We live in an “individuals” first society so all issues, large and small, will find supporters somewhere.

American are receptive to change when necessary. But when the outrage seems manufactured, it’s an issue. Most of the trepidation that I see from people not in favor of this is because it appears that this is more of a cause celebre, that a bonafide issue causing really pain to a significant portion of Native Americans.

[Bricker]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

When the Patent Office overturned the same type of ruling, which prompted this celebratory thread several years ago, they did so because they claimed to not have enough evidence. They provided a lot of evidence this time around. So if this appeal is successful, it won’t be because of a lack of evidence.

Hopefully this will be the first real step to get that team to change it’s godforsaken name long past when they should have done so.

It’s difficult for me to find any factual part of this post which is accurate.

1. The Patent Office did not “overturn” anything related to this thread’s subject. In fact, they struck the trademark back then, just as they have done again. The team appealed the patent office’s decision to the courts. As my original post clearly and unambiguously says:

@Bricker

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.

(emphasis added)

So it was the DC Circuit court that overturned the Patent Office. Just as the current situation involves an adverse Patent Office ruling that the team is appealing to… say it with me … the DC Circuit.

2. The issue was never “lack of evidence.” As my original post clearly and unambiguously explains:

@Bricker

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.**

(emphasis added)

The DC Circuit never reached the merits of the claim of disparagement. They said, instead, that each plaintiff waited too long before suing, allowing the team to defend itself by asserting laches. As my original post clearly and unambiguously explains.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@spifflog

I’m fairly ambivalent on this issue. But was surprised to read that there is a high school on an Indian reservation with a mascot - you guessed it - Called Redskins.

Hard to see how American Indians largely view this as the N-word and yet have it as a mascot of their very own team.

Makes me wonder how much of this outrage isn’t more of a left flavor of the month issue.

I guess this is one way you could call it “not racist.”

Tommie Yazzie, superintendent of the school district that oversees Red Mesa High School, says the following:

Though he said it was acceptable for schools with majority Native American populations to use the name Redskins, he believes that nonNative American schools should avoid using it.

“If you were to put this in an urban area where the population is basically white, unless there is a cultural connection, it would be inappropriate,” he said.

He was also troubled by the use of Native American war chants and gestures during sporting events, something that is common at other schools with Native American mascots.

“We don’t use those gestures and traditions. As Navajos we have respect for warfare. Warfare means taking a life. And when a young warrior goes out to battle, [the gestures and war chants] belong there,” he said. “When you come back into civilian life, you don’t take that back with you. You don’t use the same type of gestures and hollering and bring that back into a sporting event.”

The Other Redskins

So this situation would very much in at least this case be similar to how some blacks feel that they can reclaim a word through their own use of the term.

I realize that this infuriates a segment of the white population who get all butt-hurt that a class of people they traditionally and even today have tons of advantages over might have a word our two that they are not allowed to use, but there you go.

Regardless, the use of the team name Redskins by Native Americans seems to be tolerated in some circles but even they don’t much like it when what they perceive as their culture is propagated.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

(Duplicate Post)

[spifflog]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

Tommie Yazzie, superintendent of the school district that oversees Red Mesa High School, says the following:

Though he said it was acceptable for schools with majority Native American populations to use the name Redskins, he believes that nonNative American schools should avoid using it.

Not passionate one way or another. But it’s hard to argue that this word is so offensive that it can’t be used by the NFL but it’s respectful when “we” use it. I know you’re working it, but it seems hard to waive that away.

[Great_Antibob]

The argument also carries the problem of generalizing all Native Americans. And it’s not like we’ve had a problem with overgeneralizing minorities in this country, right?

Some might not have a problem with the term. Just because you find one person or group or town who doesn’t find it objectionable doesn’t mean the case has been made that the entire group feels the same way.

We see that all the time with the N-word, with some African-Americans believing it is ok for them to use for not for others. And other African-Americans who believe it is never ok to use at all.

ETA: there are black NFL players on both sides of that debate. But I doubt we’d get much of a push for the LA N*****s as an expansion team, nor support for that name, except among contrarian yahoos.

[robert_columbia]

Proposals for the new team name:

Washington Niggers
Washington Kikes
Washington Towelheads
Washington Honkies
Washington Spics
Washington Wetbacks
Washington Japs
Washington Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys

[robert_columbia]

@Bricker

…The DC Circuit never reached the merits of the claim of disparagement. They said, instead, that each plaintiff waited too long before suing, allowing the team to defend itself by asserting laches. As my original post clearly and unambiguously explains.

Iirc the idea of laches is that a person who has been offended has an obligation to confront the offender within a reasonable amount of time to notify them of the alleged offense. If one waits too long, one has, in effect, given permission by silence to those who have arguably done wrong.

E.g. if my dog is chewing up your lawn, tell me about it so I can fix it. Don’t wait for ten years and then sue me for ten years of lost harvests and cry about how I hate farmers.

[UltraVires]

IMHO, the patent office should only deny a registration when a trademark is clearly and indisputably so patently offensive that there is no serious debate about it. If I have a trademark which contains a picture of a slave mistress getting sodomized by her white master which the term “Fuck all Niggers” in the foreground, I think we can fairly assume that there is little doubt that my trademark is hideously offensive and shouldn’t be registered.

When the government begins to take a proactive role and as Scalia likes to say “take sides in the culture war” it begins to lose its legitimacy. Do we want one type of ruling while the Democrats are in charge only to be reversed when a bunch of conservatives are running the patent office? The government should stay out of this debate, especially because the way the law is written.

It is not enough to prove that the term “redskins” is offensive in 2014, or even in 1995. The Plaintiffs must prove that the term was offensive in 1967 when it was registered. I think that due process required this suit to be brought more contemporaneous with 1967. We can’t even agree that the term is offensive today. How is a court going to show whether it was offensive or not in 1967. I would also argue that these new plaintiffs who weren’t alive in 1967 have no standing to challenge the trademark.

Others have said that 9% of an extreme minority subset of the population being offended should be enough to cancel a trademark registration. I find that absurd and chilling to free speech. Do we actually want to give such a minority veto power over speech?