Oh, I don’t know, I think I’m just being ridiculous now. I have probably lost this argument, or some part of it.
But a lot of the people calling for the trademark to be voided just bother me.
Errrr… How is that dramatically different from young African-Americans enjoying listening to a rap group that calls itself NWA(Niggas With Attitude) but feeling it would be wrong for white people to use the term?
You do realize that lots of white people think that’s a ridiculous inconsistency, but the idea of “word privileges” itself means any such opinion we have about it is to be disregarded?
Ok, you’ve just changed my vocabulary. I’m calling it handegg from now on. I don’t care about the communication problems it causes.
And I don’t understand why they can’t just rename the handegg team the Washington Warriors (it even has a nice alliteration), and call it a day. The spirit of the objection is handled, Thanksgiving Day game themes are preserved, and they were probably going to revamp their logo in the next ten years, anyway.
Yeah, I was kind of losing the thread…
Given the routine extraction of millions of dollars of local tax payer funds by team owners who threaten to pick up their stakes, methinks your ire is rather misplaced. This trademark decision, even if fully upheld, is fairly mild stuff. It’s not going to drive the team to bankruptcy (hardly) and apparently there are a number of alternative ways of enforcing your trademark anyway. But hey I don’t think the mean 'ol government should register the Cincinnati Fucknuggets either.
Or the Washington Red Hawks. Far more bad-ass IMO.
John Oliver weighs in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKfs4ZnbNE
I had not previously seen that ad John Oliver replayed.
If you’re using words like, “unyielding, strong, indomitable,” to describe a people that were ethnically cleansed out of half the continent, I will mock you until you get a dictionary.
As for the rest of the Oliver clip: I really did not expect to say this, but John Oliver just lost me.
I’m noping out of this one. Back to seeing this as a tempest from a bunch of whiny busybodies and lazy news outfits.
If they added the word skin to them, I would agree.
Also, whether a term is offensive is not the test. It is whether or not it is used in a derogatory way. Black and white are not derogatory terms, but the preferred term. Redskin is not the preferred term, nor a PC term. It is a term that is used chiefly in a racist way.
By your logic, calling an East Asian yellow can’t be racist, either. But it definitely is considered so.
If the vast majority of people being referred to by the name find it offensive, that is pretty much the end of the argument. “No you aren’t offended because I have some Native American friends who aren’t offended” when it is 90 to 10 by percentages just doesn’t cut it. Offensive in this sense is subjective.
You don’t have the better of the argument, or even a plausible argument. If you are taking the side you are just for practice, you need to do better, but I’m not sure it is possible. A tradition of an offensive practice is still an offensive practice. It is traditionally offensive. That the people who are so offended are not so shouted down anymore isn’t much of an argument.
I find gambling offensive and a terrible vice. Lets do a swap. Washington Redskins give up the name, Native Americans give up the casinos. Oh wait, casinos are reparations. I guess some get 'em, others don’t. Now that’s offensive.
Sorry. Whether or not I think the name is tacky, I think the Patent Office is wrong, and this is a horrible, horrible policy.
Subjective offensiveness, however deeply felt, however widespread, is simply not a logical reason to void someone’s trademark. EVER.
It was wrong when it was done to Darkie toothpaste, it’s wrong here. Whatever you may think about the imagery of the trademark, using a government office to force its brand of political correctness on a business is vile.
There are a hell of a lot of people who are offended by homosexual acts. How about we start voiding trademarks as too offensive to register if they stink of Gay Pride? Is that OK?
Oh, but it’s OK to mess with these particular people like this, because the Redskins are basically a publicly subsidized institution, and because Racist Words Are Bad, mmmkay? And political correctness has never been used for evil. (Oh, wait, look up its use by Ronald Reagan. Look up McCarthyism.)
It’s a dangerous precedent, is what it is. Because, Moonbeam, you live in a fanatically, extremely, right wing country. Arguably the right wing country. And we don’t have to wait for the worm to turn. The most powerful political force, and the most powerful judicial tendencies in the country, are *anti-*leftist. Not just rightist, but anti-leftist.
So, now we’ve decided that we get to tell your business how to present itself, well, that’s lovely. Because you’ve given the conservative movement–the party that thinks Joe McCarthy was a good thing–you’ve given them options. If they want, they can use this kind of rule to harass environmental groups, workers’ organizations, and even science advocacy outfits, because why not? Or, more likely, they’ll just continue to paint themselves as the party of freedom so they can win elections. Or, because hypocrisy is no impediment to the careers of self-interested pols, they can just do both.
So, yeah: stupid game/sport, lots of head and tendon injuries; tacky trademark; but in this case I have to say, if you don’t like’em, root against 'em. Let them be the “heels” of the NFL.
You know what? Maybe I’ll regret saying this tomorrow, but I don’t care if there were NBA, NFL, and NHL teams all called the “Puke City Mofo Junglebunnies.” Here’s what’s appropriate for you to do. Say, “I don’t like that. You should change it.” And then, what? Go crying to the President to make the rude people stop? No. You stop. It’s not your business, in either sense.
And lets not forget “Washington Politicians”. Yeah, I find them offensive too.
Clearly (but somehow mystifyingly to me) the African American community is fine with the somewhat shortened version being used among the younger crowd.
But this is apples and oranges. Show me a predominantly black high school called the “Washington Heights Niggers” and we’ll talk about the comparisons.
So when Andorians in Enterprise (look, someone had to watch it, okay) refer to humans as ‘pink skins’ I shouldn’t get all huffy?
nm
Your lawyer will debate as much and as seriously as you pay him to. And what business will you be doing with that trademark? I admit I’m only learning how trademarks really work through Acsenray’s posts in the Game Room, but I don’t think they work the way you think they do.
I was going to ask who pissed in your cornflakes, but I guess it was Native Americans.
The long tradition of usage was the only thing protecting the Redskins from negligent misrepresentation suits (because they really ought to be the South Maryland Overpriced Free Agents.)
I don’t see the problem. Don’t call any single person, or any group of people not wearing burgundy and gold football uniforms, a redskin. Redskins refers only to the Washington football team, or the type of potato. No insult intended, or delivered, because when we speak of “Redskins” we speak only of the football team. You don’t want to be called a Redskin, don’t be part of that football team or a potato. Easy peasy.
The point is a lot of people are offended. It doesn’t matter where or how the name came from, a lot of people take offense to it and enough of them won a lawsuit to revoke the name. That’s all you need to know about it
Yes, it can happen to anyone. But no, it won’t happen to anyone. I care not that you think you’re next, or try to play up the sympathy card and say I’m next. Just because it can happen doesn’t mean it won’t
Change the name
That’s not correct.
What’s been “won” at this point is a favorable decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Patent and Trademark Office. The lawsuit, which has not commenced yet in any meaningful way, will be heard in the United States District Court, District of Columbia.
In 1999, the same thing happened: the TTAB cancelled the trademark registration of the problematic Redskins trademarks. (See Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ 2d 1705 (1999)). The Redskins then commenced a lawsuit, one that they won. The court ordered the US PTO to re-instate the trademarks. (See Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 565 F. 3d 880 (Ct App, DC Cir 2009).
Now another set of petitioners has again convinced the TTAB to cancel the Redskins trademarks.
But they have not yet won any lawsuit.