The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled-20140618,0,1927895.story


So when do we go after Nintendo for their portrayal of Italians?


Wait, is it Italian American?   who knows, i hate to offend anyone.

So what does this mean  ??? Are they putting more pressure on the redskin name change ???

It means that (pending appeal) there will effectively be no such thing as "officially licensed" Redskins gear.  In other words, you know all those $20 knockoff jerseys from China?  They would be available in legitimate retail stores.  Anyone who wanted to could make Redskins merchandise without paying a dime to the NFL.

Make no mistake: if this ruling stands, Snyder will change the team name in a heartbeat.  All that stuff about tradition and history is all well and good until you start messing around with his money.

^^^ I thought the same thing but it is absolutely incorrect. The trademark that was cancelled only involved the use of the word Redskins. The active logo they use is still officially licensed and they and the NFL can act on anyone just as they could before. Since the current logo does not use the word is it not part of this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/experts-agree-loss-redskins-trademarks-155501828.html

This whole thing is a witch hunt. Has been from day 1. Why not go after the Cleveland Indians. Or the Florida St Seminoles. Or the Atlanta Braves. Names are different,...but its the same native american principal behind the mascot and name of the school/team.

Nobody was offended by this in the 70's, 80's, and 90's....now all of a sudden this is an issue? Give me a break. Nothing more than a case of a few indian nation leaders seeking attention and headlines. Drum up donations for their indian nations.

Easy question to answer:

1) The term "Redskins" is easily construed as derogatory. The terms "Seminoles" and "Indians" are unoffensive and accurate, while the term "Braves" is fairly complimentary.

2) Cleveland, Atlanta and Florida draw primarily regional interest*, while Washington DC is the nation's capitol, and garners higher levels of interest both nationally and internationally. If you want your point to be heard, you grab the loudest microphone.

(* the term "interest" in this case can be directly translated into two of the biggest motivators in human behavioral history: Fame, through exposure, and money, through increased donations and other financial support for their cause.)

Big difference here.  The Florida State Seminoles represent a certain Native American tribe and have cultural references/artifacts at the school related to that tribe. They have always had the blessing of the Seminole Tribe of Florida to represent them and the school consults with the tribe to make sure the representation is authentic and genuine.

The Washington Reasons represent no individual tribe and have what some consider to be a derogatory name towards Native Americans as their team nickname

Why wasn't it considered derogatory in 1932 when the team was founded?  Or in 1985?   Or in 2001? 

Or is this country just overly sensitive to anything related to skin color and the word "SKIN"?

I don't have enough Native American blood in me to be offended but to honestly take the position where you don't see why someone could be offended by it makes me believe you wouldn't see an issue with calling a black man "darky".

Don't be ignorant.

Plenty of things said in 1932 were offensive then and now, but minorities didn't have enough power to enact those changes.  They weren't even granted citizenship until 8 years earlier, after being driven from their homes, where a bunch of them died.

This is such a simple black and white issue.  I'm not even offended by it, but the team's name is a FUCKING RACIAL SLUR.  Holy shit.  They should've voluntarily changed it decades ago.   It's embarrassing for everyone involved.  Just change it and move on.  Teams change names all the time.

I just want to say one thing.  I'm not at all sensitive this this issue.  But I see that it's pretty clearly messed up to have a racial slur as a team name.  And it's even more apparent to me BECAUSE I'm not sensitive and I really don't care.  So, I can only imagine if my family was forced off my land and I was sensitive about it, I'd be irate that people thought this was somehow acceptable.

I agree with your statement, Dave.

My question is whether or not it is truly a "racial slur"... 

In the United States, "redskin" is regarded as a racial epithet by some, neutral by some people, and by many Native American tribes,as non offensive. Several predominately Native American schools use the name for their athletic teams, most notably the 98% Native American enrollment of the Red Mesa High School Redskins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

I personally don't care either way, but to me it just seems like some people are making it a bigger deal than it is...?  Maybe I'm just being obtuse.

^^^ It's probably like the N-word, only your own kind can say stuff like that. I never once thought of Redskin being offensive but I suppose it is. Never gave it much though.

I know you aren't racist or insensitive, Brian.  So, I'm not coming from there.

This is a term that a large enough percentage of a population finds insensitive, that dates back to a time where this group had very little rights and the term was coined by people exploiting them.  There are enough red flags there to just recognize that it's too risky a term and calling it something else.

Yes, Dave, I recognize that, and thank you for considering my thought process.  I understand what you're saying.  But if you just look at this thread, there's a bunch of people saying "I'm not Native American, but we should change it because its offensive."  This, at the same time, with other sources of direct Native American commentary stating it is NOT offensive.

I just wonder if its a case of political correctness in overdrive, or hypersensitivity gone wild.  That's all...

I guess I'm not being clear - its OK - this isn't my fight, I'm just an observer.

No your not I agree with you. IF the Oneida Indian Nation wins this fight over the Redskins name and force the league and Snyder to change it, what's next? Make the NHL change the Blackhawks mascot? Make MLB change the Indians mascot and name? Target the Atlanta Braves? Make the NFL have the Chiefs switch names? Start going after colleges with native american names and mascots? It does start a slippery slope that will never end.  And I know some of you will say...."IT's DIFFERENT, IT's DIFFERENT." And maybe it is on some small level, but the overall principal isn't different. Which is don't use native american terms and such as team names and logos, even if you do have "approval from a specific tribe." And once the NFL and Redskins cave.....the rest will follow in short order. Because if the mighty and powerful NFL was forced to change then the less powerful and less mighty teams/schools/leagues have no chance of winning that fight.

I know people have strong feelings about this issue on both sides and I'm not looking to change anyone's mind. But to me the people who are trying to force this change were powerful and rich 10 and 20 years ago, why didn't they make a fuss then and push for this then? The main force behind this push (The Oneida Indian Nation) have raised a lot of money and gotten a lot of publicity for this fight. As much as they want to win they also want to keep this battle going on as it brings them attention and money. If Dan Snyder and the NFL caves tomorrow...this isn't going away. They will just pick their next target!

I know I ain't changing some of your minds and I am not trying too. And some of you can think I "don't get it" or I am wrong on this, and that's fine. But from day one this has been all about the $$$$$$! The Oneida Indian Nation has made boatloads of money off this issue and they want to win and want to continue it as long as possible.

I find it funny that a Republican radio host was suspended indefinitely off of his own show for saying n*****. The discussion was along the racists lines of the term Redskins. He doesn't get into trouble for saying Cracker, Honkey, Bible thumping Redneck, or even the newly racist term Redskins but the terms n***** and Spic gets him yanked. Since pretty much everyone outside of Hip-Hop agrees "n*****" and "Spic" is a racist comment  how come other so-called racists names aren't offensive to say?

Should we change Redskin to now be R******* on here as well now? LOL

It is no small difference and the principal is not close to the same. Using a specific tribe name such as Seminole or Illini have been approved by the tribes (and Oneida has nothing to do with them so I can't see how they could even protest) and using terms such has Braves & Chiefs not been considered offensive. Redskin is deemed an offensive term by some. It has nothing to do with using Native American mascots in general. It has to do with the naming. I dare say that is the redskins changed their names to Braves (which was a previous name for the team) and even kept their current logo this issue would be completely dropped.

Here is the thing CF and I think you can recognize this. You Sanford boys love to be considered crackers and rednecks and the like. It doesn't offend you one bit. As JJ Grey (Florida native) says in one of his songs, "Call me dirtfloorcracker but them words just fill me with pride".

It is hard to complain about your badge of honor not being considered offensive.

I highly doubt that.

Then please explain why there is no uproar about the Atlanta Braves then? Please don't forget that the Braves organization has already been targeted for a former logo as well as their mascot but nothing was mentioned about the name as you explain why the name is of issue. You sound like the gun conspiracists, "they want regulation on something so therefore they plan to take everything away."

Nothing was mentioned about the Redskins name either for many years.  Times change and what happened in the past with the Braves is obviously pointless. The NFL is bigger and more powerful and draws more headlines than MLB. Once they are done with the NFL/Redskins issues I am sure this group will move on down the line and hit teams like the Braves and others.

Time will tell which one of us is right and wrong on this issue.

^ I'm not really trying to say that it's wrong.

It's just an inevitable change that's hard to defend.  I don't think it's meant to be insensitive and I'm sure that there are people getting rich off of this and faking outrage.  But it is what it is.  The Redskin's refusal to do anything about it just further highlights the issue.  It's going to change.  They should just do it and be on the right side of history.  Their fighting it at every step starts to appear insensitive, when I don't think it was the intention.

And it's hard to compare Braves with Redskins.  One is a name, the other is a slur.  It's really that simple and so they really aren't comparable.

Braves is no different than Warriors or Cavaliers.

The fact the NFL hasn't forced this change yet and this has been going on what 2 years now or so....I'm not so sure change is coming anytime soon or ever. We will see.

Because lets be honest if the NFL wanted Snyder and the organization to change the name of that team, it would be done in 5 minutes. Dan Snyder might own the team but he is a pawn in the big picture of the NFL! The league hasn't demanded that yet in the last 2 or so years, which tells you they stand by Snyder.

I think the Indians that are protesting this, and trying to get Snyder to change the team name are making a big mistake.  The Washington Redskins are not trying to use the term redskins in a disparaging manner, actually quite the opposite.  I mean why would you want your own players and fans to be called by a racial slur??  The answer is you wouldn't, you actually want the opposite.  The Washington Redskins use of the term redskins actually redefines the meaning of the word in a positive way (except to fans of the Cowboys, Giants, and Eagles).  The Indians should be welcoming this redefinition of the term redskins.  If they actually succeed someday then they will actual succeed in getting some people (who never gave a thought about its origin) to start using the term as a slur because they are unhappy with the name change.

I still disagree with forcing the Washington Bullets to change their name.  For what its worth...

It's not "forcing" so much as just encouraging them to make smart business decisions.  These aren't like mom and pop stores.  They are community driven businesses tied to charity, endorsements, public financing. 

Right or wrong, once a portion of the public turns against you, you risk losing free agents, city financing deals, endorsements of the team, etc. etc. because people don't want to be near negative press.  Eventually it will start affecting your bottom line.  It's just the way capitalism works.

And it's just hard to defend the position.  The Redskins don't mean any ill-will, but that doesn't really matter.

I am pretty sure the owner of the team made the decision himself without real pressure being applied.

Not that hard to defend the position. The NFL and Dan Snyder have been doing it for a few years now. What has the Oneida Indian nation actually won in all of these years? They got some bad PR on Dan Snyder....don't think he really cares and its not like his public image was great before anyway. Not like free agents aren't going to play for the Redskins over this. Not like Snyder and the NFL aren't getting money from sponsors and advertisers. Not like Snyder is losing season ticket holders over this.

One day Snyder or the NFL might get sick of this and just change the name just because they are tired of this fight...but that will be on their terms. Not because they were forced too. Because obviously its been an easy fight for them. Aside from the reporters hounding them with the same questions and some bad PR for Snyder that no football fans care about in reality...it's been an easy position to defend for the NFL and Snyder.

So when they "win" this fight do they go after Redman chewing tobacco next?

If you're being serious, the answer is "no".   I mean, maybe eventually, but no, in general.  Redman chewing tobacco isn't going after the same marketshare as the NFL and doesn't rely on public appearance and funding the same way.

Because of the nature of the NFL, their decisions have to be homogenized.

There's a reason that their halftime shows are safe and generic.  They have to appeal to a super-wide mass and it just doesn't do them any good to be anything but vanilla.

^^^^^
Is it not still offensive? Or because it won't get the high profile publicity that going after an NFL team will it is not worth the fight. So it is only a matter of convenience on when a name that was not intended to be offensive is considered racially charged and offensive?

 ???

Exactly! It's about publicity, raising money, and getting certain people faces on TV and in newspapers!

Looks like it won't stop with the Redskins.....now they are on to baseball!!!!!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2109290-tracking-cleveland-indians-potential-9b-lawsuit-from-native-american-group?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2109290-tracking-cleveland-indians-potential-9b-lawsuit-from-native-american-group?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national)

but wait, everyone told me this wouldn't happen! That there would be no "slippery slope." That it was just the Redskins.  Who couldn't see this coming a mile away!!

A long as there are lawyers and no consequences people will continue to push the boundaries of the absurd. Push them long enough and they become the norm.

The Slippery Slope that everyone said wouldn't happen, has already begun.  I guess the word "Indian" is a racial slur now too, right?

"We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering," Roche said.

yep - 9 BILLION...  Sure sounds like they aren't out for money at all... ::)

AZ's example of Redman chewing tobacco is exactly the point.  If it was offensive, it would be offensive EVERYWHERE, not just on multi-million-dollar sports franchises.

That's funny, because as an Indians fan, I remember saying that Chief Wahoo would be going away (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=22041.msg296626#msg296626) in one of the other threads you created on this topic last year.

What?  No they didn't.  You said there would be a slippery slope and nobody contradicted you.

What are these peoples actual damages besides hurt feeling and being offended? By the team in question using the name, have these indians actualy lost something that I'm not aware of? Bunch of money grubbing pussies if you ask me.

Everyone just needs to calm down with the sensationalist bullshit.  Talking about suing is not suing and you can sue anyone for anything, anyway.  It doesn't mean the case has merit and will not get thrown out. 

I'm sure some lawyers are looking for a payday through extortion.  Just let it play out.

You got it Brian. You are 100% correct. And where is the $9 billion actually going? That is the question. This lawsuit actually helps the Redskins stance. Makes it look like everything that falls under this umbrella is a joke and the "plaintiffs" are just out for money. Even if it may not be the case, they will all get painted with the same brush.

One person did.

LOL ... Indians can't even agree whether it's offensive or not. How many schools within close range to Indian Territories use the name Redskins including some with majority of Native Americans? This sounds like one of those" they aren't smart enough to know so we'll tell' em" kind of things.

I'm going to sue the "Indians" for the disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering that happens at all of their casinos and smoke shops selling untaxed cigarettes.  I'm tired of those "Indians" oppressing me and keeping me hooked on cheap cigarettes and a casino every 60 miles.

Just more hypocrisy from a minority. A simple term used to describe someone physically in a non derogatory way is used to pull the race card. It seems that the name was changed to "Redskins" to recognize the Native American coach and Native American players.

Draws a parallel to the colored/negro/black/African American non sense. Colored and negro were the accepted terms and served the purpose until they decided that it wasn't good enough. Then Black became the accepted term and served the purpose until they decided that it wasn't good enough. Now it's African American even though 99.5% of them have probably never been to Africa. In case they didn't get the memo, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and United Negro College Fund should change their name ASAP. Just more racial silliness from a minority.

On an off note, an ex coworker was born in Africa and is white. He told me that after he became a US citizen, whenever he filled out government forms for something that he would list himself as African American. Needless to say, the (mostly black) government clerks tell him that he can't do that? I wonder why? Who is African American? A white person born if Africa that then becomes a US citizen. Or a negro born in the US who has and will never go to Africa?

I guess my point is that if a person is born in America then they are American. Names don't really matter unless you have no self esteem and/or emotional problems. Call me whatever you want, I won't lose a minutes sleep over it.

Based on this latest story I am guessing that now Indian motorcycles are no longer safe or PC either!!!!!

The pussification of America continues!!!!  ;D

RACIST!

First they came for Dan Snyder, and I did not speak out because I did not own a team named after a racial slur...

^^^ Nicely played...

You can then continue the poem with the derogatory slur "Yankee". That's another derogatory term some people (Northeasterners outside of Boston) aren't smart enough to realize is derogatory. I'm sure you will be happy to point that out to the less intelligent too.

World English Dictionary
Yankee or  ( informal ) Yank  (ˈjæŋkɪ)
 
— n
1.   derogatory often a native or inhabitant of the US; American
2.   a native or inhabitant of New England
3.   a native or inhabitant of the Northern US, esp a Northern soldier in the Civil War
4.   communications  a code word for the letter y
5.   finance a bond issued in the US by a foreign borrower
 
— adj
6.   of, relating to, or characteristic of Yankees
 
[C18: perhaps from Dutch Jan Kees  John Cheese, nickname used derisively by Dutch settlers in New York to designate English colonists in Connecticut]
 
Yank or  ( informal ) Yank

Should we proceed directly to redneck vs. n*****, or take our time getting there?

^^ As an inhabitant of the US, I am offended!  We should force the New York Yankees to change their name with immediacy!

I believe we already saw it in this thread.

What does that mean? And why bother typing n*****, when we all know what it means anyways. It seems to me that n***** or n-word is the new spelling of the same word with the same meaning. More silly minority fueled symantics.

pondwater, have you actually tried to post the word in question to this forum?

As a moderator team we decided it best to not allow the word to be typed. Many people access the site from work computers and do not want it setting off any filters the company may have.

Yes, it wasn't a censorship thing, but instead a "not safe for work thing".  We thought it might increase our chances to get blocked by spam filters.

No, not lately. Actually, I've seen Dave and other members post the word in question it in the past. Didn't see any anouncements or posts that indicated a change. So, no I didn't know they auto-censored it, just figured it was the same old, same old.

Nevertheless, I'm not specifically talking about your post. I'm talking about in general when people post, how is n***** and n-word any different besides the way it's spelled. It means the same damn thing

^^^ Personally, I look at it as an extension of how one should behave in a polite society.  The word is offensive to a large segment of the population (both white and black) so its use should reflect that.

Honestly, I don't even know if it's censored anymore.  It might have only been a temporary thing for spam filters.  Let me test: n*****.

Edit: Yep, it's auto-censored.

Back to the topic:

If you genuinely feel that the term yankee is a slur against you, I fully support and endorse your right to call for the team's name to be changed.  And maybe in 20 or 30 years, someone may actually start taking you seriously.

See, that's the thing... this is not a new development.  Native American organizations have been calling for the team's name to be changed for decades (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19880123&id=NJQcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tGMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7004,3473932).  It is only recently that their pleas have been gaining any traction.

So if you want to argue that this means that we should also logically have to change the names of the Vikings and the Celtics and Indian Motorcycles and Uncle Ben's Rice, then feel free to make that case to the American public.  You might even accomplish the change in your lifetime.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11322447/politician-urges-cleveland-indians-change-name-mascot

Now a Ohio State Senator wants the Cleveland Indians to change its name and mascot.

Translation for the really-real world:

Now a Ohio State Senator some politician that nobody outside his district has ever heard of wants the Cleveland Indians to change its name and mascot a cheap 15 minutes of publicity.

Peter King has hinted/all but said that the Redskins are changing their name in 2016. Once they do that all of these "native american" mascots and names on sports teams will be under attack and follow suit. Once the Skins cave (and they are, just on their timetable not the Oneida Nation's) the rest will fall like dominoes.

I really doubt the size of the snowball you're predicting. While I'll never underestimate society's ability to create masterpieces of knee-jerk overreaction, I think the speedbump they'll hit is over the offensiveness of each individual term. The Redskins couldn't escape the offensiveness of their racially stereotyped "red skin" name, but what offense could the general public take from a team being called "The Indians," The Braves," "The Chiefs," etc...

I see the snowball - more like an avalanche - taking out the blatantly offensive team names in an early rush, but see it losing momentum and stopping before it wipes clean the mountainside.

Just my opinion though...I'm saving my clairvoyant allotment for my fantasy drafts the next few weeks. ;)


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Carnac.jpg)

The problem is that there are people like the politician that no one ever heard of that exist, and once the low-hanging fruit on the racially-insensitive tree of slurs gets picked, they will start going after other teams like the Indians, Chiefs, and Blackhawks.  Watch it, you will see. 

Slippery slope, indeed.

I agree 100%! You will have groups looking for attention, to fund-raise and make money off the matter. Politicians to get on TV and have something to run on and get their face on TV's and in newspapers. This is only the begnining

You can't be afraid to do the right thing because someone might eventually try to take advantage of it.  I can see a possibility for "Indians" being changed, but don't think that Chiefs or Blackhawks are on the chopping block.

Please help me understand how the term "indians" is now offensive?

Perhaps the NY Islanders should be forced to change their name because it is offensive to people who live on islands.

I'm not saying it's necessarily offensive, but I do know that there's a history of people I know going back to high school that wanted the Indians to change their team name.  They're not Indians.  They're Native Americans.  Indians live in India.  The only reason that they're called Indians is because Christopher Columbus thought he was in India.

There's even a backlash every year to Columbus day, because apparently the guy was a huge dick and the history that is taught about him in school isn't even true.

So, I KNOW that there are Native Americans who are offended by being called Indians.  But it's probably just part of the language at this point.  A guy I knew in high school was very passionate about this way back when.  He didn't have a problem with the team being called Indians, but it was the logo, paired with the name.  He said if it was a guy with a dot on his head, he'd have been OK with it.

It's not that you're using a group as a mascot, it's that you're using a term that's not accurate to reflect them.

That's why Chiefs and Seminoles and Braves (or Celtics or Yankees, for that matter) are not problematic.

Not yet! Once some group figures out a way to make money and get attention off of fighting them to force them to change their name....it will suddenly become "problematic"

I'm sure that someone will try, but I don't think they'll be enough support.  There's always someone trying to take advantage of a situation to get paid or get their 15 minutes.  But I don't think they're the same.

I don't think its the term Indians, its more so the Chief Wahoo Mascot, which is said to symbolize a crazy drunk Indian.  The Cleveland Indians removed the mascot from their hats a couple years ago, and downplay the Chief Wahoo logo, although it is still around.

"Indians" are a race, not a profession.
Chiefs and Braves are jobs/roles, the same as Kings or Cavaliers.
Black Hawk was a specific person.
Seminoles have the explicit approval (and participation) of the Seminole tribe.

You could argue that Indians is no different than Vikings, Celtics, or Fighting Irish, and you'd have a point.  Chief Wahoo will definitely have to go, though.

I don't think it's that it's Indians.  It's that they're not supposed to be called Indians.  That's a term of ignorance....and one that I use, even, but I get it.  If they were called the Native Americans or the Cherokees or something, it would be fine.  There are ways to honor and there are ways to mock.  The Indians mascot is a caricature of Native Americans, whereas I don't feel the same way about the Blackhawks mascot.

That's just me.  I don't have a problem with any of this, but I don't think they're the same.

Update if for no other reason than reading the brief is fucking hilarious. 

http://deadspin.com/the-skins-latest-court-filing-is-comically-vulgar-1740262036

It's a hilarious comments section. I now want to see the Washington Klitoris take the field and get licked by the competition.

I laughed my large ass off while reading that, both article and comments. Great stuff!!

Simply Brilliant.  As a Public Service Announcement, for those of you with dogs, please keep an eye on your Edible Crotchless Gummy Panties mentioned in the brief; as I saw on the news yesterday that gummy bears can contain an artificial sweetener that is 100 times more toxic to dogs than chocolate is.

That sounds... sticky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O9r33bjzAM

Considered creating a new thread, but decided not to.

Snyder caught a major break with a ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc, who have struck down the entire section of law that prevents trademarks on offensive / disparaging speech.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals where the Redskins case is being heard isn't bound by this ruling and there's always the Supreme Court.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/12/federal-circuit-judges-say-rule-against-disparaging-trademarks-is-unconstitutional/