Redskins lose trademarks

[VidKid]

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.

[DZA]

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Phishfan]

^^^ 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

[MikeO]

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.

[Sunstroke]

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.

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.)

[RichThrawn]

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.

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

[Brian Fein]

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"?

[Phishfan]

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".

[Dave Gray]

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"?

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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.

[Cathal]

^^^ 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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Brian Fein]

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.