The bigger picture being ignored is a massive majority of Native Americans
polled were not offended by the term. But often facts are contrary to political
"I'm offended that you are offended, that I am not offended!"Stanford dropped the nick-name Indians in 1972. They then
took the quintessential P.C. approach and adopted the nickname
"Cardinal", not the bird, mind you...but THE COLOR! You
see.....they did not want to offend the Ornithologists. And their
mascot?...Wait for it...wait for it.......Is A TREE!That's right, I
said it....A TREE!However, rumor now has it that "Pantone"
and the "Sierra Club" have taken great offense and umbrage with these
names and are preparing a class action lawsuit.Just call them the
"Washington Bandits" and be done with it. Washington Politicians have
been stealing from hard working Americans since the Revenue Act of 1862 and have
run up 18 trillion in debt.
Those implying that commenters use the term native american rather than redskin
because the latter term is somehow offensive to them miss the obvious point that
redskin has largely fallen out of our lexicon as a name,or derogatory term, for
native Americans. Redskins in our current lexicon is used more than
99% of the time in connection with the NFL team in Washington D.C. For the vast
majority of Americans, it has no other meaning and no other connotation.It's akin to the term Tories, once a derogatory term, now seldom if
ever used.I don't really care what Daniel Snyder chooses to
call his football team, but I do take exception to those who claim that the only
connotation of redskin is as a negative slur. For the vast majority, the only
time the word redskin is ever used and the only meaning ascribed to it is that
of a football player.
Here's what the patent office and everyone in their corner haven't
understood: that the contemporary meaning of the name is supposed to honor
Native Americans, not denigrate them. The only people seeing anything hateful in
the name are the ones who want to interpret it that way. If the Redskins
organization can no longer be allowed to honor this country's first
inhabitants through what most people consider to be a pretty nice name and logo,
how shall they do it? The United States has long been in the process
of developing an offended mindset, where anyone can lobby and even litigate when
they feel insulted for any reason. Sticks and stones, Harry Reid. Stop
oh gary,libs name call because they have no logic. you make that point
Hey Boneheaded -"i'm offended because I was born in the US,
but only American Indians are called "native americans". how are they
any more native than me?"Well Boneheaded . . . Native Americans
and Native Right Wing Nut Jobs are not equivalent.
I am offended being called a mormon. where is harry, barry and the pc police
when you need them?
blue devil, why not red devil. devils are offended
i'm offended because I was born in the US, but only American Indians are
called "native americans". how are they any more native than me?
"Thin Skins", that's the new name for those that oppose the Red
Hey Lost -"I DEMAND the name Vikings also be banned . . .
"Well, "Viking" was never a disparaging term."Redskins," on the other hand, is a disparaging term to Native
Americans.You may like to use the term "Redskins," but I
think we should defer to the wishes of the people described by the term. Try to
empathize.If Native Americans think the term "Redskin" is a
disparaging term, then it is in fact a disparaging term.What if the
shoe was on the other foot? For example, you think of yourself as a
"Conservative." Other people think a perfectly acceptable equivalent
term for “Conservative” is "Right Wing Nut Job."Now Lost, what if I like the term "Right Wing Nut Job," and I find
it appropriate and fitting?If I used the term "Right Wing Nut
Job" to describe you and other like-minded people, would that not seem
offensive?What if a professional team in Salt Lake City was named
the "Right Wing Nut Jobs?"Would you not find that offensive
Why does the US patent have the "Right" to deny a trademark for ANY
reason? They should be recording them and protecting them and the courts rule
on issues regarding a "disparaging" word. Those seeking political
correctness in everything are infringing on the rights and liberties of the rest
of us.I have no problem with the Redskins name. It's a
long-standing traditional name with a long sports history. Keep it! File an
appeal with the Patent office and sue the heck out of the government for any
revenue lost due to this issue.
They could change their name to someone fierce and unyielding like, Washington
Revenuers, Washington BLMS, or Washington EPAS. The scariest
document to most US citizens is the CP2000 issued by the IRS.
I think it will change. Hopefully it will not change too much. Rather than
Redskins they could be the Braves or Indians (I actually know a handful of
American Indians and they prefer that to Native Americans. The problem with
those names is there are already MLB teams using those names. Also, if the
Braves played the Chiefs... The term Redskin is certainly not apropos - but the
vast majority of American Indians love having teams named after them.
Unfortunately, they are likely to change it to something completely different
which is a shame.
Hank Pymradio bands do not decide the POTUSAre you
saying rush and hannity are your leaders?boy, are YOU confused.I see, you have no cogent argument, so you trot out the tired liberal
boogeyman of talk radio. Thanks for exposing the weakness of your viewpoint
@ Brave Sir Ute HomerYes, this is very much with precedent, as this
was also ruled on the same way in '99 under Bill Clinton, and was then
overturned.You cannot take away ones property rights, i.e. a
trademark, for political reasons. Nor can you use the IRS against your
political enemies.But, this hasn't stopped these former
hippies, now running the govt., has it? They are Extra-Constitutional at
every turn. Lawless and shameless..This will not stand!
Clearly a violation of law, by bureaucrats, to strip property (i.e. a Trademark)
from anyone for mere political reasons. This was also done in '99 under
Clinton and overturned..Obama strikes again. These guys make Nixon look
like a novice...
Anywhere Harry Reid won't be, will be a good place.
Hank PymYup, guys like Rush and Hannity are on FM, so good
suggestion.Now for my last post, after looking at the Redskin label
I'd like to call out the Redskins for a truth in advertising offense. It
is clearly a brown skin person, not red. Maybe if they changed the face to a
sunburned blonde California surfer dude after a summer at the beach, it would be
OK to keep the name. Or they could just call themselves the Brownskins. Now
who would that offend?
re: A Guy With A Brain"Sadly, today we are led by
idiots."Then, switch the radio to FM.
GZEIn todays PC world, I wouldn't even risk calling them
Indians. I wouldn't know what to call the Redskins, Indians, or Native
Americans. I'd like to think I could call them just Americans, because
that is the only label we in America should care about. However in todays world
the liberals are so race conscience that one can be in legal trouble for
incorrect speech. Not a positive for America, but a negative. It serves to
divide, not unite.
There is a big difference of calling someone by their given or chosen name -
Ute, Seminole, Vikings, etc... versus calling someone a slang name - Red Skins.
If you can't discern the difference, we have a much larger problem. Its
the same as "American" versus "gringo".Lets all be a
Disparaging terms can't be trademarked...? Since when? And
what defines "disparaging"? If you are referring to a baseball team in
New York, except for those living in Boston, it is generally viewed as a
positive name. But in many parts of the south, if someone refers to you as a
"Yankee", it generally is not a term of endearment.Should
Mormon's be offended by Wake Forest University's "Deamon
Deacons"? Doesn't sound too complimentary to me? Should that Trade
Mark be stricken down?Depending on context, calling someone a
redneck can be either a compliment, or a term of disparagement. I have family
members that are "black", and yet I don't see that distinction as
an insult. Its how the term is used, and by whom.
FYI, the Code of Federal Regulations allows the PTO to refuse or overturn
trademarks that they consider "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous." So
yes, the PTO can and does judge morality. There is an extensive list of
rejected/overturned trademarks you can look at if you just search the web. So
today's action by the PTO is not without precedent and is not uncommon.
PP: "do you really think that at the turn of the century the Washington
Football Club decided to name their team in a derogatory fashion?"In short, yes. They named it after a stereotype of an aggressive, dangerous
people who are ruled more by passion than reason. They named it after a
stereotype of a people more akin to bears and tigers than civilized
Europeans.__________Frozen Fractals hit the nail on the
head. Why is everyone who's saying it's not derogatory using the
phrase "Native Americans" rather than "Redskins." If
you're uncomfortable using the word, there's probably a reason.
to lost in DCdon't forget Gaels, steelers, Seminoles, et
ceteraThen, there are all those animals who never gave the okay nor
have they received a kickback.As a Dolphins fan, the name
doesn't annoy me but the color scheme does. I understand the rationale,
but, truthfully belongs on a 1980's cop show w/ Don Johnson.
I have been concerned for some time about Harry Reid and this
administration's ideology for some time. His comment about being
"forced" to do the "right" thing, should cause concern for any
citizen about the Constitution and freedoms. What else will the government
"force" us to do that they deem is "right".I have
watched the debate over the Washington Redskins mascot with interest. Whether
the name disparages or honors a culture of people is up to debate. Yet, we see
teams adopt mascots that idealize people engaged in unlawful and immoral
behavior such as pirates, buccaneers, marauders, outlaws and raiders, without
batting an eye. Not to mention idealizing the devil through mascots such as Sun
Devils, Sand Devils, Red Devils and Blue Devils. No civilized society should
idealize such behavior. Something seems amiss in our society in what we
idealize and where we place our values. Side note - why are the Native
Americans not after the Cleveland Indians for their mascot. My understanding is
that do not like that term either. The attack on the Washington Redskins
appears to me to be a lot of political grandstanding.
I saw a poll yesterday on msndotcom that a whopping vast majority in the survey
(something like 80%????) were NOT offended by the Redskins name.And
yet the whiny minority are prevailing.And now the patent office
weights in.Idiots.Sadly, today we are led by idiots.
I am guessing the Cleveland Indians are next to fall to the PC police. What a
sad country America has become but we the people allowed this nonsense to happen
by electing the liberal garbage that fills our courts and congress. Soon you
won't be able to use the word "woman" or "she" because it
is found to be gender damaging by the same PC police. You can see where this is
all going.... I wish my kids could have grown up in the America I knew and loved
as a boy but that place is no where to be found. Very sad. Soon you won't
be able to tell America from Socialist Europe to the delight of liberals.
Please note that from this day forward potatoes, tomatoes, radishes, and apples
can no longer be said to have "redskins" because that would be
disparaging to the people designated as Native Americans. Although I could take
offense at the term "Native American". After all I was born and raised
in the US as were both of my parents, and all 4 of my grandparents which should
qualify me as a "Native American" with ancestry from another continent
the same as they have ancestry from another continent.
PP and SC,So you would be comfortable describing a native american
as a "redskin"? You would call them that to their faces? Since
it's not at all derogatory?
With all the other more pressing issues facing the nation and the world my
answer is, so what?
I have been a Vikings fan ever since I can remember, but today I'm buying a
Redskins jersey. The PC crowd has gone too far.
The WraithYou were not very clear in your objection to DN
Subscriber. Are you in fact defending the 17.5 trillion dollar debt of this
nation? Because it would make sense to me that the Senate Majority Leader and
President of the United States be concerning themselves with something that
really threatens our country, the debt, rather than to make an issue of a small
thing like a 50 year old team name. And if a small group of Utes were to come
out and call for a name change, would that change your opinion? If not then how
many would it take? GZESo, let me ask you this. What
if a majority of Native Americans were to say that the name Redskin was NOT
offensive to them? Would that be OK, or would you insist the name change
because you want it so?
I am one to not go crazy about being PC, however I think there is a point to
this.I am honest when I hear the term redskins I think about the
Washington Football team... always have.However it IS a derogatory term
for a persons RACE.Washington W word (river swimmers)Washington ChinksWashington N word (I can't believe that cant be
posted)Washington Crackers... you get the picture.Cowboys,
Indians, Vikings, Mexicans, Utes, Seminoles, Indians, Africans, Irish etc are
not derogatory names.It is probably time Washington changed their
mascot name in my opinion.It's probably time
GZE - because you don't understand the context and you are intentionally
looking at it as a derogatory term. It's not. But lets apply common sense
- do you really think that at the turn of the century the Washington Football
Club decided to name their team in a derogatory fashion? BY your definition it
would be like a new team today naming their team the Nazis. Does that really
make sense? But I get that there are crazy PC people out there -
just see the Jr High in Sandy that couldn't use the name "Cougars"
because it is offensive to middle aged women. Really?????Redskins
was not then and still isnt a derogatory term. Only people trying to make
something out of nothing find it offensive.
Why don't people who support the name say "Redskins shouldn't be
offended" instead of "Native Americans shouldn't be offended"?
Obviously, the U.S. Patent Office has become politicized. THATS' a bad
idea. I have a very strong feeling that Harry Reid "made a phone
call".Do democrats REALLY want every government agency
politicized?They've already politicized immigration
enforcement, DEA, IRS, etc., and to a large extent, the military.The
Redskins name has been fine for over 50 yrs. - what changed, except Harry Reid?
Everybody who disparages political correctness is lucky it exists. Were it not
for that, I could say what I think around here.
How can anyone defend this word as non-derogatory?
I DEMAND the name Vikings also be banned - it dispareges my Swedish and Danish
ancestry. Same with Bucanneers and Raiders. Fighting Irish has to go, too, along
with Fighting Scots.Utah needs to change its name, we cannot be
named for a tribe. Same with Illinois, that refers to a group of tribes, so it
is even more heinous. Oh, and don't forget INDIANa! How could we have
tolerates such bigotry for so long?Trojans - cannot use that one
either, for a number of reasons, or Spartans. bad bad bad.Cowboys
and Indians, those names also need to go.What do we allow the
disparagement of meatpackers? change that one.cannot disparage
miners of those who participated in the goldrush.And why do we hate
the people of Texas so that we allow the NFL to name a team after them.cannot disparage those who work in oil fields, either. shame shame shame.Don't like the name? don't go to the game or buy the
appaeral.PC run amok.
Change the team name to the Washington Lobbyists.No one would
disparage a lobbyist...Right?
DN SubsciberNo, Utes will not be next unless the Ute Nation asks for
it to be removed. However, since the Ute Nation has on several occasions stated
that they like that the University can help bring awareness to the Utes in
addition to just completing a contract with the University allowing that to
continue the Ute name won't be next. Just as every other team with a Native
American mascot like Illinois, FSU, and others.This isn't
political correctness run amok. This is a very obvious example of a team name
that needs to be changed. And no, Native Americans aren't claiming a right
not to be offended in this one - the name is very plainly disparaging. And
I'm glad you're not the only person on earth or changing it would be a
few trillion down the list. In the real word there are lots of people and many
off them are off handing the big tough work - so it's okay if a few people
focus on this one.
And in looking at polls on the subject it is still not clear just how many
Native Americans really find the name offensive enough to want it changed. Some
varied polling out there. Some polls even show a significant majority not being
offended because they realize that the name is not meant to be a denigration,
but a celebration of their culture. So the question is. How many offended does
it take to change a light bulb. One? If someONE finds something offensive,
should they be considered legitimate? How about 10%? Maybe 40%? Where is the
line drawn before it is reasonable to consider it a legitimate argument? If the
answer is one or ten or one hundred, then we will always be living in a country
that is subject the PC whims of a small minority. Not a good way to go.
There was recently a state department document that talked about fighting
homophobia, which has become an epithet for anyone who believes in traditional
marriage.Then there was a rainbow flag flying over the US embassy in
Israel which has become symbolic of intolerance.If those are OK,
then why is the term "Redskins" not OK? We need some consistency.
Political correctness run amok. Again, but not for the last time, either."Utes" will be next. After all, it disparages inner city thugs,
so it must be eliminated.And, shockingly, the BYU team names are
very offensive! Disparaging millions of women by the use of a term which the
Urban Dictionary defines as "An older woman who frequents clubs in order to
score with a much younger man." This cannot be tolerated!And,
remember the name of our continent is that of some Italian guy, so lawyers can
surely find someone with Italian ancestry who will be offended.In
all 57 states, we must demand that courts, and even Patent and Trademark Offices
enforce our Constitutional right "not to be offended." And, to collect
monetary damages we may be entitled to.The fact that we have so many
people easily offended is surely the modern day equivalent of fiddling while
Rome was burning. I can think of 17.5 trillion more important things to be
Senator Harry Reid said he would not attend any Redskins games as long as the
name remains. That alone would be a good reason for not changing the name.
What is so disparaging about using a racial slur for a team name?