Other Sports Forum

Other Sports Forum

NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, MLS, EPL, you name it. Talk about it here.

Redskins, no more?

Mizzillion's picture
June 18, 2014 at 10:53am
114 Comments
FloridaBuck's picture

Getting my popcorn ready for this thread ;)

+7 HS
Hovenaut's picture

*Puts on Mod hat*

Just a reminder...

"Before you comment, please review our commenting policy."

*Removes Mod hat, puts on favorite NFL team hat*

My family moved from native Ohio to Virginia in the late 70's. I've been a fan of the team for over thirty years.

It's time for a change.
 

"Success...it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes

+11 HS
BroJim's picture

 

I season my simple food with hunger

+12 HS
KB3RG's picture

Now does Snyder just eat the loss in royalty from the trademark and continue with the name or does he declare for more money and go for a rename? If I were him I would just go with the name change  

+1 HS
Bugsyk's picture

Snyder will do whatever makes the most money. 

hodge's picture

It's not just Snyder's choice to eat the loss in royalties.  The NFL has a revenue-sharing policy, so this will affect everyone.

If they lose their appeal, I can't see any way that the rest of the owners would allow the team to keep their name.

+5 HS
AndyVance's picture

Exactly. If Snyder's group loses their appeal, change is inevitable.

+1 HS
sharks's picture

I must be getting soft in my old age- lately I've been thinking that Chief Wahoo needs to be put out to pasture.

The postgame show is brought to you by... Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it...

+6 HS
Denny's picture

If 'soft' is a stand-in for the word 'humane', then sure. (I, too, have changed on Wahoo).

Taquitos.

+2 HS
Jason Priestas's picture

Whatever your feelings about whether Snyder has anything to stand on, you do have to admit that this is a very creative way to attack the issue from the federal side.

BroJim's picture

Indeed, this is true.

However, social change comes from the people. In my opinion, bigger changes would be happening if the players started to speak out.

I season my simple food with hunger

+1 HS
Jason Priestas's picture

I agree and social change often does come from the people. But not always.

Earle's picture

Well, the appeals to Snyder's sensibilities certainly haven't worked.  Not to say that he hasn't already lost revenue due to the current name/logo, but this should really hit him where it hurts.

SOCK PUPPETS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!

-1 HS
Oyster's picture

I predict quite the surge in sales in the next few days/weeks.  People will buy Washington gear for numerous reasons.

+3 HS
Mizzillion's picture
+4 HS
Buckeye in Illini country's picture

This is the best example of how changing the name is for the better.  I feel the brand of Miami University has not been hurt in any way, if not improved since they changed it in 1997.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

Buckeyeneer's picture

My wife went to Miami Ohio and was against the name change . . . one of the few things we argue about.

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University

William's picture

Massive overstep by the federal government and U.S. Patent Office. Regardless of your views on the team's name, any change should be brought about by the league, or the owner of the private franchise, the actual private entities that own the rights to the team, not the federal government. Makes you question the purpose/intent of intellectual property laws in our "free society." 

+13 HS
otrain2416's picture

Well said William. No matter what your political affiliation you have to admit, with all the problems going on with our country the fact that our government makes this as big of a deal as it has is a joke. My person favorite was the organizations initial response to the first challenge by the senator. 

“Senator Cantwell should be aware that there are many challenges facing Native Americans, including an extremely cold winter with high energy bills, high unemployment, life threatening health problems, inadequate education and many other issues more pressing than the name of a football team which has received strong support from Native Americans,” the statement said. “Surely, with all the issues Congress is supposed to work on such as the economy, jobs, war and health care, the Senator must have more important things to do,”

+10 HS
bafiesta's picture

This is a bad argument.  We attack problems based on a combination of the size of the problem and the effort to fix them.  i.e go for the low hanging fruit.

Among other issues I have 2 problems.  I want world peace and I want the bad smell in the kitchen to go away.  I could devote my life to the first problem and barely make a dent.  I could spend two minutes taking out the trash and the second problem is solved.  

+2 HS
I_Run_The_Dave's picture

I would think that they could successful sue the US Patent Office on this -- if the trademark was acceptable when it was first issued, it may be illegal to revoke it retroactively.  I agree that if change is to come about, this is most certainly not the proper way to go about it.

+8 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

I wouldn't call it an overstep, they're just saying that Snyder and the NFL can't trademark a word that is defined in the dictionary as a racial slur.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+2 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

That's just your opinion, man.

 

+1 HS
southbay's picture

Here's a dictionary definition for ya:

fas·cism

 noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

: a way of organizing a society in which a government controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

: very harsh control or authority

-1 HS
hodge's picture

From the Washington Post:

"Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute."

The government isn't forcing the NFL's hand.  They're merely saying that the league cannot copyright the name, and therefore the team cannot ensure that they are making revenue off merchandise.  The NFL is free to keep the name, they'll just be taking a hit to their revenue if they continue to do so.

+4 HS
William's picture

May disparage? Who determines what is, and isn't a disparaging remark/term? That law/policy is an utter farce. 

+5 HS
hodge's picture

While I agree that the policy is flawed by its reliance on an unknown person's judgement (for what it's worth, I'm betting it's a bit more involved than that), the second half of the sentence is what's in use here: "or bring them into contempt or disrepute."  Really, it's meant to keep people from profiting off of the reinforcement of stereotypes.

In this scenario, "Redskin" is being interpreted as a remark that can result in people having a negative connotation of Native Americans, therefore the US Patent Office has ruled that Washington's football team can no longer be the sole profiting party of their name and logo.  It'll be interesting to see how the appeals process plays itself out.

William's picture

Again, who determines if the remark actually brings a group into contempt or disrepute? That's a horridly worded policy, that provides US Patent Office with too much leeway. 

+2 HS
Denny's picture

Like, you want actual names? Here are names from the court filing

Before Kuhlke, Cataldo and Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judges.
Opinion by Kuhlke, Administrative Trademark Judge

Looking shit up isn't rocket science. Those three are the judges who determined that the remark brought a group into contempt or disrepute. To wit: 

The determination of the disparagement claim at issue herein requires the following two-step analysis:

a. What is the meaning of the matter in question, as it appears in the marks and as those marks are used in connection with the goods and services identified in the registrations?

b. Is the meaning of the marks one that may disparage Native Americans? [page 15]

[...]

Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990.215 There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial.  

Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging. [pages 71-72]

But please, continue.

Taquitos.

+3 HS
William's picture

Within the judges ruling they state there is nothing that explicitly prohibits the trademarking of disparaging remarks. There is not a single clause in the Lanham Act that explicitly prohibits the trademarking of disparaging terms.

Lanham Act text: http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/ 

+4 HS
hodge's picture

I think you might have misunderstood the way that the judges' ruling was written.  The ruling states:

"There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial."

The phrase "which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms" is betwixt commas, meaning that it's modifying the Trademark Act itself, not the statement of "there is nothing" which precedes it.  It's poor style in my opinion, the overuse of commas makes it hard to read.

Section 2 begins with the following:

"No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--"

Section A is directly underneath, and is as follows (emphasis mine):

Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 2(9) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [19 USC §3501(9)]) enters into force with respect to the United States.

+3 HS
BroJim's picture

The people who are hurt/offended by the remark, in this case, American Indians.

I season my simple food with hunger

-1 HS
buckeye4life050233's picture

Goes to show how we live in a different world in this day and age where the "Character Cops" and Media twirl up a hissy fit and then the government goes with it bc it promotes the class warefare and discriminatory areas.  I personally do not care whether or not the Redskins stay the Redskins but it is ridiculous that this is even an issue.  It is the name of a team.  No one should truly be offended by it and now it is going to get changed to something stupid more than likely

+6 HS
RoyWalley's picture

^ Oh, stop making sense!   Excellent post.

+3 HS
Denny's picture

You won't take the time to read it (class warefare and whatnot), but the National Congress of American Indians' policy paper on mascots is a good place to start.

There's be more Native Americans around to speak up against the term 'Redskins' if we as a nation hadn't, you know, do our damnedest to kill them off.

Taquitos.

+9 HS
hodge's picture

"...the government goes with it bc it promotes the class warefare and discriminatory areas."

But isn't that part of the government's responsibility, fighting against class warfare and discriminatory ideas?  Both of those are necessary for maintaining order, which is one of the key reasons a people consent to be governed.

+8 HS
BroJim's picture

It's more than a team name, it's also a brand and logo. Following your train of thought. . . What if New York had a team called the Yellowskins and their mascot was an Asain in a rice hat. Would that be valid enough to offend someone? The word/team name Redskins truly offends many, many people. The hurt it causes is valid and it's time for change.

I season my simple food with hunger

+3 HS
OSUStu's picture

New York Yellowskins?!  Now that is just patently ridiculous.

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+9 HS
BroJim's picture

How is one ridiculous and the other not? In my opinion they are both racial slurs. 

I season my simple food with hunger

-1 HS
OSUStu's picture

Hhmmm.  I happen to agree with you, gave you an upvote.  I was just going for the cheap pun...

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+6 HS
BroJim's picture

Haha, yeah. I dont do well with that. My bad. 

Go Bucks!

I season my simple food with hunger

Oyster's picture

Read it slower, perhaps out loud...

+3 HS
TheBadOwl's picture

Relevant:

And in case you can't read the text at the bottom, it says: "No race, creed or religion should endure the ridicule faced by Native Americans today. Please help us put an end to the mockery and racism"

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+4 HS
William's picture

As an American Jew, I would buy that New York Jews ball cap in a heartbeat, it's hilarious. I think Chief Wahoo could be viewed as far more offensive than the term redskins, and even then I wouldn't force the Indians to change their mascot, mainly because it's not my place to tell the owner of the Indians what to do with their franchise. 

vitaminB's picture

It looks like the Jews really Gyped the Indians logo there.

+1 HS
chicagobuckeye's picture

What if Germany's national team was the Jews because it appreciated their mental and physical toughness during the holocaust?

William's picture

Go right ahead. I'd find it stupid, but I could not care less about the nickname of Germany's national team. I'd be far more worried about things that actually affect Jews now, like BSD. 

Buckeyeneer's picture

William, the difference is is that there are many positive examples in America of being a Jew. This is not the case with Native Americans. That's the difference. Mike and Mike were talking about this issue this morning and asked, "What makes this different than the Fighting Irish?" Again, like American Jews, there are many positive Irish examples spread throughout our culture.

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University

-1 HS
Buckeye in Illini country's picture

Big difference to me is that the Fighting Irish, Cowboys, Vikings, or even Seminoles or Fighting Illini, are not disparaging towards those people (the way they are used as a mascot such as Chief Illiniwek may be disparaging) but the names themselves are not slurs, while Redskins is a slur towards Native Americans.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

TheBadOwl's picture

Not sure about the Illini, but I know the Florida State and Utah both have permission from the tribes to use their names and to use mascots, although this comes with stipulations (i.e. Utah's mascot is a hawk and they're moving away from the headdress logo), and they often give out a ton of scholarship money and financial aid to members of those tribes. They're doing it in a non-disparaging way and they're giving back the the community.

This is different with the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins. As far as I know, neither team gives back to the Native American community, and they don't need permission from a specific tribe since they're using blanket terms. The word "Redskin" is literally defined in the dictionary as a slur, FWIW.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

+3 HS
Buckeye in Illini country's picture

The Illini, as far as I know, no longer exist as a tribe.  I have no problem with teams using American Indian tribes as their team name (such as the Utes, Seminoles, Illini, etc.).  I do have a problem when you parade around a white guy in generic Indian garb as your mascot (see Seminoles and formerly the Illini).  (If it isn't clear, I agree with you).

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

+1 HS
bigtenspeed's picture

Nit picking here but they haven't worn that version of their hat in at least 10 years.

hit_the_couch's picture

Are they gonna rename the little redskin potatoes too? Maybe the Redskins could just change their name to Washington Potatoes. I'm sure someone in Maryland grows them when the temperature and conditions are right.

And then I told her...i'm no weatherman, but tonight's forecast is calling for several inches!

+1 HS
Mizzillion's picture

Maybe a compromise is in order.... Potato Skins?

+2 HS
vitaminB's picture

How about the Merica Red White and Blue Skins?

 

+1 HS
teddyballgame's picture

so now we have activist patent clerks?  lol

+3 HS
Groveport Heisman's picture

Snyder will keep the name for awhile off of pride then change it when nobody is looking because it is effecting his bottom line. Most billionaires are not idiots and they sure don't like being forced to do something they don't want to.

Mark my words..I don't need acceptance. I'm catching interceptions on you innocent pedestrians.

TheBadOwl's picture

Native Americans ≠ animals.

When I walked in this morning and saw the flag was at half mast I thought, "Alright, another bureaucrat ate it." but then I saw it was Li'l Sebastian. Half mast is too high. Show some damn respect.

Norwalk's picture

I have no problem with the name.  In fact I Love Redskins! However, I might consider changing the logo....

 

+10 HS
cajunbuckeye's picture

I think we have a winner....

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

Buckeye in Illini country's picture

This apparently won the "rebrand the Redskins" contest at 99designs.com..  If they want to keep the same colors, which apparently they really do, this would be the best in my opinion as Redhawks may require a change in colors.

Other reasonable options as well.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

+1 HS
Seattle Linga's picture

Snyder seems like the guy who will throw money at a problem, do what he wants - when he wants and doesn't care what people think

+1 HS
Norwalk's picture

This is the logo from a real school in AK. Students choose the name and logo.

 

+2 HS
AndyVance's picture

This reminds me of the urban legend I heard once about the school consolidation that created the Fairfield Union school district. As the story went, the community/students submitted suggestions and voted on a new name/mascot for the new school. The winning suggestion was the "Charging Knights," which I think would have been a pretty great mascot. However, someone figured out that the school name and mascot combined to make a very NSFW acronym, and the whole deal was scuttled in favor of the Falcons.

It's an urban legend, of course, but it made me chuckle.

+2 HS
Earle's picture

Which in turn reminds me of when Mountain Dew tried to crowdsource the name for its new beverage offering.  They pulled the plug after the leading candidates included a number of unappealing choices, the mildest of which was Diabeetus.

http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/mountain-dew-soda-naming-contest-crashed-pranksters-142715

SOCK PUPPETS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!

+1 HS
southbay's picture

Not to mention the one time web site url for the Wisconsin Trade Federation.  Not an urban legend, either.

Eph97's picture

Good. I hope the Cle Indians will someday change their name and get ride of the ridiculous chief wahoo along with it.

brunstar's picture

Football > Politics

Who freaking cares about mascot names!

+1 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

...here's one group who doesn't: NATIVE AMERICANS! to the tune of over 90% ! They are not offended. Again, it's just diversionary tactics. Notice how nobody is talking about $4/gallon gas.

I'm with ya, Brunstsr

+1 HS
Denny's picture

Truth hurts sometimes, anonymous internet user.

Taquitos.

MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

No, it's 90% of Indians could care less, Dennis. Most recent poll. Fact.

The Indians get waaaay too much sympathy than they deserve, when you actually know the history of their barbaric ways.

If the government really wanted to help the Indians, they would look into the rampant alcoholism disease in many of today's Native Americans. They (government and politicians) don't really care about Native Americans, just like most minorities...they use them. They string them along with terrible welfare programs that actually regress the group. The fake outrage for different groups is used to get votes and/or distract from real problems.

-6 HS
AndyVance's picture

Holy crap - that may be the most incendiary comment I've read on this site this month... Whatever the opposite of a gold star is, you just nabbed it in a big way. Also, "truth hurts" is not an acceptable refutation of the site's commenting policy, so go back and read that again and try harder not to violate it so egregiously, please.

+4 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

Didn't think I said anything too bad, but oh well. I stand by my comments.

-2 HS
jheinz's picture

Leave football alone.  The U.S. patent office makes the first move?  I agree with the comment from earlier, why wouldn't we want this kind of change to come from pressure from the people?  I hope they never change it and eat the losses.

jheinz

-1 HS
mtrotb's picture

Let's worry about the mess at the border, the crisis in Iraq, the problem with the IRS, the problem with the VA hospitals etc.  Take care of all those issues before the Govt. worries about a team's nickname.

mtrotb

+2 HS
buckeyedude's picture

You are so right, Mtrotb. ANYTHING to detract from the real issues facing America. The people are so easily manipulated. And we wonder how a man like Hitler could rise to power? Look around.

 

 

+2 HS
Denny's picture

I N FO S P OR T S

Taquitos.

OSUStu's picture

Internet rules should state that if you bring up Hitler or the Nazis during a discussion then the rest of you post is automatically invalidated.  

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+3 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

Amen again, Mtrob! ... and BuckeyeDude!

Troubling times for the USA, and the world right now. Doesn't look good. The (lack thereof) in terms of leadership is STAGGERING.

+1 HS
hodge's picture

Are you implying that it takes the entire government to revoke a trademark?  It's not like this was a move mandated by Congressmen or the President, the US Patent Office was merely responding to a previously filed complaint.  

Last September, the federal government employed a total of 2,723,000 people.  All snarky one-liners aside, I'm pretty sure a bureaucracy of that size can multitask.

+9 HS
OSUStu's picture

Good comment Hodge. I was going to respond with something similar. I don't know what the U.S. Patent Office can do about the issues cited above which are all the domain of other government offices. While this may be a relatively minor issue for many of us in comparison to these issues, it is a stretch to insinuate that anyone ceased working on them to deal with the Redskins.

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

Denny's picture

I mean, what has the Patent and Trade Office even done about the VA hospitals, anyways?

Taquitos.

+3 HS
WezBuck28's picture

My family origin is hungarian...so when people say they are "hungry", I become offended...who do I need to talk to to get that changed?? To be honest, its getting a tad bit ridiculous IMO... what happened to the days of old when one could say what he/she wanted?

+1 HS
hodge's picture

Find me statistical evidence that three in ten Hungarians are offended by the noun "hungry" (the same number that the US Patent Office based its ruling upon), and I'll personally file a grievance on your behalf.

Alas, "hungry" isn't trademarked, but I can file a grievance against Milton Bradley:

+8 HS
WezBuck28's picture

i was just being sarcastic..im not really offended by this..

+2 HS
hodge's picture

Haha I know.  My reply was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but tone doesn't always come off the way I want it to.

WezBuck28's picture

Read you loud and clear now my friend..up vote sent your way!

BucksFan2000's picture

If your argument is "it's just a word, get over it", then please start using the N word at work, school, restaurants, etc.  I don't think it's going to go over well.

Or, to be fair, say "blackskins".  Let us know the results.

+3 HS
BAR43's picture

The Redskins name is not going anywhere. The trademark does not force the team to change its name. Additionally, they are appealing so they the trade mark is still in effect until a final rulling is made. FYI, the last time this happened, the appeal took 17 years to complete.

I do find it interesting that one small group finds the name offensive, yet several other groups say they could care less. Just because it offends someone, doesnt mean there is anything wrong. Today everyone is offended by something, maybe some people should just get thicker skin. To clarify I am not saying I am for or against. But there are two sides to everything and I do believe in general people are overly sensative about things these days.

+1 HS
Furious George 27's picture

Keep the name, change the mascot to a potato... They keep the name, and lose a logo. Win/Win right?

Yeah, well…that’s just like, your opinion, man.

MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

1. Is this still America? (I don't think so anymore)

2. #Diversionary Tactics (see Harry Reid)

-9 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

Truth hurts sometimes, Dennis.
(Edit: I'm new on here)

-4 HS
Jason Priestas's picture

Welcome. Please see the link to our commenting policy right above the comment box. There you'll find out that we don't discuss politics, at all, here.

OSUStu's picture

'Merica is over?  That fucking sucks.

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

Well, when a government agency (IRREGARDLESS of whether you think the name is wrong or right) can just HIJACK someone's ownership/property/copyright/etc. over night...that is not a good thing. Too much beauracratic and government overreach.

-2 HS
OSUStu's picture

A couple of things:  1) this by no means happened over night and will continue on appeal  2) it has long been established that the government can and will override private ownership/interests when it is found to serve a legitimate public purpose, this is not a new development

Even if you think this particular action does not serve a legitimate public purpose (and I can see why some people might think that way, I just don't happen to be one of them) to say this isn't America any more is kind of hyperbolic IMO.

 

If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them.  ~ Bruce Lee

+5 HS
mtrotb's picture

But remember the president didn't know anything about any of these messes.  He finds out from the media.

mtrotb

MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

Yeah, LOL, everything is a "surprise"

-2 HS
Buckeyeneer's picture

 

"Because the rules won't let you go for three." - Woody Hayes
THE Ohio State University

+1 HS
TSparky's picture

Well next it will be the Indians logo because he looks funny and will offend somebody then some farmers will get together and say Cornhusker is disparaging in some way. If you don't like it, don't support it. The Redskins will win this again on appeal.

dcbucks's picture

Lets all agree that the Ole Miss Rebels is where the focus on changing names should start. Then we can push for all Mississippi schools being banned from college athletics until the confederate flag is removed from their state flag. That will be the PR that SEC schools deserve. 

+2 HS
hodge's picture

I agree with you.  While I understand that the Confederate flag and "Rebel" nickname isn't necessarily meant to glorify slavery, a lot of people take it that way.  Just like thousands of Americans have turned Springsteen's bitter protest song "Born in the USA" into a prideful anthem, the Confederate flag and imagery symbolize racism to a whole lot of people -- it's not the intent that matters, but the result.

-1 HS
Buckeye in Illini country's picture

It can also be seen to glorify armed rebellion against the USA, which many of us might have a problem with.

Columbus to Pasadena: 35 hours.  We're on a road trip through the desert looking for strippers and cocaine... and Rose Bowl wins!

+2 HS
I_Run_The_Dave's picture

I've generally viewed the Confederate flag not as racism, but rather "anti-Northernism" or "anti-Yankeeism".  I lived in Texas for a few years in college and racism against "Yankees" is real and can be profound.  I'm not sure what it is like in some of the other southern states -- I would think that Mississippi and Alabama might be a little more extreme than in Texas, but the point remains.  If the mascot "Yankee" were for a team in the south, then it would certainly offend me based on my own experiences.  I'm mildly offended at the Ole Miss Rebels, and every time I see a Confederate flag I want to tear it down.  But we allow it for the sake of freedom?  

The truth is that anything done publicly (or privately, as in the case of Sterling and the LA Clippers) can and will offend someone.  It is impossible to act or speak in such a way where no one is offended, but it is illegal and you can be sued over it.  Which means we really don't have any freedom, at all, except to keep our mouths shut 100% of the time.  I'm pretty sure this country was founded by those trying to escape such an environment.

+4 HS
elitesmithie's picture

If people are offended(I am sure there are), then they can not watch the games, buy tickets, or give revenue to that company. If alot of people quit giving Mr Snyder their money, he will go broke or change the name.

Or we can have Uncle Govt. tell everyone what they can or can not do or say.

Which of those seems like a better idea?

+4 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

amen! eltiesmithie

the government should not be involved with this overblown BS. Let the people and the free market take care of it. This is such a much-ado-about-nothing problem. Fake outrage. Fake outrage. Fake outrage so people feel better about themselves.

-1 HS
hodge's picture

So you're saying that government isn't the answer, even though the Washington Redskins built their brand through use of a government-issued trademark that prevented others from profiting off their name and image?

-1 HS
cajunbuckeye's picture

I'm more outraged that the NFL doesn't pay taxes, than I am about the Redskins logo.

An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches

+3 HS
Seattle Linga's picture

Agreed and why are hospitals NON-PROFIT ??

jheinz's picture

Regardless of your opinion on the politics of the move, hitler, nazis, and all that other garbage how can you downvote leaving football alone?  I understand everyone else here has mucked themselves into the quicksand of talking about what is racist/offensive but seriously think about it.  People are messing with football, whether it be at the government level or even at the political correctness police level.  How is this a good thing?

I don't care that much about the redskins thing, but I do care about the next thing they will go after, which makes me feel really stubborn about the name being changed.  Trust me you have no idea what the government or the PC police will find offensive next.

jheinz

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. – The following is a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Washington Redskins, regarding today’s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:

“We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.

‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
- Washington Post, April 3, 1999

‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
- Washington Post, October 2, 2003

We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.

As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.

This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.

When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.

Why?

As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [Board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court reviews today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.

In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:

'It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.'

The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here."

Press Release

For better or worse this battle is a long way from being over.

southbay's picture

Since we are talking about "harmful" mascots, let's talk about those NFL teams in Minnesota, Oakland, Tampa Bay, and--gasp--Dallas...

For that matter, doesn't that team in New Orleans "disparage" people who are atheists?

And let's not forget Miami...

I am NOT a fan of the Redskins or their team name, but far do we want to go?