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

Show All 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.
 

+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.

A man got to have a code...

+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.

Have you tried Not Your Father's Root Beer?  It tastes just like the real thing, but it packs a punch (5.9%ABV).  It's a little sweet for me though.  Two is my limit.

-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.

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

+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,”

We were born to love Ohio State and hate that team up north.

+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.  

Winner Eleven Warriors 2014 Yahoo Sports College Bowl Pick'em

+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...

"Scrolling hurts my finger"

(and FitzBuck was clearly the winner)

+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. 

+1 HS
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. 

+1 HS
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

Pages