Only the obtuse and un-researched believe this.

People need a history lesson and contemporary lesson on politics and movements.

Organizations like the NAACP, NPHC GLOs, and the Urban League were among the voices of civil rights and components of women's rights and worker's rights movements. The founders and majority of earlier members of these organizations were among a privileged group and, some people like WEB DuBois would argue, intellectual elite.

You seem to be dismissing it completely.

Tribal elections don't turn on whether the candidates care about the Redskins football team. They turn on much more personal issues such as tribal gaming, business directions, tribal benefit priorities, etc.

If it was the early 90s and silk print ties were still okay, I'd have no objection wearing to wearing a Washington Redskins tie.

That's the only data we have. Feel free to discard it, but until you have better data, I'm the only one bringing facts into this discussion.

And why would I not take that risk? Because I don't take people's money to fix their problems and expose them to unnecessary risk.

Denying the protection of the law has the same consequence in reality as a cease and desist order. I'm sure you don't need the consequences of what the patents and trademarks office has done here explained.

I gave you the poll. The only poll there is on the subject. I would think if the Oneida Nation or any other Nation thought the poll might come out significantly different, they might pony up the cash to do another poll.

Well, in connection with that thought, here's an interesting poll conducted by the Washington Post last year, and a story on it. It's a poll of Washingtonians, and I find these results interesting:

• 61% of those surveyed said they like the team name "Redskins."
• 66% percent said the name should not be changed (50% feel strongly that it should not be changed), while 28% said it should be.
• 55% of those who do not want to see the name changed thought that "redskin" is an inappropriate way to describe an American Indian.
• 82% said a name change would make no difference to their support of the team, and 6% said it would make them more of a fan. 10% said it would make them less of a fan.

I find it interesting that a majority of those who don't want to see the name changed do not think "redskin" is an appropriate way to refer to American Indians. In a similar poll of Washingtonians commissioned by the Oneida Tribe, 59% of respondents, none of whom were Indian, said that an American Indian would have a right to feel offended if called a "redskin."

This cognitive dissonance suggests to me that holding on to the name "Washington Redskins" has much to do with familiarity, sentiment and tradition, and little to do with actual belief that the name can't be considered offensive.

Not completely, though it does appear to me have flaws. But my beef is with you extrapolating what it says to mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the word offensive. The poll doesn't support that assertion. It says what it says; it doesn't say what you say it says.

Well, that's a dodge. I asked you whether it is appropriate or professional to call an American Indian a "redskin," not whether wearing Redskins merchandise (which I have also worn in the past) would be appropriate or professional. See the polls to which I linked above for examples of people who seem to understand the difference.

No, it's not. See above. And learn some history. Do you know the history behind the name Washington Redskins?

Hardly. You're taking the few facts you've brought in and trying to make them bear much more weight than they can.


Of course I don't. I just think "full weight and force of the federal government" is hyperbolic. It's not like the national guard has been called in to enforce desgregation. If the trademarks are inappropriate under trademark law, then the law has simply been applied to so state. The business consequences will fall where they may. Happens all the time.

In any event, you seem to miss the (very big) point. The PTO may indeed have gotten it wrong. It may well be that the Redskins are entitled at this stage of things to have their trademarks intact. Even if that is so, that doesn't mean that people, both American Indians and others, who find the name uncomfortable at best and offensive at worst have no reasonable basis for thinking so. Those opinions are not just rooted in ignorance of the origin of the word "redskin," as you have stated.

Bump

Not that I want to get the $#!+ stirring with Kevin & Dr. Phil again, but there are some alternate names that the Washington NFL team could become.

Washington Warriors - some logos look similar to the current logo, some look more like a WWII army man. A "trademark prospector" has filed for trademark for this name, so Dan Synder would have to buy it from him.
http://deadspin.com/will-this-random...gto-1593785958
The website, www.warriors.com is the NBA Golden State Warriors. The websites washingtonwarriors.com and dcwarriors.com are for sale.

Second most discussed option is Washington Renegades - this was the old Arena football team name and a current Washington DC Division III Rugby club name.

Here are some of the many potential names for the Washington Football Club, including "The Washington Football Club"!
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdo...2468--nfl.html

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/wash...iors-renegades

The Daily Show just had a segment on the debate, with Redskins fans discussing the topic with Native Americans. It did not go well for the current mascot supporters:
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/did-native...133300770.html

:p:p

OH PLEASE GOD IN HEAVEN let them pick "Renegades" so the Steelers have to stop playing that $@#&ing song. I hate it so much.

Can we still SCALP tickets?