U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging
 

At some point I would think owner Dan Snyder would see the writing on the wall, but he'll probably fight this again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...789_story.html

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...-redskins-name

It looks like the Trademarks Office has already been down this path and lost. I would expect the Redskins lawyers to make short work of this. This is an apparent violation of their First Amendment Rights. There's a Stanford Law Review article I'm seeing on Google, it reaches the same conclusion apparently, but I don't want to pay JSTOR any money to read it.

Um seriously???

One word: Hooters.

If the patent office is going to be the morality police they need to at least have some consistency about it.

Isn't Hooters in reference to an owl? ;)

One of the differences between Hooters and Redskins is, despite people knowing to what "hooters" is in reference, there is an ability to do a bullshit play on words. There is no bullshit play on words with "redskin".

I do find the overt sexism in the title "hooters" offensive as well as the servers. They could at least have good wings.

I think there's a big difference between a play on words that refers to boobs, and a racial slur.

The statute doesn't say anything about racial slurs. It says anything thst is "disparaging." Plenty of people find Hooters disparaging. That's the first thing that came to mind, there are plenty others. I'm not against them saying that about the Redskins name, I'm against the arbitrary picking and choosing.

There have been Hooters protests. I don't know f the protests extended to the process of revoking a license.

But instead of people making everything a competition, how about the people who are offended by Hooters and other mascots/symbols see whether they can ALSO get those licenses revoked. If they can't, see why it isn't possible and THEN see whether there is inconsistency.

Ives Goddard, a senior linguistic anthropologist at the Smithsonian wrote a peer-reviewed article in the European Review of Native America Studies which concludes that the basis for the word "Redskins" is not pejorative, but was rather a term developed by Native Americans to distinguish the political and cultural differences between them and the Europeans.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

If taken as true, this is a term which has been re-interpreted by Native peoples to just now be pejorative. This is sort of the frustration most Americans have with political correctness. It is such a moving target.

It doesn't matter what it meant at the time of coinage. It is offensive NOW. That argument could have been valid for why they kept the name for awhile after the tone of the word had changed, but this many years later I think we can confidently say the term isn't going to be turning positive any time soon.

They should change the name to one of the few even more offensive words in the American lexicon - Congressmen.

Why should anyone have the power to simply deem words offensive? Especially when to do that, they have to reinvent the meaning of the word to something other than what it has historically meant?

If it's offensive, it's because native peoples are ignorant of the origins of the word. Why should a multibillion dollar sports franchise throw away its history over something like that?

I'm cracking up at the name of this journal. It says it all for me.

Dear American Indians Who Find "Redskins" Offensive,

Kevin thinks he's discovered oxygen, says some of you are ignorant, and thinks his white privilege makes his opinion surpass yours.

Sincerely,
Not Surprised

That doesn't follow logically at all. It could just as easily be a term that was appropriated by the majority culture and over time used as a pejorative. Given the very complicated history of American Indian and white American culture, that seems the more plausible explanation.

Good job! In one sentence you managed to dismiss valid concerns as "political correctness" and speak for "most Americans."

News flash for you, Kevin: The meaning of the word was reinvented over a century ago. People deem the word offensive because of the way those words have actually been used.

I'm not sure which is more remarkable—the irony of this statement or the patronizing suggestion that Indians are just too ignorant to understand when they should be offended. Good thing they have you to let them know.

It's about time we had another "GC race war".

Well then, I suppose we'll need to rename Oklahoma, the name which more-less translates to "red people."

And this is political correctness, be offended about that remark all you want, but that's what this is. Who is next? The Minnesota vikings for their stereotypical portrayal of Scandinavians? The Indians? The Braves? Shall the pirates off the Somali coast bristle at the cultural appropriation undertaken by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers?

Be offended all you want for whatever your own reasons are. Just don't tell anyone else what they should consider offensive.

Even 90 percent of Native Americans think you're all full of shit.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/