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

[Kevin]

How about "I'm not being a dick just because someone comes out of the blue and says I'm being a dick."

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How about "I'm not being a dick just because someone comes out of the blue and says I'm being a dick."

Underline mine, I repeat....

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Kevin, you are clearly learning new things about this topic as you go along. That's wonderful for you but your new knowledge doesn't translate to everyone else's ignorance.

[33girl]

Do the Kansas City Chiefs need to change too?

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Do the Kansas City Chiefs need to change too?

I think this question actually has pros and cons, whereas the Redskins does not. Chiefs are actual people and not necessarily disparaging. It COULD be considered a nod of respect.

Because of sensitivity on this issue, I think it probably should be but it's not black and white like a racial slur is. My opinion of course.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

As MysticCat said, read that article again.

And, yes, the government doesn't need polls and require certain percentages before acting as deemed necessary. Or did you not know that?

Exactly.

And let's not pretend that this is in regard to anything important like gay marriage, or abortion, or sending more troops to Iraq; it's a flippin' sports team mascot. If 10% of the American Indian population is offended (a number that is probably skewed, but let's just go with it), just shut up and change it already.

Originally Posted by Kevin

How about "I'm not being a dick just because someone comes out of the blue and says I'm being a dick."

Out of the blue? Wasn't it you who pointed out on page 1 of this thread that a case has already been heard about the team's name, and that this has been an ongoing issue for 2 decades?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Out of the blue?

The team was founded in 1933. The first documented protest was in 1988 and the first legal action was in 1992. I would have to say leaving something undisturbed for 55 years with little to no action from any organized force is "out of the blue."

Wasn't it you who pointed out on page 1 of this thread that a case has already been heard about the team's name, and that this has been an ongoing issue for 2 decades?

In an effort to point out that the decision of this Board is almost certainly going to be overturned either at the District Court level or beyond.

Because a small minority of a minority is offended by something is not a good enough reason to deny this NFL Franchise equal protection under the law.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The team was founded in 1933. The first documented protest was in 1988 and the first legal action was in 1992. I would have to say leaving something undisturbed for 55 years with little to no action from any organized force is "out of the blue."

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

Beat me to it. But Kevin's use of "equal protection under the law" was a nice touch, I thought.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because a small minority of a minority . . . .

Again, your basis for asserting it's only a "small minority" is . . . ?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is a team that was established in 1932 and there have always been people who deemed their use of "redskins". Always. If GCers know what was happening with American Indian populations in 1932 and the difficulty faced by populations in the 1930s-2010s we understand why there weren't massive protests and media speak outs until the 1980s-2010s.

And again, I would suggest that understanding the history behind the team name—which was originally the Boston Braves and was connected to the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves baseball team—is instructive.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This is definitely not the same as what is being discussed in this thread. If you think it is the same, you are not familiar with the NAACP.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This topic has been discussed numerous times on Greekchat.

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

Exactly.

And Dan Snyder bought the team in 1999. To claim that this is "out of the blue" is laughable. He knew (or at least he should have known) what he was potentially getting into.

Kevin, you're claiming that everyone is suddenly being too politically correct, when in fact, this has been going on for nearly 25 years. But now with social media and a 24 hour news cycle, we're hearing more about it. These groups are getting louder, as they should if they find the team's name offensive. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the legality of the decision regarding the patent, but to claim that a) the objections to the team name are "out of the blue", 2) that people aren't allowed to be offended, and 3) the percentage of people who are offended should determine whether or not the name is changed is ridiculous.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Exactly.

And let's not pretend that this is in regard to anything important like gay marriage, or abortion, or sending more troops to Iraq; it's a flippin' sports team mascot. If 10% of the American Indian population is offended (a number that is probably skewed, but let's just go with it), just shut up and change it already.

For the record, it is 10% of the limited number of people polled and there is a possible issue with the cultural and ethnic identities of the people polled.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Out of the blue? Wasn't it you who pointed out on page 1 of this thread that a case has already been heard about the team's name, and that this has been an ongoing issue for 2 decades?

"Out of the blue" works better for his argument. This is a team that was established in 1932 and there have always been people who deemed their use of "redskins". Always. If GCers know what was happening with American Indian populations in 1932 and the difficulty faced by populations in the 1930s-2010s we understand why there weren't massive protests and media speak outs until the 1980s-2010s.