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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Thank you. I'm wondering if Kevin knows what "out of the blue" actually means.

I was describing the lengthy period between 1933 and 1988.

The problem isn't what Kevin is saying in relation to the legal proceedings of the patent dispute, it's what he's saying about American Indians "not being permitted" to be offended, and that any who are offended shouldn't be allowed to force change.

No, I'm saying that they are not offended, except for a small minority.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I was describing the lengthy period between 1933 and 1988.

No, I'm saying that they are not offended, except for a small minority.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them become true.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them become true.

I've already shared the poll. Even if you think it has a few flaws, 90% of self-identified Native Americans think you're full of shit.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I'm saying that they are not offended, except for a small minority.

Shouldn't the fact that I am also offended count for anything? Yes, the people for whom the offense is personal have a right to ask for names like this to be changed. But they aren't the only ones. I should also be able to say I find it offensive and have that matter. This "small minority" of native Americans who are offended shouldn't be the only ones who get to count. The rest may have other issues to contend with that are higher priority, like staying alive in a dying culture on dead land with poor education, poor leadership and poor health and healthcare. I would contend that the people with the luxury of time, health and wealth to care about this issue can and should count for the vast number of people who just simply don't have it in em. If there is a vast silent majority that rocks on the fact that the football team representing our nation's capital has an AWESOME name, then the small minority in that set who has the time and ability should speak up. Crickets? Hmmmmm.

[33girl]

Any movement by any minority doesn't work if the only ones involved in it are the wealthiest and most prvileged. All that does is make people say "well shoot, they're doing fine, why are they complaining?"

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Any movement by any minority doesn't work if the only ones involved in it are the wealthiest and most prvileged. All that does is make people say "well shoot, they're doing fine, why are they complaining?"

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.

[engel]

Can we still SCALP tickets?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

Shouldn't the fact that I am also offended count for anything?

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.