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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Newsflash to Kevin, American Indians can debate amongst themselves but don't need to reach a consensus and definitely don't need permission from non-American Indians to be offended.

But if 10% of them find something offensive, the full weight and force of the government needs to line up behind a small vocal minority and force billion dollar corporations to make changes?

And some would consider the term "Indian" offensive.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if 10% of them find something offensive, the full weight and force of the government needs to line up behind a small vocal minority and force billion dollar corporations to make changes?

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?

Originally Posted by Kevin

And some would consider the term "Indian" offensive.

Just as some people within the diverse cultures and collectives consider the term "Native American" less than desirable because it is a more regional or location title that does not capture the range of cultures, ethnicities, and heritages.

Since you are learning new things, research the reasons behind varied use of "American Indian" and "Native American."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if 10% of them find something offensive, the full weight and force of the government needs to line up behind a small vocal minority and force billion dollar corporations to make changes?

Where do you get this 10% Kevin? From the article you linked? It said 90% of people surveyed, not 90% of American Indians.

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them.

But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions.

“Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Leaving aside whether the the survey had a reliable sample or asked necessary questions, the opinions of 691 people =/= the opinions of 90% of American Indians. I'll see your 691 people and raise you 70+ tribes and American Indian organizations that have officially registered opposition to use of the name "Redskins." These tribes and groups include the Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma), the Comanche Nation (Oklahoma), the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma and the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes.

[DrPhil]

MysticCat, stop ruining Kevin's routine. You know there are ONLY almost 700 people in the USA who identify as American Indian or Native American and these surveyors managed to find all of them. Ninety percent is not just of those polled. It is of ALL people within and across entire ethnic and cultural groups.

I tell you, those Weekly (Insert Group) Meetings come in handy to get all thoughts and ideas in shape just in time for surveys and for "my one (insert identity) friend is the spokesperson for her/his people and said...."

[MysticCat]

I'll try and do better, Dr. Phil.

#LeftOutBecauseDoesn'tGetInvitedToWeeklyMeetings

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'll try and do better, Dr. Phil.

#LeftOutBecauseDoesn'tGetInvitedToWeeklyMeetings

Are you on the mailing list?

For the people who believe "those people" are just being sensitive, nitpicky, and this is only about political correctness, if that was true this wouldn't be the case:
http://time.com/2894357/redskins-tra...n-interactive/

Most of the above companies and organizations are not headed by people who identify as American Indian or Native American.

The trademark is a separate issue. I am more interested in the larger issue and the audacity of comments from people like Kevin.

[DubaiSis]

I can't imagine any scenario where this naming situation is acceptable. Once upon a time? MAYBE. But to me there isn't even room for discussion on the subject. The football team in our nation's capital shouldn't be named a racial slur. It doesn't matter if 1 person 1% or 100% think it's important, find it offensive, find it historical, whatever. It's wrong and should be changed.

And there is a marketing bonanza there so I really don't understand the hold up. If they change the name, the logo, the colors, etc., all of their loyal fans (and there are a lot of them) will have to go out and buy all new lavender jerseys, coffee cups, bumper stickers, and everything else. Why lavender? Lavender - lily - lily livered - Congress.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

In simplest terms, the argument is "I wanna be a dick because I can make more money than by not being a dick." There's just no way you can morally justify this.

(Remember the time U of Illinois got rid of its mascot and it's whole image was destroy and students stopped applying to go there and alumni donations came to a screeching halt? Me neither.)

[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?

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

I can't imagine any scenario where this naming situation is acceptable. Once upon a time? MAYBE. But to me there isn't even room for discussion on the subject. The football team in our nation's capital shouldn't be named a racial slur. It doesn't matter if 1 person 1% or 100% think it's important, find it offensive, find it historical, whatever. It's wrong and should be changed.

And there is a marketing bonanza there so I really don't understand the hold up. If they change the name, the logo, the colors, etc., all of their loyal fans (and there are a lot of them) will have to go out and buy all new lavender jerseys, coffee cups, bumper stickers, and everything else. Why lavender? Lavender - lily - lily livered - Congress.

Acceptable and legal are two different things.

[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 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.