or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name? - Page 15

Poll Results: Should the owners of the Redskins, Blackhawks, Indians be forced to change their teams name?

 
  • 40% (24)
    Yes, it's insensitive to American Indians
  • 42% (25)
    No, it's a non-issue
  • 16% (10)
    Who cares, this is a golf forum
59 Total Votes  
post #253 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

At the risk of starting a furor, heard an update on this, post-commercial that I thought I'd pass along.

Al Michaels asked Snyder about his reaction to the commercial. Snyder responded, "I will never change the name, ever. It will happen over my dead body." Close to the exact quote but paraphrased a little cuz I'm transcribing from a radio report I just heard. He sounds pretty dug in.

Be careful what you wish for Danny.

post #254 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunther View Post

At the risk of starting a furor, heard an update on this, post-commercial that I thought I'd pass along.

Al Michaels asked Snyder about his reaction to the commercial. Snyder responded, "I will never change the name, ever. It will happen over my dead body." Close to the exact quote but paraphrased a little cuz I'm transcribing from a radio report I just heard. He sounds pretty dug in.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

 

Because Dan Snyder is stubborn, and thinks he's right.

 

 

:dance:

post #255 of 324

The PTO cancelled the Redskins' trademark this morning.

 

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199

post #256 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post
 

The PTO cancelled the Redskins' trademark this morning.

 

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199

 

Beat me by 37 seconds lol

post #257 of 324

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/redskins/2014/06/18/redskins-trademark-revoked-us-patent-office/10735053/

 

Quote:

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled six trademark registrations owned by the Washington NFL club today, ruling that the term "Redskins" was disparaging to "a substantial composite" of American Indians when the marks were granted between 1967 and 1990.

 

The Washington team can appeal and retain its federal trademark rights in the meantime. And even if the club loses on appeal, it can continue to use the name, as it has for more than 80 years. But without trademark protection, others could potentially use the team's name and logos to sell merchandise with impunity, although owners of unregistered marks can still try to protect them through state statutes or common law.

post #258 of 324

Good grief.  Our government at work.....

post #259 of 324

Its a long opinion and I've only skimmed it, but here are some money quotes

 

From the findings of fact:

 

Quote:

1. The word REDSKIN on its face is and always has been a racial designation.


3. The word REDSKIN on its face refers to the real or imagined skin color of Native Americans.

 

4. Racial slurs often refer to real or imagined physical differences.

 

5. Dictionary usage labels signal that a word is not part of standard vocabulary.

 

6. Before 1966 no dictionary in this record included a usage label for the term 
REDSKIN.


7. Beginning in 1966 and continuing to 1990, usage labels in dictionaries indicating 
the term REDSKIN to be offensive, disparaging, contemptuous or not preferred, 
first appear and then grow in number.

 

8. From 1983 on, all dictionary entries in the Barnhart report include a usage label 
indicating the term is offensive, disparaging, contemptuous or not preferred.


10. The record shows that NCAI began advocating against use of respondent’s name 
REDSKINS, in the 1960’s.


11. The advocacy organization American Indian Movement (AIM) was founded in 
1968 and its effort to rid sports teams of Indian names, including respondent’s 
name REDSKINS, has been ongoing for decades.

 

13. From the mid-1960’s to 1996, the word ‘redskin(s)’ has dropped out of written 
and most spoken language as a reference to Native Americans.185 

 

15. The usage labels appear and the use of the word redskin(s) disappears because 
it is increasingly recognized that the term is offensive and disparaging during the 
relevant time period as Native Americans raise awareness about the offensive 
nature of the term redskin(s).

 

26. In 1996, 206 tribes were NCAI members.

 

On January 18-19, 1993 NCAI passed resolution 93-11 which reads in pertinent 
part: 

[T]he term REDSKINS is not and has never been one of 
honor or respect, but instead, it has always been and 
continues to be a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, 
offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, 
disparaging and racist designation for Native American’s 
[sic]

 

 

From the conclusion:

 

Quote:
 The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of 
Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s 
services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990.\
 
...........
 
Thirty percent is 
without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is 
acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this 
case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990.2
 
..................
 
Respondent has introduced evidence that some in the Native American 
community do not find the term “Redskin” disparaging when it is used in connection 
with professional football. While this may reveal differing opinions within the 
community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparaging. The 
ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial 
composite of the Native American population found the term “Redskins” to be 
disparaging when the respective registrations issued. Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 
at 1077. Therefore, once a substantial composite has been found, the mere 
existence of differing opinions cannot change the conclusion.
 
In view of the above, petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the 
evidence that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term 
REDSKINS to be disparaging in connection with respondent’s services during the 
relevant time frame of 1967-1990. Accordingly, the six registrations must be 
cancelled as required under Sections 2(a) and 14(3) of the Trademark Act.

 

 

Talking about this with a friend, I found his point about the "PC Police" to be both interesting, and funny.  Here's what he said:

 

Quote:

And I loathe the term "PC".  Today, it's only used to disparage the notion that you shouldn't be an a****** when you speak.

 
Not calling Native Americans "Redskins" isn't "PC".  It's common f*****decency. 
 
The other point about anti-PC that annoys me is that when language is modified to suit some group of people, is it such a f******burden to alter your vocabulary.  Disabled?  F***that!  I called me cripples in 1967, and I'm calling them cripples today.
 
Why would anyone think that his desire to keep using a word trumps the dignity of the group that is insulted by that word?

 

post #260 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

Good grief.  Our government at work.....

Sad that our government has nothing else better to do.  That aside, it was a pretty ingenious way to force Snyder's hand.  Without the trademark, anyone can produce counterfeit Redskins products and compete for consumer dollars.

post #261 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

Sad that our government has nothing else better to do.  That aside, it was a pretty ingenious way to force Snyder's hand.  Without the trademark, anyone can produce counterfeit Redskins products and compete for consumer dollars.


It is pretty ingenious.

post #262 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

The Washington team can appeal and retain its federal trademark rights in the meantime. And even if the club loses on appeal, it can continue to use the name, as it has for more than 80 years. But without trademark protection, others could potentially use the team's name and logos to sell merchandise with impunity, although owners of unregistered marks can still try to protect them through state statutes or common law.

 

But of course that won't happen.  This is, after all, all about money for Dan Synder.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

Good grief.  Our government at work.....

 

lol.  Would you prefer that our government spend time making sure that nobody but Dan Snyder can use this racist term for profit?  

post #263 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Good grief.  Our government at work.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Sad that our government has nothing else better to do.  That aside, it was a pretty ingenious way to force Snyder's hand.  Without the trademark, anyone can produce counterfeit Redskins products and compete for consumer dollars.
Not quite sure I understand the cynicism and negativity. We're talking about the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ... What the heck else are they supposed to be doing?!?!?
post #264 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsc123 View Post

But of course that won't happen.  This is, after all, all about money for Dan Synder.


lol.  Would you prefer that our government spend time making sure that nobody but Dan Snyder can use this racist term for profit?  
I'd prefer our gov't spend time on:

1. Securing our southern border from the invasion that's occurring.
2. Strategize a plan to destroy ISIS
3. Do something about getting people back to work.
4. Get to the bottom of the corruption that is the IRS
5. Fix the VA health system
6. Fix the abortion that is obamacare
7. Balance the budget and begin putting a dent in the $17 trillion deficit

That's just for starters. There may be 500 other things more critical than the name of a sports team.
post #265 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post



Not quite sure I understand the cynicism and negativity. We're talking about the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ... What the heck else are they supposed to be doing?!?!?

It's clear there was an agenda here driven from the oval office, unless you believe it's pure coincidence.

post #266 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

It's clear there was an agenda here driven from the oval office, unless you believe it's pure coincidence.

 

Well, there was an actual case filed by actual people....

 

But yeah, executive agencies are sometimes influenced by the opinions of the guy in charge of the executive branch.....

 

I half expect people to just start randomly shouting "BENGHAZI!" on this thread soon....

post #267 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

It's clear there was an agenda here driven from the oval office, unless you believe it's pure coincidence.
Lol ... I would like to think there is a little wiggle room in between "pure coincidence" and "full blown president led conspiracy" but even if there wasn't is it so bad if somebody gives a nudge to do the right thing??
post #268 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

It's clear there was an agenda here driven from the oval office, unless you believe it's pure coincidence.
Of course, which is why the senate wasted time on it which led to the patent office wasting time on it. Priorities in this administration are so screwed up it just boggles the mind.
post #269 of 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post



Not quite sure I understand the cynicism and negativity. We're talking about the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ... What the heck else are they supposed to be doing?!?!?

 

Government is supposed to be there to protect the rights of people who otherwise could not do so.

post #270 of 324
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


Lol ... I would like to think there is a little wiggle room in between "pure coincidence" and "full blown president led conspiracy" but even if there wasn't is it so bad if somebody gives a nudge to do the right thing??

No, I just could come up with 5 - 10 other issues off the top of my head that are more critical for our leaders to be focused on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Grill Room
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › The Grill Room › Political Correctness - How Far Should it Go? Should the Washington Redskins change their name?