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

[isukgolf]

As a forum admin for another forum (not golf related), sometimes a thread just reaches a (un)logical end ...  people will make statements online they would never in a face-to-face ... I do not see this one ending well at the moment ...

Therefore, I am out     (stolen from the shark tank)

[David in FL]

Good idea, and I apologize to anyone I might have offended. Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

Except now the discussion has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather the economic impact to a private organization due entirely to manipulation by the federal government..... Scary stuff.

[Lihu]

Except now the discussion has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather the economic impact to a private organization due entirely to manipulation by the federal government.....

Scary stuff.

You have that special knack of making such seemingly innocent things sound so scary. Don't abuse it.

[dsc123]

Except now the discussion has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather the economic impact to a private organization due entirely to manipulation by the federal government..... Scary stuff.

Are you referring to the granting of federal trademark protection (I.e. prohibiting private entities from using the phrase) or cancelling it (I.e. letting anyone use the phrase)?

[Lihu]

Are you referring to the granting of federal trademark protection (I.e. prohibiting private entities from using the phrase) or cancelling it (I.e. letting anyone use the phrase)?

We just fought off a knockoff company and shut down their booth at a trade show, because we filed a patent and they infringed upon it. The PTO works for a party who is entitled to protection under the patent and trademark system, but in this case, they deemed a trademark unsuitable for protection under "Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute." As noted in the link posted by you @dsc123 .

It seems like this whole thing started with the SuperBowl victory in 1988.

"National protests began in 1988, after the team's Super Bowl XXII victory. Numerous Native Americans wrote letters to Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke encouraging him to change the name. Others boycotted Redskins products and protested. Many of these events were led by Suzan Shown Harjo of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Cooke responded in an interview, stating, "There's not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world that the Redskins will adopt a new nickname." ^[50]

This sounds familiar, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

I feel like the root of the problem is that there is a serious rift in cultural points of view. I feel bad for all parties involved, except the owner who stands to make lots of money either way.

[David in FL]

Are you referring to the granting of federal trademark protection (I.e. prohibiting private entities from using the phrase) or cancelling it (I.e. letting anyone use the phrase)?

Surely you understand the difference between the former and latter..... ...but more importantly, the inappropriateness of canceling the trademark solely as a means of extortion to encourage the team to be renamed.

[Golfingdad]

I don't see many people walking around in Redskins shirts ...

Taking us off on another tangent here, but this comment got me wondering too.  Way over here out west, you can imagine that there aren't a huge percentage of Redskins fans, and I can , in fact, only think of one.  A guy in my bowling league.  But all he ever wears is a shirt with the logo, not the name.

If this goes to its logical (albeit eventual, and slow) conclusion of getting rid of the name, I wonder if the logo will soon follow?  That is, of course, assuming they keep some form of Indian name.  The Washington Powhatans, perhaps?  ;)

[Shindig]

Now the trademark has lost it's protection under the law, does it make sense for the organization to retain the name? What percentage of their revenue is from merchandising?

I wonder what percentage of their merchandise has only that as far as trademarks go; for example, the shirts tend to have the NFL shield, which didn't lose that protection. Anyone distributing "allowable knock-offs" (for lack of a better term) still can't use the shield. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/70604/political-correctness-how-far-should-it-go-should-the-washington-redskins-change-their-name/306#post_1007722"]If this goes to its logical (albeit eventual, and slow) conclusion of getting rid of the name, I wonder if the logo will soon follow?  That is, of course, assuming they keep some form of Indian name.  The Washington Powhatans, perhaps?  ;) [/quote] There are some who have suggested keeping the name, and changing the mascot to a certain potato. I don't know if this (the potato thing) was a serious suggestion or how it would be received if it were to happen.

[dsc123]

Surely you understand the difference between the former and latter..... ...but more importantly, the inappropriateness of canceling the trademark solely as a means of extortion to encourage the team to be renamed.

Of course I understand the difference-my post explained the difference. I asked because I thought it was odd to complain about government manipulation when in reality, the decision was to stop interfering. But i dont see any reason to believe the sole purpose of the decision was to encourage them to change the name. There is a 100 page decision explaining how the case got there and the arguments of both sides and the PTOs analysis of the evidence and law. The case was filed, probably years ago, by a group of native Americans. It is the PTOs job to make a decision. So the case obviously does not exist because of some 'inappropriate' action by the government. If you believe that the PTO, while deciding the case that it was obligated to decide, based it's decision 'soley' on its desire (or pressure from obama) to see the team renamed, I'm curious as to why you would think that. If the decision didn't make any sense, then I might suspect that the 'sole' reason was something sinister. I didnt read it carefully, but going through it quickly, it seemed like a reasonable and we'll thought out decision. Did you read it and find holes in the logic? there is a law that prohibits federal protection of derogatory trademarks, why would you assume that had nothing to do with the decision?

[inthehole]

political correctness FTL.   I hope they grow a backbone & keep the name

[boogielicious]

Except now the discussion has nothing to do with political correctness, but rather the economic impact to a private organization due entirely to manipulation by the federal government.....

Scary stuff.

This isn't new @David in FL .  Examples: EPA regulations, FDA regulations, Eminent Domain, SEC and Banking Regulations, Wall Street Bailouts, Farm subsidies, tax breaks for oil companies, defense contractors, CDC.  Pet pork projects that every senator and congressman do for there state and district.  All of the above are manipulations by the Federal Government that impact private organizations.

And why do they happen?  It is a balance between what is good for the total population vs. the individual.  As individuals, we all want to reduce Government control of ourselves, lower taxes, freedom to do and say as we chose.  As a collective, we want to have some control to keep other individuals from harming us in some way, whether physically or economically.

That is why it is good to have both liberal and conservative views impact what the Federal Government does.  One side alone would create imbalance.  It is painful for all of us to go through this process.  But in the end it is the best result and the reason why the US has been working under the same Constitution for 238 years.

[Lihu]

political correctness FTL.   I hope they grow a backbone & keep the name

I'm not sure the owners are lacking any backbone. However, it seems like this is not a PC issue, but in direct contention with individuals who in this order asked the owners if the name could be changed, when that didn't work pleaded to change the name, when that didn't work picketed and boycotted to change the name, when that didn't work went to the courts to change the name, when that didn't work went to our government to ask them to have them see if there is anything that could be done. Over 600,000 citizens of the United States are desparate enough to work this hard for over 30 years to change it. It's not like the owners are in the Alamo fighting against all odds for their personal freedom or anything. It seems like they are bullies who have been told by the schoolmaster to cease what they are doing, then resisting the authority and stating that their freedoms are being taken away. I don't see the parallel here about them fighting for their rights as citizens while suppressing those of a relatively silent minority. That's not lacking backbone, they just sound like bullies who refuse to change what they are doing.

[caniac6]

I don't know if the phrase political correcetness applies, or this is purely correctness. I heard the origin of the name was to honor the coach who was a native American. Suppose they wanted to honor the current owner, and used a derogatory name for Jewish people? What if they wanted to honor the large African American population in DC, and used a derogatory name for black people? Why is a derogatory name for Native Americans any different? I have been a Redskins fan since the mid 60s, but now it is time for the owner to grow a backbone, and do the right thing.

[Abu3baid]

I don't know if the phrase political correcetness applies, or this is purely correctness. I heard the origin of the name was to honor the coach who was a native American. Suppose they wanted to honor the current owner, and used a derogatory name for Jewish people? What if they wanted to honor the large African American population in DC, and used a derogatory name for black people? Why is a derogatory name for Native Americans any different? I have been a Redskins fan since the mid 60s, but now it is time for the owner to grow a backbone, and do the right thing.

Your point is well taken, but when exactly did you start believing the owner should do the right thing by changing the name?

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by caniac6

I don't know if the phrase political correcetness applies, or this is purely correctness. I heard the origin of the name was to honor the coach who was a native American. Suppose they wanted to honor the current owner, and used a derogatory name for Jewish people? What if they wanted to honor the large African American population in DC, and used a derogatory name for black people? Why is a derogatory name for Native Americans any different? I have been a Redskins fan since the mid 60s, but now it is time for the owner to grow a backbone, and do the right thing.

Interesting point about the Coach--I had never heard that.  Here's what wikipedia says about that:

Quote:

Dietz's Indian heritage was first contested in 1916 after former neighbors who settled on the Pacific Coast heard he was posing as an Indian. In December 1918 the Federal Bureau of Investigation looked into his heritage after he fraudulently registered for the draft as a "Non-Citizen Indian" with an allotment. The Bureau found he had taken on the identity of James One Star, an Oglala man of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 12 years his senior who had disappeared in 1894. Dietz also falsely claimed he was the head of an American film company that produced propaganda films for the war.

Dietz divorced De Cora in November 1918, charging her with abandonment. It is not clear how much she knew about his true identity. She died six days after his indictment.

Dietz was tried in Spokane, Washington in June of 1919 for the first offense. One Star's sister, Sallie Eaglehorse, testified after seeing him for the first time at the trial that Dietz was definitely not her brother. Still, the judge instructed the jury to determine whether Dietz "believed" he was an Indian, not whether it was true. Despite that others had witnessed his birth in the summer of 1884 or had seen him the following day, Dietz's mother Leanna claimed he was the Indian son of her husband who had been switched a week or more after she had a stillbirth. Dietz's acting ability along with his mother's fallacious testimony (to protect him from prison) resulted in a hung jury, but Dietz was immediately re-indicted. The second trial resulted in a sentence of 30 days in the Spokane County Jail after he pleaded "no contest". ^[8]

[Lihu]

Interesting point about the Coach--I had never heard that.  Here's what wikipedia says about that:

This sounds a bit like a western.

The part about his wife dying 6 days after he accused her for abandonment is very curious.

[dsc123]

I don't know if the phrase political correcetness applies, or this is purely correctness. I heard the origin of the name was to honor the coach who was a native American. Suppose they wanted to honor the current owner, and used a derogatory name for Jewish people? What if they wanted to honor the large African American population in DC, and used a derogatory name for black people? Why is a derogatory name for Native Americans any different? I have been a Redskins fan since the mid 60s, but now it is time for the owner to grow a backbone, and do the right thing.

Another interesting part of this is that, according to the Redskin's trademark attorney, it comes down to whether, at the time the trademark was issued, enough people believed the word was disparaging.  So legally speaking, the current opinions about the word don't matter--if the Redskins' attorney accurately represented the law (it could be a constested issue).  He also said that there really isn't a standard as to how many people must find it disparaging (similar to our conversations here) and that there is really no evidence about what people thought in 1962-1992 (I think a series of trademarks are at issue and that's the general time frame).

Whether the Redskins should change their name, of course, is an entirely different issue, independent of the law.

[caniac6]

I guess my view has evolved over time. The Civil Rights museum is in Greensboro, NC, about 30 minutes away, abd visiting it is a real eye opening experience. You really learn that all people should be treated with dignity. I feel now, that if a group of people think something is offensive, than it is. I really don't care about pollitical correctness, but I really don't want to hurt anyones feelings. We go to Asheville, NC quite a bit, and there are a lot of Cherokees in the area. In the past, I would never wear any Redskins stuff when we visited. I guess if I was afraid I might offend someone, then mabye the name needs to be changed.