'Redskins' stripped of trademarks

[Golden Taters]

Roosters or Redskins?

 

[ram29jackson]

now this obsessive idiot chick is going after the Chiefs. All teams need to change their name because she was insulted by a couple drunks years ago at a chiefs game.

Just like every unprepared indian before here, she is trying to take bow and arrows to a gun fight. The NFL wont let their brand be destroyed by an obsessive idiot

 

[Aso]

now this obsessive idiot chick is going after the Chiefs. All teams need to change their name because she was insulted by a couple drunks years ago at a chiefs game.

Just like every unprepared indian before here, she is trying to take bow and arrows to a gun fight. The NFL wont let their brand be destroyed by an obsessive idiot

I'm almost glad she's going after the Chiefs. Maybe people will realize how ridiculous this whole thing is once half of all sports logos/names are criticized as being racist.

 

[ram29jackson]

this is from October and has 26 views. Why aren't a there a few thousand views with angry liberal comments disputing his claim ?

and this is good
[video]http://wtvr.com/2014/06/27/protesting-washington-redskins-name/[/video]

 

[x0xHumblex0x]

 

[ram29jackson]

The government decided that ‘Redskins’ bothers you

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...9558a6-fd54-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html

Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo who successfully moved a federal agency to withdraw trademark protections from the Washington Redskins because it considers the team’s name derogatory, lives on a reservation where Navajos root for the Red Mesa High School Redskins. She opposes this name; the Native Americans who picked and retain it evidently do not.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted on a 1946 law banning trademarks that “may disparage” persons. “May” gives the agency latitude to disregard evidence regarding how many people actually feel disparaged or feel that others should feel disparaged. Blackhorse speaks of “the majority of Native American people who have spoken out on this.” This would seem implausible even if a 2004 poll had not found that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the Redskins’ name. A 2013 AP-GfK poll showed that 79 percent of Americans of all ethnicities opposed changing it, and just 18 percent of “nonwhite football fans” favored changing it.

The federal agency acted in the absence of general or Native American revulsion about “Redskins,” and probably because of this absence. Are the Americans who are paying attention to this controversy comfortable with government saying, in effect, that if people are not offended, they should be, so government must decide what uses of language should be punished?

In today’s regulatory state, agencies often do pretty much as they please, exercising discretion unconstrained by law.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley notes that in 2004 the Federal Election Commission held that the anti-George W. Bush movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” did not need to be regulated as an “electioneering communication” but in 2008 held that the hostile “Hillary: The Movie” was such a communication. In the regulatory state, the rule of law is the rule that law barely limits regulators’ discretion.






Although the death penalty clearly was not considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment when the Eighth Amendment proscription of such punishments was adopted, perhaps society’s “evolving standards of decency” have brought this punishment under the proscription. Standards of decency do evolve: No sports team launched today would select the name “Redskins.” Although Thomas Sowell is correct that “some people are in the business of being offended, just as Campbell is in the business of making soup,” the fact that some people are professionally indignant does not mean offense may be given promiscuously to others.

She says “someone” once told her that teams’ mascots “are meant to be ridiculed,” “to be toyed with,” “to be pushed around and disrespected” and “have stuff thrown at them.” She should supplement the opinion of that someone with information from persons more knowledgeable. But she considers “any team name that references Native Americans” an injurious “appropriation of our culture.” Has an “appropriation” been committed by the University of Utah and Florida State University even though they have the approval of the respective tribes for their teams’ nicknames, the Utes and Seminoles?

William Voegeli, a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books, writes that the kerfuffle over an NFL team’s name involves serious matters. They include comity in a diverse nation, civil discourse, and “not only how we make decisions, but how we decide what needs to be decided, and who will do the deciding.”

When two Oregon bakers chose, for religious reasons, not to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, an Oregon government official explained why tolerance meant coercing the bakers: “The goal is to rehabilitate.” Tolerance required declaring the bakers’ beliefs and practices intolerable. We are going to discover whether a society can be congenial while its government is being coercive regarding wedding cakes and team names.

 

[ram29jackson]

http://www.moneynews.com/NealAsbury/patent-trademark-Redskins-property/2014/06/26/id/579472/

An Attack on Intellectual Property Is an Attack on US Business

What powerful force caused the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to revoke the trademark of the Washington Redskins? A lawsuit brought by five American Indians who contend the name disparages them.

Currently, there are 600 trademarks that carry an American Indian image. These are held by 450 companies. Is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office going after all of these? Are these five American Indians going to be spending the rest of their lives in court?

This case could start an avalanche of attacks on intellectual property. I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers representing the Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben's brands are huddling late in the night in the event some black Americans decide to bring suit over their brand's depiction of black Americans. I want to be clear that America should never denigrate any group of people. But if people feel slighted and maligned, this should be settled in the courts, not mandated by the U.S. government.

As a nation we cannot take the value of intellectual property lightly.

 

[ram29jackson]

http://fansided.com/2014/05/22/nfl-responds-u-s-senators-call-remove-redskins-name/#!5AIpQ

 

[ram29jackson]

http://www.cullmantimes.com/localsp...ashington-coach-Gibbs-considers-name-prideful

SPARTA, Ky. — Count former Washington Redskins coach Joe Gibbs among those who has no problem with the team's name.

The NFL team that Gibbs led to three Super Bowl titles in the first of two stints as coach has been heavily criticized for its nickname that's viewed as derogatory toward Native Americans. A group of U.S. senators and President Barack Obama have suggested it should be changed, which team owner Daniel Snyder vehemently refuses.

Asked about the controversy before the NASCAR race Saturday at Kentucky Speedway, the Hall of Fame coach and racing team owner defended the Redskins name.

"Never once did I hear anybody ever say anything negative about the name Redskins," Gibbs said about his time with the team. "It was always prideful, it was courage involved. We have a song, 'Hail to the Redskins," and so everything, everything, about that name has been positive for me and my past."

Growing up in North Carolina, Gibbs said the Redskins were the only NFL team on TV and that he "pulled for them my whole life" and said he never dreamed of coaching them from 1981-92 and again from 2004-07.

Washington won Super Bowls in the 1982, 1987 and 1991 seasons. Gibbs also became a NASCAR team owner during that period and has gone on to win three Sprint Cup titles as well as the 1993 Daytona 500.

 

[ram29jackson]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ericans-who-voted-for-the-fighting-sioux.html

The University of North Dakota was forced by the NCAA to change its nickname, but unlike the Washington Redskins today, a tribe wanted to keep it.

There is a lot of pressure on the owner of the Washington Redskins, Dan Snyder, to change the name of his National Football League franchise to something that isn’t considered a racial slur. Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office said the Redskins name and logo should not have trademark protection. Snyder has steadfastly refused to even consider a name change. It is a good thing for Snyder that he has an NFL franchise and is not running a college athletic program. The chances are Snyder would have had to rebranded the athletic program by now.


The NFL has not taken the road that the National Collegiate Athletic Association traveled in 2005. The college sports governing body came down hard on schools who used what it thought were slurs against Native Americans and American Indians.

In August 2005, the NCAA decided that 19 schools had names or mascots that were “hostile or abusive” and that the offensive names, logos and mascots had to be gone by February 1, 2006 or the schools would face sanctions that included not being able to host postseason championship events in all sports and the barring of the use of the team name and logos during postseason tournaments. Additionally, colleges could choose to not schedule games against schools with names, logos and mascots deemed offensive to Native Americans. The schools were given a choice change the name and the associated logos or go to local Native American or Indian tribes and see if you can get approval to continue using names and logos and mascots.

Florida State’s use of Seminoles as a nickname was no problem and the Seminole tribe told the school to go ahead and use it. But there was a serious concern in North Dakota. The University of North Dakota sued the NCAA claiming the school’s athletic nickname, The Fighting Sioux, was not offensive.

But there is some question as to whether North Dakota’s two Sioux tribes gave approval to the university in 1969 to change the school’s nickname from the Sioux to the Fighting Sioux. It seems both tribes supported the name change in religious ceremonies.

By 2008, the NCAA and the University of North Dakota settled the lawsuit with the school, agreeing to retire The Fighting Sioux name unless it received approval from both the Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes by the end of 2010. The university got half a loaf: Spirit Lake affirmed the name in a two-to-one vote, but Standing Rock (which had for years demanded that the name be banished to history books) said no. A non-Sioux nation in the state, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, also said no.

In 2011, the North Dakota Board of Higher Education decided to get rid of the nickname and logo after the NCAA proposed sanctions against the school.

It would seem that the Washington and North Dakota situations are similar but according to Peter Johnson, the executive associate vice president for the University (of North Dakota) relations, they’re quite different.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Those types of articles do nothing for the bleeding hearts ram, you should know this by now.

 

[ram29jackson]

Those types of articles do nothing for the bleeding hearts ram, you should know this by now.

but those articles outnumber any of their minority arguments. Blackhorse took too long with a lame plan of attack and now evidence and common sense is piling on against here and that other guy

 

[ThomasTomasz]

but those articles outnumber any of their minority arguments. Blackhorse took too long with a lame plan of attack and now evidence and common sense is piling on against here and that other guy

I agree 110% with you, just the bleeding hearts like to ignore that kind of argument. Just like most ignored my point about the high school on a reservation out in Arizona is called the Redskins.

 

[ram29jackson]

check out the video in link LOL

http://www.kpho.com/story/25873907/woman-at-center-of-redskins-name-change-court-battle-from-Arizona

another hilarious time filler sorry news story with no important facts or support and not but a couple minutes long

 

[Diivox]

people who deny that the name is racist remind me of the people who say blackface isn't racist:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-netherlands-has-decided-traditional-black-face-is-racist

 

[buckeye]

Native Americans use the term and embrace it themselves... Kinda hard to say they are being discriminated against with that withstanding.

It's a political crusade in it's most blatant form. Politicians preying on liberal bleeding hearts...

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[ram29jackson]

people who deny that the name is racist remind me of the people who say blackface isn't racist:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-netherlands-has-decided-traditional-black-face-is-racist

how does mimicking something qualify as racist ? it simply doesnt

 

[Aso]

how does mimicking something qualify as racist ? it simply doesnt

Well it perpetuates racist stereotypes.

But I don't see how you can even compare black face and redskin. Not even close to the same.

 

[x0xHumblex0x]

should not watch if you believe the Washington Redskins name is racist!!

 

[ram29jackson]

Well it perpetuates racist stereotypes.

But I don't see how you can even compare black face and redskin. Not even close to the same.

it doesn't perpetuate anything. Mimicking a stereotype does that and only that. Stupid people use it as motivation. IE the stupid Blackhorse lady tries to say its racist when it isn't. After this she would need to go after every comedian who ever did a routine in history. Nigger isn't even a bad word anymore. Its been abused as a comedy routine the last 20 years and more even