June 18, 201412 yr If you're one of the people standing up for a racial epithet like "Redskins", I really want you to take a self-examination and ask yourself why.Yeah, I think it is wonderful that an arm of the Federal Govt gets to decide that .......I guess if it was labeled "art", it would have been ok, LOL! Go ahead, polarize me as a bigot, or whatever you prefer.
June 18, 201412 yr Yeah, I think it is wonderful that an arm of the Federal Govt gets to decide that .......I guess if it was labeled "art", it would have been ok, LOL! Go ahead, polarize me as a bigot, or whatever you prefer. I'm not. I want to know why it's so important to guard something that a large number of people feels deliberately disparages their race. Are you personally invested in the name to such a degree that the fact that a group is asking them to change it is so horribly awful? Why does it matter to you? The federal government isn't forcing anyone to change a name. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.
June 18, 201412 yr Author Does anyone think the name Redskins was chosen as a sign of disrespect tor Native Americans originally or that in any was was the intent? I'm not defending or bashing the name, just asking.
June 18, 201412 yr I'm not. I want to know why it's so important to guard something that a large number of people feels deliberately disparages their race. Are you personally invested in the name to such a degree that the fact that a group is asking them to change it is so horribly awful? Why does it matter to you? The federal government isn't forcing anyone to change a name. Hasn't happened. Won't happen. Not defending the name by any means. I have ZERO problem with any group asking them to change the name. I have a HUGE problem with the Obama administration/patent office stripping anyone of private property. If enough folks decide that the name is unacceptable, then the name change would be forced by the power of the market.
June 18, 201412 yr Does anyone think the name Redskins was chosen as a sign of disrespect tor Native Americans originally or that in any was was the intent? I'm not defending or bashing the name, just asking. I don't think it was malicious. I think people just didn't care back then. Probably moreso than any other group in American history, that one was left without a voice for a long time.
June 18, 201412 yr Not defending the name by any means. I have ZERO problem with any group asking them to change the name. I have a HUGE problem with the Obama administration/patent office stripping anyone of private property. If enough folks decide that the name is unacceptable, then the name change would be forced by the power of the market. It's not a stripping of private property. It is refusing to further allow the team to utilize the very public benefit of a United States Trademark. They trademarked it and asked the United States government to protect them from anyone else using the name or the logo. If you want that protection, then you must abide by the rules of the trademark office. I practice bankruptcy law. I hear people complain all the time about the piles of documents I make them find for their case and about all the information the court requires when they file. You want the full protection of the United States courts, you abide by their demands. That's what's happening here. The patent office has found, for the second time, that the name and trademark are found to be racially disparaging to a large percentage of the people to whom the term applies. That's enough to prevent it from being trademarked. The team can keep using it all it wants, but it can't expect the government or the taxpayers of the United States to help them in continuing to do so.
June 18, 201412 yr Author I wonder why a team named something like this is found offensive and so many rail against it, but worse racial stereotypes are fine in Movies, TV and Music and no one says a thing.
June 18, 201412 yr It's not a stripping of private property. It is refusing to further allow the team to utilize the very public benefit of a United States Trademark. They trademarked it and asked the United States government to protect them from anyone else using the name or the logo. If you want that protection, then you must abide by the rules of the trademark office. I practice bankruptcy law. I hear people complain all the time about the piles of documents I make them find for their case and about all the information the court requires when they file. You want the full protection of the United States courts, you abide by their demands. That's what's happening here. The patent office has found, for the second time, that the name and trademark are found to be racially disparaging to a large percentage of the people to whom the term applies. That's enough to prevent it from being trademarked. The team can keep using it all it wants, but it can't expect the government or the taxpayers of the United States to help them in continuing to do so. I get all of that...............but, if that many folks were offended, the team would be playing to empty seats. Instead, many of those seats at home games are filled by DC politicians.........the same politicians that pretend to be offended.
June 18, 201412 yr I get all of that...............but, if that many folks were offended, the team would be playing to empty seats. Instead, many of those seats at home games are filled by DC politicians.........the same politicians that pretend to be offended. The people who are offended don't live in D.C., they live on the little corners of western states we corralled them into in the 19th century. That's who gets to decide this. The trademark office can only find something "racially disparaging" in order to prevent a trademark from being approved if a "significant number" (a term up to much interpretation, but settled on over 30%) of the peoples to which the term applies find such a term disparaging. The percentage of the overall population who may or may not find it disparaging is of no consequence to the trademark office.
June 18, 201412 yr The people who are offended don't live in D.C., they live on the little corners of western states we corralled them into in the 19th century. That's who gets to decide this. The trademark office can only find something "racially disparaging" in order to prevent a trademark from being approved if a "significant number" (a term up to much interpretation, but settled on over 30%) of the peoples to which the term applies find such a term disparaging. The percentage of the overall population who may or may not find it disparaging is of no consequence to the trademark office. Thanks for the info, the 30% number is interesting for sure.
June 18, 201412 yr Washington Land Robbers Washington Treaty Breakers "Their defense will cover you like a smallpox infected blanket."
June 18, 201412 yr It's not a stripping of private property. It is refusing to further allow the team to utilize the very public benefit of a United States Trademark. They trademarked it and asked the United States government to protect them from anyone else using the name or the logo. If you want that protection, then you must abide by the rules of the trademark office. I practice bankruptcy law. I hear people complain all the time about the piles of documents I make them find for their case and about all the information the court requires when they file. You want the full protection of the United States courts, you abide by their demands. That's what's happening here. The patent office has found, for the second time, that the name and trademark are found to be racially disparaging to a large percentage of the people to whom the term applies. That's enough to prevent it from being trademarked. The team can keep using it all it wants, but it can't expect the government or the taxpayers of the United States to help them in continuing to do so. On top of that it seems to be well within the powers of the Patent and Trademark Office to not issue a trademark to a racially disparaging term. I know there are people out there that break their backs defending the name as not being racially disparaging, but it seems most defenses of it comes down its longevity, which I don't think is very much of a defense - it was certainly much easier to be, as in outright accepted, to be racially disparaging in earlier times. The absurdity is if Snyder wanted to change the name to the "Washington Darkies" with Uncle Remus as the mascot, or the "Washington Nickel Noses" with a mascot of a rabbi holding bags of money, everyone would rightly be aghast, and doubly so at people suggesting those names are positive or meant to honor their subjects.
June 18, 201412 yr Forgot to mention that right or wrong, I do not consider "redskin" an offensive term. Seriously?
June 18, 201412 yr Author Guys lets discuss possible new names in this thread and the lawsuit or reasoning for change in this one http://bluegrasspreps.com/national-football-league/us-trademark-office-279473.html
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.