apples, probably
Redskins
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
~Somebody finally said the G word~
Since when were we coerced to do something we don't want to do, or we'll be shunned out of our livelihoods..
Oh yeah, since government!
That's not what freedom is supposed to be about, nobody has the right to threaten somebody for something that isn't illegal, and that includes the government.
Who do you think creates the exclusivity in the first place?
drbrumley
Well-known member
Oh Lord, here comes the "we the people" charade.
In this case, I'm referring to the government and the law in general. If we're gonna be banging on the freedom drum, we should consider the implications of the government granting exclusive use of a name.
Yep. There's no other term to describe the loss.
Christ's Word
New member
Yes and one gay person.
One professed. Right. You must travel in different circles. And given I speak to the law and not as an advocate of or someone having a particular expertise on homosexuality or the homosexual community that want of exposure isn't really germane.
As to the reflection I saw of Res I note in your post, if he's speaking about Native Americans, anecdotal information isn't how you come by a rule, though I once worked closely with the Creek Nation when I was handling domestic violence cases. And so I linked to an article about the efforts being made by many Native Americans to change the attitude of people about the name in question.
As to who is behind the suit, the earnestly mistaken notion of a few here notwithstanding, the defeat of the Washington Redskins patent was supported by the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes. Also by the National Congress of American Indians.
Lon
Well-known member
Understood. It wasn't doubted. My contest is that it isn't offensive, despite the suit. Perhaps being multicolored/facetted I'm less offended. They have had the name since the 1930's. A suit was only brought 40 years later and it took nearly a century to get a favorable court decision? :think: I still say my redskin is thicker than some with full-blood. My grandma was half. I'm not that far from the tree. Great-Great Grandma was full (and native royalty). IMHO, "These aren't the droids we were looking for. Move along. Move along." And again, however, it is hindsight that the team owner didn't think to get Natives into ownership/merchandizing/involvement. That was a huge oversight.
Just wanted it on the record and that was aimed at a few who were trying to intimate I was resting on personal association, which I wasn't.
It may not be, to you. Merriam Webster and a good many Native Americans take exception. And the commissioner of the NFL has all but said that offending any of them so needlessly invites a serious discussion on the point within it. The court reviewing the complaint certainly agreed.
Did you grow up on a reservation? Are you obviously of Native American descent? That is, would most people guess the particular truth of your Native American ancestry? Given what you related of your blood I'm guessing both answers are going to be no.
How long did it take emancipated slaves to get voting rights?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Lon
Well-known member
And why would I care what you think passes for stupid to you or not? I could give a care less. I 'thought' I made that obvious. I'm going to start a "Cracker" Barrel lawsuit that goes into effect 90 years from now. I expect you to sign that 'stupid' petition. I don't care if someone is offended by "Cracker" Barrel or not. I just feel like being frivolous with white-natives $ and time. Eventually I'll get 10% riled up enough to forget the term was likely started by a "Cracker" himself. I'm just power hungry, not really having my feelings hurt at all....
And??? Is that supposed to bother me? First of all, no it most certainly is not. Washington D.C. wasn't 'shooting' for derogatory but just the opposite: Complimentary. I don't give a crap if you have a problem with a compliment. That's your problem (or at least should be).
Don't care. Your opinion doesn't matter to me a whit and this is all this is. You don't register on my important people to listen to or pay attention to list. Sorry, fact.
I don't care who makes frivolous lawsuits, they bother me. This one isn't worth the time or ink.
I am literally a Washington (state) redskin. This doesn't offend me. I'm proud to be what I am.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
On one? No. Close to one? Yes (they are a bit convoluted in this area and we are on each other's properties, one of my friends rented from a native and natives have rented from non-natives).
Yes. My aunt looks half, my mother looks to have about the quarter she is. I've been asked before. Full-blooded tell me its easy to see, been called 'geronimo' etc.
Er, I'm not following the equivocation. :nono:
Dibs on "dollar"
Many years ago Muhammad Ali was being interviewed by (I think) Johnnie Carson.
He commented on labeling can be construed as racist. His example was cake. "What is white cake called? Angelfood! What is chocolate cake called? Devilsfood!"
He chuckled as he made these statements and he was a good sport about it but, it gave me pause....
Desert Reign has either amnesia or something worse...
Wrong, you half-baked doofus. I addressed the topic. What you did, in turn, was lecture me about my leaving Christianity--which came out of nowhere and had nothing whatsoever to do with what's being discussed. You got self-righteous and veered completely off topic, which frankly is a waste of my time.
And you're doing it again, which makes me think you've got zero to offer this thread.
Wrong, you half-baked doofus. I addressed the topic. What you did, in turn, was lecture me about my leaving Christianity--which came out of nowhere and had nothing whatsoever to do with what's being discussed. You got self-righteous and veered completely off topic, which frankly is a waste of my time.
And you're doing it again, which makes me think you've got zero to offer this thread.
Back on topic:
Maybe this entire kerfuffle is a microcosm of the all-American inability to ever admit a mistake. When it comes to American Indians we've got a ghastly, hideous track record. That they're one of very few minorities left that's an acceptable target is unfortunate but maybe not surprising.
To reduce an entire people to nothing but the color of their skin is crude, ignorant, oafish, and offensive. That the same word was used to describe the corpses of these human folks to be redeemed for cash is simply macabre.
Defending the use of the word "redskin" in the name of defending "freedom" is laughable, and a bastardization of the truth.
Maybe this entire kerfuffle is a microcosm of the all-American inability to ever admit a mistake. When it comes to American Indians we've got a ghastly, hideous track record. That they're one of very few minorities left that's an acceptable target is unfortunate but maybe not surprising.
To reduce an entire people to nothing but the color of their skin is crude, ignorant, oafish, and offensive. That the same word was used to describe the corpses of these human folks to be redeemed for cash is simply macabre.
Defending the use of the word "redskin" in the name of defending "freedom" is laughable, and a bastardization of the truth.
mighty white of you to say so
So, freedom requires the right to trademark any term?
I guess to me trademark isn't a big component of freedom, because it is an inherently positive creation of the government. I don't see any problem with the government setting some limits to it, as long as those limits are fair.