Redskins

[Catholic Crusader]

Counterpoint noted. I think that too is a valid point.

Why thank you. I rarely hear that.

 

[Town Heretic]

If it can be shown there is emotional distress instead of frivolity, I'm fine with that.

How about simple, reasonable offense and good manners in response?

The whole tort business was just a response to someone wondering if suit might attach and if so what form it would take. So that's more of an if/then. I don't think we need to get anywhere near that level of offense to rethink what we're doing and why. And I grew up with the popular opinion of the name. I didn't root NFC, but I liked them and it never occurred to me that anyone would be offended by the association. I thought it was cool.

So I completely get that side of it. But it's as easy for me to understand that a lot of those people aren't enamored, to get have a bit more of the word's history now and when I hear about white people running through a parody of a war or rain dances that were serious and even sacred things, well, to be embarrassed about my lack of understanding. And while I'd miss the familiar team I grew up with, it's one thing to have been mistaken and another to defend the mistake as though it were a virtue, to insist on holding on to that needlessly offensive tradition.

I was taught that when you offend someone you apologize and refrain from doing it again whenever possible. Possible means principle isn't compromised and the offense is understandable. So if a woman finds my opening a door offensive, a patronizing act instead of a respectful one, I acknowledge the difference and refrain. The same goes here.

There are Native American tribes that call themselves 'Redskins.'

There are black people who call one another the "n" word.

If this lawsuit goes through, those ones will also be caused to change their own chosen name.

No, it went through and all it does is open the licensing of the name to anyone. That is, it takes away the exclusivity which in turn means the team can't control it and take all the profits from it. It's a business move in the face of the owner resisting doing the simpler, right thing here.

And with that, I've said all I could. People are going to think what they're going to think. :cheers:

 

[Granite]

Not for you, but to remind folks of the record...

Ten percent of the Native American population objects and that number has been growing. A wide number of tribes have supported the patent objection. Among those: the Cherokee, Comanche, Oneida and Seminole tribes and the National Congress of American Indians.

None of those are white liberals. People who tell you its a singularly white liberal issue are simply, demonstrably and incontrovertibly lying.

The all-American right to be a jerk seems more important than anything to some people.

 

[IMJerusha]

The United States Patent & Trademark office cancelled the Washington Redskins trademark registration today. It ruled that the NFL team's name is "disparaging to Native Americans."

Thoughts, opinions?

Yes, here's a thought/opinion. This family of the Wendat Nations would much rather see the lands of the Native Americans returned to them. We could care less about some dumb football team. It doesn't matter what they're called...they're not very good.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

The all-American right to be a jerk seems more important than anything to some people.

You ought to know. Its a right you take full advantage of.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, it went through and all it does is open the licensing of the name to anyone. That is, it takes away the exclusivity which in turn means the team can't control it and take all the profits from it. It's a business move in the face of the owner resisting doing the simpler, right thing here.

You are assuming that changing the name is both simple and the right thing to do.

I believe you have grossly underestimated the complexity of the name change.
I also believe that the team has an established history that grants them as much right to use the name as any of the indigent peoples that are objecting to the use of the name.

 

[Granite]

You are assuming that changing the name is both simple and the right thing to do.

I believe you have grossly underestimated the complexity of the name change.
I also believe that the team has an established history that grants them as much right to use the name as any of the indigent peoples that are objecting to the use of the name.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Exactly. Having the right to get offended over a team name does not mean getting offended is the right thing to do, and having the right to take away the trademark from the team does not mean taking away their trademark is the right thing to do.

 

[Granite]

Exactly. Having the right to get offended over a team name does not mean getting offended is the right thing to do, and having the right to take away the trademark from the team does not mean taking away their trademark is the right thing to do.

Insulting an entire group and saying you're actually complimenting them is beyond asinine.

 

[Town Heretic]

You are assuming that changing the name is both simple and the right thing to do.

No, I didn't assume, I argued that it was after reflecting both on the traditionally popular usage and the large number of objecting people I never meant to offend.

I believe you have grossly underestimated the complexity of the name change.

You'd have to make the case. Financially it will result in a win for the owner. Personally it will be a good thing in response to those reasonably offended. And given the team is in our nation's capitol, representing out national pastime that seems like a fine idea all the way around.

I also believe that the team has an established history that grants them as much right to use the name as any of the indigent peoples that are objecting to the use of the name.

Indigenous peoples. Else, the court ruling doesn't prevent them from using the term. They've at worst been denied the ability to singularly profit from the use.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, I didn't assume, I argued that it was after reflecting both on the traditionally popular usage and the large number of objecting people I never meant to offend.

You haven't made your case.

You'd have to make the case. Financially it will result in a win for the owner. Personally it will be a good thing in response to those reasonably offended. And given the team is in our nation's capitol, representing out national pastime that seems like a fine idea all the way around.

If you are only looking at only the financial costs of completely rebranding the team, then you are being short sighted.

Indigenous peoples.

I called them indigent peoples. I meant to call them indignant peoples.:carryon:

Else, the court ruling doesn't prevent them from using the term. They've at worst been denied the ability to singularly profit from the use.

Yes, they have been denied the right to profit from the brand that they have spent 80 years and billions of dollars establishing.

 

[IMJerusha]

You are assuming that changing the name is both simple and the right thing to do.

Personally, I think it's moot. Who should the white people sue? By golly, it's offensive being called white when white people are clearly pink...beige....well, you know! I think this is a case of Wasichu, what the Indians call "takers of the fat". It's about greed. It's sort of humorous actually, and more than a little sad, since that is what Indians called those who took their lands.

 

[Town Heretic]

You haven't made your case.

Sure I have. I've given reason and illustration. You may not agree with me, but you can't reduce my side of it to a declaration.

I've addressed the fallacy behind suggesting a compliment or failing to intend to insult and then continuing in the same behavior.

I've noted the growing and not insignificant number of Native Americans who object, including a few tribes and a major Native American council.

I've noted the argument from established authority (Merriam Websters) regarding the reasonableness of the offense taken, whatever the founding intent.

And, of course, there's the court ruling.

Those constitute a case. Especially against most of the, "unintended slight/meant as a compliment" crowd.

If you are only looking at only the financial costs of completely rebranding the team, then you are being short sighted.

But I didn't. Not even then. I noted two things. I've spoken to both of them prior and more briefly there.

I called them indigent peoples. I meant to call them indignant peoples.:carryon:

They have a right to be indignant, but it doesn't necessarily follow.

Yes, they have been denied the right to profit from the brand that they have spent 80 years and billions of dollars establishing.

No, they can keep selling anything they want. They simply don't have the singular control over it the representation of Native Americans as "Redskins".

You build a house on an ignoble thing I'm not going to cry about you missing out on the ongoing exploitation of that particular.

:e4e:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Personally, I think it's moot. Who should the white people sue? By golly, it's offensive being called white when white people are clearly pink...beige....well, you know! I think this is a case of Wasichu, what the Indians call "takers of the fat". It's about greed. It's sort of humorous actually, and more than a little sad, since that is what Indians called those who took their lands.

You have a point.
People of Irish descent should sue every bar that serves green beer.
It is offensive and racist.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Sure I have. I've given reason and illustration. You may not agree with me, but you can't reduce my side of it to a declaration.

But that is all it is.
You have made a declaration that a term is offensive to a few indignant peoples, and made a declaration that changing the name is the right thing to do to pacify them.

No, they can keep selling anything they want. They simply don't have the singular control over it the representation of Native Americans as "Redskins".

They are representing a football team as "Redskins".
They have built that brand over 80 years.
Objections at this point are merely harassment and deserve no consideration.

 

[IMJerusha]

You have a point.
People of Irish descent should sue every bar that serves green beer.
It is offensive and racist.

Absolutely! :cheers:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

That applies to gay marriage and abortion.

You have the right to do them
They are WRONG to do.

"Out of the mouths of boobs come words of wisdom."

 

[Granite]

You have a point.
People of Irish descent should sue every bar that serves green beer.
It is offensive and racist.

...which is ridiculous and one of the worst comparisons to the Washington situation I've seen on this thread.

 

[genuineoriginal]

...which is ridiculous and one of the worst comparisons to the Washington situation I've seen on this thread.

I am guessing you are ignorant of Anti-Irish racism.

Anti-Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as alcoholics, and implications that they monopolised certain (usually low-paying) job markets. They were often called "white Negroes." Throughout Britain and the US, newspaper illustrations and hand drawings depicted a prehistoric "ape-like image" of Irish faces to bolster evolutionary racist claims that the Irish people were an "inferior race" as compared to Anglo-Saxons.​

 

[Town Heretic]

But that is all it is.

No, that's just you declaring again. Facts, like numbers and authority aren't mere expression of feeling, but support for argument, which was also offered.

You have made a declaration that a term is offensive to a few indignant peoples,

Right. That would be a thesis statement of sorts. Had I stopped there it would have been a curious opinion without support. But I didn't stop there. I noted authority (MW, for history) in support, the large and growing number of Native Americans offended and a reasoned bit in counter to those who declared their intent to either praise the population in question or, at the least, noted no intent to offend.

and made a declaration that changing the name is the right thing to do to pacify them.

That would be a logical conclusion. If/then, except it would be to end the offense and not to "pacify" which seems aimed at another sort of insult. So you had thesis, argument/fact and a conclusion.

They are representing a football team as "Redskins".
They have built that brand over 80 years.
Objections at this point are merely harassment and deserve no consideration.

The present objection has, as I noted and linked to early in this discussion, been ongoing for decades, so your attempt to narrow to one issue is still premised on error. To fail to understand the facts and to ignore the facts presented speaks to an entrenched sort of willful ignorance, go. You can do better than that...the question is, why aren't you?