Trademark board rules against Washington Redskins name

My thoughts are that it is funny to think of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi telling someone else they need to 'do the right thing'. As if either of these political morons would know what the right thing to do would be in the first place.

When this first reared its ugly head this year, one of the things that caught my attention was that this was highly politicized. When it is congress that gets involved, it is always highly suspect and ultimately one has to look at several things, the first is who all sign letters and who all also has native American Reservations in their state and districts.

Only 23 actual tribes are on record objecting. Care to guess how many are from the state of Washington? 0. Not one of those tribes seem to mind, and that is the home team.

Make no mistake, this is all just political pandering, for the Democrats to say see what we did, please vote for us. That is all. If the Native Americans are under the belief that the congress is concerned about them, well they are sadly mistaken, after all how many treaties were broken, and yet they place their faith and trust in who?

The reality is that if the congress, and people like Reid is going to play Dirty, I think that the owner of the Redskins should play equally dirty. Find a tribe that is not offended and prefers the name of the team and make a deal, that for a royalty fee, that they be allowed to use that Tribal name as the official team name. Then it would ultimately be a large one fingered salute to all of those who objected, cause not only would it raise the name of said tribe to be larger than some of the better known tribes, but also, turn around and force those in Congress to try to deal with the new name change.

I wonder how Reid or others would deal with say a team called the Washington Suquamish, or the Washington Cowlitz, or the Washington Quinault? Bet once it came out about such and that tribe was raking in the money, that the fighting and cries of foul would really take off.

Which reminds me, need to go and purchase some of the Redskin merchandise now, before the price goes up.

a reply to: nighthawk1954

This is such BS. Native Americans dont even find it offensive. This is all the result of overly sensitive liberal whiners.

No native americans in any significant number complained. It was white rich and bored progressives.

hate......

a reply to: tadaman
Actually 23 of the 566 tribes have complained.

Washington Traitors would be perfect.

Here's what I don't get about this. Donald Sterling says some ridiculous crap, and indeed crap it was, sponsors pull out by the truckload, pretty much forcing him to sell the team. He's fighting that but he's a senile old fool.

The Redskins debate has been going on for how long now? If it were so offensive, then how come the sponsors haven't pulled their money? The only thing rich asses like Snyder understand is to take their precious money(of which they have billions, but it still upsets them for some odd reason).

So where is corporate America now? They distanced themselves from that fool Sterling, and pretty damned quickly, yet here we have crickets. Not a peep.

The public, in their outrage over this team name, are also being hypocritical, as pointed out. Why not raise a stink about the Cleveland Indians? Maybe they are just giving Cleveland a pass because, well, it's Cleveland. They have had a bad go at it for years, AND they lost LeBron so boo hoo poor Cleveland. I don't know, honestly, why the Indians get a pass on this.

Why, exactly, did it take so long for the word Redskins to become offensive? How come this crap wasn't dealt with a long time ago? Why was it not important then but is now?

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher
Because it is pure BS. Plus someone gets lots of money to rebrand a professional sports team.

I'm not for or against the name simply because i can step back and look at things other ways.
What if the team was called the Washington Blackskins, or Brownskins, or even Yellowskins?
Is it an offensive name yet

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: tadaman
Actually 23 of the 566 tribes have complained.

So...543 didn't complain. What happened to majority rules. I guess if I don't like the car you drive, I find it offensive. The auto manufacturer and industry should pull it off the market.

Wait! That's what's happening now. Obama wants us all to drive electric cars. This stripping the rights of the Redskins team to legally use the name they have used forever to brand thier team, now puts you one step closer to driving an electric car.

It's PC ya know....doesn't matter if it destroys a backbone industry of America....IT'S PC!!!

Yeah, that makes total sense...

Des

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

A word or term cant just be offensive on its own merit. It has to be backed by offensive context.

Is there offensive context to the team? I don't know much about the Redskins. Do they have performers dress up in caricature and red-face and drink and gamble during half-time shows or something that would create offensive context?

A team called the Niggers even doesnt have inherit offensive value unless the context supports offensive intent.

I expect children to not get this concept but the bar for offensive regarding adults should be a bit higher than a simple thoughtless reaction.

ETA: This works both ways. Last Summer a MA cop got fired for saying the word "Monday." Nothing at all offensive about the word "Monday" but he used it with offensive intent.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere I fully agree with you. Words have no real offense without intent. what i was getting at was that you have to look at it from the view points of others. If you haven't noticed and i'm sure you have, there a lot of simple people in this country who have nothing better to do than get worked up over anything.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Only 23 actual tribes are on record objecting. Care to guess how many are from the state of Washington? 0. Not one of those tribes seem to mind, and that is the home team.

Oh that's funny! The surveyors who located FedEx Field missed by about 3000 miles? No, we're talking about the Redskins team in Washington DC.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Like I said, not a significant number of them.

This is all BS. I look at things like this and see what the occupation of progressive agendas are...BS.

I am growing farther from that ideology with every nonsensical problem that is artificially made.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Is there offensive context to the team? I don't know much about the Redskins.

From the Washington Post, 1994

1933, Boston: The new Boston Braves football team wants to end its association with the Braves baseball team and move to Fenway Park, where the Red Sox play. It needs a new name. George Marshall, a Washington laundry kingpin, decides on Redskins.

Today, theories abound as to why he picked that particular name, including the notion that it was to honor the Boston Tea Party rebels who dressed as Indians when they dumped tea in the harbor. But according to Marshall's granddaughter and various other accounts, it was to honor coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, thehalf-German Sioux who is described in a team history book as "a full-blooded Indian."

...Hokuf joined the Boston Redskins as a left end in 1933, the year Lone Star Dietz took over. Was "redskin" a derogatory term back then?
"It was not," insists Hokuf. "For goodness' sakes, we had an Indian coach and three Indian players!"

...But Hokuf believes he can speak for his former teammates:
"The Indians living 60 years ago thought it was an honor to have a football team called the Redskins. Marshall wanted to change the name to the Redskins, so he got an Indian coach, and we didn't think anything about it.

...Sixty years later, Steve Hokuf still follows the Redskins in the papers, and says he's aware of the controversy over the name.
"It wouldn't bother me one bit if they changed it," he says with a shrug in his voice. "But I am amazed someone is making a big fuss over it. It has to be some redskins that never lived 60 years ago."

Link

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

So according to that it's quite the opposite.

Funny how time changes meanings yet people who take offense act as though that particular offensive meaning, having only recently been contrived, is an absolute.

Sounds like yet another Executive Branch over-reach and example of abuse.

They couldn't get their way by "talking" so they use ultra-force.

Here's Harry Reid acting as official "spokesman".......
www.youtube.com...


Related Story

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Funny how time changes meanings

I know what you mean however time changed nothing. PC idiocy did that.

a reply to: tadaman

It is all political, pandering for votes. Reid needs all of the support he can get, as the entire debacle that happened with the Bundy Ranch and all of the other issues are coming up. So, him and other congressmen are trying to figure out ways to get the votes to remain in office. That way they can point and say see what we did.

Course if I were running against Bundy or in his home state, I would tell the opposing side to use that against him, after all is it really that important, isn't there something else far more important to the country, like running and governing it wisely, rather than focusing on one social issue that really is not at the forefront of the majority of the country? Did they have to create another hot button issue to distract the public from paying attention to hat all they have been doing, which is, well can't think of anything really important that the federal government has been doing, except not being able to handle any sort of money and making bad laws.

a reply to: yeahright

As a Virginian, I'm constantly disgusted by the People's Republic of Maryland. I hate having to go there to see my Redskins play but even I agree that what you suggest would be epic. Beyond epic. If it would fly I'd temporarily consider it the. Greatest. Thing. Ever.