N/S PTO rules that "Redskins" is derogatory (not a case about the NFL team but likely precedent) (1 Viewer)

[InThatNumber]

I've re-read my post and I think you are talking specifically about the "never seen disparaging remarks about American Indians". What I meant to say was that I've never seen anything negative about American Indians come out of the Washington Redskins organization. So if the football club attributes positive qualities of the people the name represents, how is it exactly an insult? Who gets to determine the meaning of a word (or collection of words) used? The person sending the message, or the person recieving it?

As for language being arbitrary, I beleive that. Whats the difference between saying darn & damn, if you mean the same thing? Doesn't make any one more right than the other.

Point being, allowing others to redefine something you've already defined is a slippery sloap. Someone will always be offended, no matter what it is.

What about the FSU Siminoles spear on the side of their helment? Couldn't that attribute a violent culture to the current Siminole tribe?

What about the Saints, and their flur du lis (which is a religious symbol for the holy trinity). Couldn't the separation of church n' state crowd take offense that tax dollars are going to an organization that calls itself a religious figure, with a religious symbol as their brand?

If all that sounds rediculous....it is. FSU doesn't mean any ill will toward the Siminole tribe over it's mascot or helment decal. The New Orleans Saints are not a religious organization.....but you can be sure there are people out there that will interpret those things (and be offended) how they want to.

can't tell if you accidentally misspelled "slope", "fleur", "ridiculous", etc., or just wanted to emphasize language being arbitrary...

 

[antipop]

Helment was a pretty cool band in the 90s

 

[SAINT BIGAL]

They should just change the name to the "Red Skins" and make the mascot Mr Sunburn and everything will be fine.

Or red skinned potatoes...

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

The product seeking trademark was "Redskins Hog Rinds" . . . apparently a pork skins snack company. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused to grant the trademark, stating that, "Registration is refused because the applied-for mark REDSKINS HOG RINDS consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols."

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? Well, this ruling only applies to the particular application by the snack company. However, last March the PTO heard a challenge to the NFL Redskins' trademark on the same basis. The ruling has not been released but it's hard to imagine how the PTO would find the word disparaging regarding a snack food but not regarding a football team. Though I'm not sure if the standard is different for existing trademarks as compared to applications for new ones.

What would a similar ruling regarding the team mean? It wouldn't, in and of itself, mean the Redskins have to change their name or that the name has been ruled unusable. It would, however, mean that the team could not enforce any trademark in the marketplace. This means that anyone could start selling Redskins clothing or paraphernalia and not face legal action from the team or league.

I do, however, believe that league rules require the individual franchises to protect their relevant trademarks and enforce them, so if the Redskins were to lose their trademark, it could put the league in a position of having to either grant the Redskins relief from that requirement (which would certainly be a bad PR move) or to require the team to change its name.

Keep in mind that PTO rulings (either the one about the pork rinds or the future Redskins ruling expected this year) are appealable to federal court.


Trademark office says no to 'Redskins Hog Rinds' - WTOP.com

Interesting ruling and doesn't bode well for the NFL franchise, IMO. The product is actually pork skin and can be spiced to look red (similar to BBQ flavored pork rinds). Seems it could have been argued it has nothing to do with Native Americans but simply a product and the way it looks.

Another interesting twist was "Hog" being used in the name as it can relate to the nickname for the linemen and the characters in the stands.

I'm actually surprised the trademark office denied this on the basis of a derogatory term. And I'm one that finds the NFL Redskins name to be derogatory and not complementary of the Native American culture.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I've re-read my post and I think you are talking specifically about the "never seen disparaging remarks about American Indians". What I meant to say was that I've never seen anything negative about American Indians come out of the Washington Redskins organization. So if the football club attributes positive qualities of the people the name represents, how is it exactly an insult? Who gets to determine the meaning of a word (or collection of words) used? The person sending the message, or the person recieving it?

As for language being arbitrary, I beleive that. Whats the difference between saying darn & damn, if you mean the same thing? Doesn't make any one more right than the other.

Point being, allowing others to redefine something you've already defined is a slippery sloap. Someone will always be offended, no matter what it is.

What about the FSU Siminoles spear on the side of their helment? Couldn't that attribute a violent culture to the current Siminole tribe?

What about the Saints, and their flur du lis (which is a religious symbol for the holy trinity). Couldn't the separation of church n' state crowd take offense that tax dollars are going to an organization that calls itself a religious figure, with a religious symbol as their brand?

If all that sounds rediculous....it is. FSU doesn't mean any ill will toward the Siminole tribe over it's mascot or helment decal. The New Orleans Saints are not a religious organization.....but you can be sure there are people out there that will interpret those things (and be offended) how they want to.

'noles and braves and chiefs, etc. might be on the slippery slop
"redskins" are in the valley
no different from the San Fransisco Slope Eyes or the New York Hook Noses
you just can't do grouped culture by physical appearance anymore - especially if it is not something that has much to do with that group-
ESPECIALLY if that physical description has often been used as a pejorative

now what i can't tell is if you're actually surprised or just feigning surprise

 

[RajCaj80]

can't tell if you accidentally misspelled "slope", "fleur", "ridiculous", etc., or just wanted to emphasize language being arbitrary...

I guess I deserve that, was in a hurry to post before heading into a meeting...and spelling has never been my strong suit.

But, despite the terrible spelling, you understood what I was getting at..no?

 

[InThatNumber]

I guess I deserve that, was in a hurry to post before heading into a meeting...and spelling has never been my strong suit.

But, despite the terrible spelling, you understood what I was getting at..no?

I did, and it was well said... but I had to give you a hard time anyway.

 

[Galbreath34]

Redskins is pretty much the only one that's inarguably based on an actual slur with no interpretation other than that. Logos and such (like the Cleveland Indians in MLB), might have issues, but none of the other names are inherently derogatory. Someone might say with pride I'm an Indian, not caring that the name was a goof. No one says "I am a Redskin" with pride or without ironically referring to the racism in the word.

I've never been one to lead the charge that it has to go (maybe I should be or should have been, and am complicit in the racism), but you really can't argue for a good interpretation or the name or say that it's just "hypersensitive" to see it as racist. On the list of things we've done to Native Americans it's hardly the worst, but it is an undeniable slap in the face saying "You don't really have enough cultural power for us to care that you're offended."

I'm pretty sure if San Francisco had gone another way with a reference to the Gold Rush for their team and called themselves the "Yellow Peril" and had a a Chinaman with a queue running with a football on their helmets the name would have been changed long ago.

 

[Jeff Miller]

If i was Snyder, I'd change the team to the Washington Commies with a hammer and cycle as its logo.

 

[RajCaj80]

Redskins is pretty much the only one that's inarguably based on an actual slur with no interpretation other than that. Logos and such (like the Cleveland Indians in MLB), might have issues, but none of the other names are inherently derogatory. Someone might say with pride I'm an Indian, not caring that the name was a goof. No one says "I am a Redskin" with pride or without ironically referring to the racism in the word.

I've never been one to lead the charge that it has to go (maybe I should be or should have been, and am complicit in the racism), but you really can't argue for a good interpretation or the name or say that it's just "hypersensitive" to see it as racist. On the list of things we've done to Native Americans it's hardly the worst, but it is an undeniable slap in the face saying "You don't really have enough cultural power for us to care that you're offended."

I'm pretty sure if San Francisco had gone another way with a reference to the Gold Rush for their team and called themselves the "Yellow Peril" and had a a Chinaman with a queue running with a football on their helmets the name would have been changed long ago.

It's interesting, Native Americans aren't beating down the door of the football club to change the name....most of it coming from special interest groups and lawyers. A poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 90% of the Native Americans polled were NOT offended by the term "Redskins".

It's well documented that the former Boston team was given the name "Redskins" in homage to the then (and first) Native American coach of the team, and Native Americans on the squad.

Just as Oklahoma was given it's name in homage to the Native American Choctaw that inhabited that area (Oklahoma means Red People in Choctaw)

The same thing happened with the FSU Seminoles. A minority group of Native Americans (that assumed representation for all of the Seminole tribe) and lawyers pushed to get FSU to drop the traditionally dressed Seminole /w warpaint & on horseback, and the Seminole mascot all together....yet it was the Seminole tribe that came out in support of FSU keeping things as they are....go figure.

And if you think people stop being offended by generalizations at physical appearances, you're sadly wrong. In fact, any cultural reference could be interpreted as a generalization of those that live in the city, and surrounding area.

Again, I point to Atheists in NOLA, potentially being offended that the team that represents the city is named after a religious figure, and sports a the holy trinity on the sides of their helmets.

Check this article out: Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN

In many cases, the Native Americans do not want to change the name, and have no problem with it. There are many cases of highschools, with over 90% Native American student body, that take pride in the mascot name "Redskins". So how exactly again is it offensive to Native Americans?

Tell you what, lets just remove all cultural references from team names and just go with all animals.....ops, forgot about PETA.

 

[PayOrPlay]

I'll address some additional legal issues:

You don't have to have a registration to use, and enforce, a trademark. If the PTO decided to cancel the team's registered trademarks, the team can still use the name and claim common-law trademark protection--at least until a court squarely ruled that offensive trademarks aren't entitled to common-law protection--and this is by no means clear.

Keep in mind that trademark law exists not only to protect the owner's property rights, but also to protect consumers from being subjected to confusion or deception over the source of products and services, So a court might conclude, for example, that even if the name is offensive, it's still in the public interest to prevent others from falsely implying that they are selling authorized merchandise. That's up for grabs.

For those asking about copyrights, it was assumed for many years that obscene materials were not entitled to copyright protection (or, stated another way, that any lawsuit to enforce copyright in an obscene work would be barred by the "unclean hands doctrine") until the Mitchell Brothers won a 5th Circuit case in 1979 allowing them to enforce their rights in Behind the Green Door. Since then, copyright law has been largely free of claims that offensive materials don't get full protection (although someone did try to make this argument last year as defense after they were sued for downloading pirated porn).

 

[crosswatt]

It's interesting, Native Americans aren't beating down the door of the football club to change the name....most of it coming from special interest groups and lawyers.

It's well documented that the former Boston team was given the name "Redskins" in homage to the then (and first) Native American coach of the team, and Native Americans on the squad.

Just as Oklahoma was given it's name in homage to the Native American Choctaw that inhabited that area (Oklahoma means Red Skin in Choctaw)

The same thing happened with the FSU Seminoles. A minority group of Native Americans (that assumed representation for all of the Seminole tribe) and lawyers pushed to get FSU to drop the tradition of the traditionally dressed Seminole /w warpaint & on horseback, and the Seminole mascot all together....yet it was the Seminole tribe that came out in support of FSU keeping things as they are....go figure.

And if you think people stop being offended by generalizations, based on physical appearances, you're sadly wrong. In fact, any cultural reference could be interpreted as a generalization of those that live in the city, and surrounding area.

Again, I point to Atheists in NOLA, potentially being offended that the team that represents the city is named after a religious figure, and sports a the holy trinity on the sides of their helmets.

Check this article out: Redskins name change not as easy as it sounds - ESPN

In many cases, the Native Americans do not want to change the name, and have no problem with it.

Tell you what, lets just remove all cultural references from team names and just go with all animals.....ops, forgot about PETA.

The Seminole tribe works in conjunction with Florida State to promote a healthy representation of their culture. The Braves and Indians have made a conscientious effort to remove offensive imagery (Chief Knock A Homa for example) to help lessen the appearance of callousness. Washington seems to, at least philosophically, be running in the opposite direction. I think that has made a big difference in the perception of those in favor of a name change.

 

[Galbreath34]

You realize you're citing a 10 year old poll of less than 800 Native Americans by a group that makes no bones about it's conservative agenda as your main "missile". You're shooting blanks my friend.

 

[RajCaj80]

The Seminole tribe works in conjunction with Florida State to promote a healthy representation of their culture. The Braves and Indians have made a conscientious effort to remove offensive imagery (Chief Knock A Homa for example) to help lessen the appearance of callousness. Washington seems to, at least philosophically, be running in the opposite direction. I think that has made a big difference in the perception of those in favor of a name change.

How exactly has the Washington Redskins organization ran in the opposite direction of being sensitive to Native Americans?

I went back and edited the post you quoted with info from the article I linked.

A poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 90% of Native Americans that participated in the study did NOT find "Redskins" offensive.

The article I linked also referenced several highschools, with the "Redskins" mascot, that had over 90% Native American student body, and not only did they NOT find it offensive, they were prideful of it.

In regard to the Seminole involvement with FSU, it still does not address the point that a minority of people felt it their civic duty to feel offended for a group of people that were not offended to start with....the same sentiment that is being used to remove the "Redskins" name from the Washington team.

 

[RajCaj80]

You realize you're citing a 10 year old poll of less than 800 Native Americans by a group that makes no bones about it's conservative agenda as your main "missile". You're shooting blanks my friend.

So a poll conducted in 2004 is irrelevant? LOL And the Annenberg Public Policy Center is out of U Penn...a stalwart of conservative thought /sarcasm

Check the survey methods in the actual study, they took a random sample of Native Americans across the 48 continental states, and given the total population of Native Americans in the said states, 800 particpants was enough to be statistically significant to +/- 2 percentage points.

And it still doesn't discount the fact that there are several predominately Native American highschools that have NO issue with the mascot, and in fact are in favor of it. They just don't' know whats good for them eh?