Vikings Message Board.Com

Citing N.B.A. Example, Senators Urge N.F.L. to Act on Redskins’ Name

Fifty members of the Senate have signed a letter to the N.F.L. to urge its leadership to press the Washington Redskins to change the team name in the aftermath of tough sanctions against the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers for racially charged comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/sport ... ml?hp&_r=3

let it go ... geez

fiestavike wrote:What is the favorite team of most of the American Indians I know? The Redskins.

Who are these people who are so upset and how come we never see them anywhere?

At least a dozen members of Congress want the name changed, as do some civil rights groups and vocal members of the national media. The people at the heart of the debate, though, are those at the grass-roots level among the more than 500 recognized tribes in the U.S. The MMQB took the temperature of Native Americans from coast to coast—representing 18 tribes in 10 states—and found a complicated and nuanced issue. What we did not find: the “overwhelming majority” that Snyder and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell have claimed support the name “Redskins.”

We found opponents of the name in 18 tribes: veterans of the U.S. military, lawyers, college students, cultural center employees, school volunteers and restaurant servers. Their viewpoints align with official statements from dozens of tribes or inter-tribal councils and from the NCAI, which represents more than 250 tribal governments at the Embassy of Tribal Nations. Many of these people wondered how, or if, their voices are being counted.

By no means is there a consensus. We met a man in San Carlos who grew up rooting for Joe Theismann. Others pointed out how the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes. Some whom we spoke to on the San Carlos and Big Cypress reservations said they had no opinion, and members of about a dozen other tribes or communities we reached out to did not respond or declined to be interviewed.

But team officials and the NFL paint a nearly uniform picture of support for the name, typically citing the results of a 2004 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, that 90 percent of the 768 self-identified Native Americans polled said the team name “Redskins” did not bother them. (The question: “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”). That survey is 10 years old. Can the same opinion be applied today?

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washingto ... me-debate/

I wish they would just change the name to a specific tribe name rather than 'redskin'.

'Iriquois' would be cool as it would include several tibes from the region and was the band the Jefferson got many of his ideas for his model of democracy.

I wish Snyder had the insight to change it before the politicos got involved.

Most natives I know like the Raiders.

I can't comment on this without bashing many political parties and members, unfortunately.

1. Vikings
2. Chiefs
3. There is no 3rd favorite team. I don't mind the Redskins though...they do have the best NFL logo!

...wisdom

Well the word Redskin was originally used as a racial slur against Native Americans. Despite how long the name has been used in the NFL, it's astonishing how the name has been still there for this long. It may not be offensive to us who are not native american, but I can definitely understand who wants in changed. That's like having a team called The N**g*rs or The Wetb****. I'm sure those names wouldn't fly with people of those races. I think changing the name would be the right thing to do.

Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection over 'disparaging' name


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/f ... e19215886/


not sure I like the sound of this. It's one thing for an entity to bow to public pressure over an issue like this, it's another matter entirely when the government gets heavy handed.

I don't care for the name but I care even less for a forced PC agenda....it reeks of insincerity.

The Breeze wrote:Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection over 'disparaging' name

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/f ... e19215886/

not sure I like the sound of this. It's one thing for an entity to bow to public pressure over an issue like this, it's another matter entirely when the government gets heavy handed.

I don't care for the name but I care even less for a forced PC agenda....it reeks of insincerity.

I don't understand what trademarking and insensitive names have to do with each other. I think the name should be changed, certainly ... but this seems strange.

(Comes back 20 minutes later after googling the issue)

Apparently this has been in the works since at least 2013 and isn't the government acting "willy-nilly". They were petitioned by a group of Native Americans.

http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2013/03/16/wa ... -trademark

BL: Tell me a little more about the arguments made by both sides before the Trials and Appeals Board last week?

PH: Basically you have one side – you’ve got a group of Native American petitioners. They’re arguing that the word “Redskins” is a racial slur and it shouldn’t be entitled to federal trademark protection. There are actually provisions within federal trademark law that basically say you can’t trademark something that’s offensive or a slur. You can’t profit off this. Meanwhile, the Redskins lawyers basically are saying the intention behind this name is good. It’s not offensive, it’s actually an honorific, and it’s rooted in all this pride and tradition around the team. They’ve had it for 80 years now.

If a group of Native Americans are telling you they take it as a racial slur ... you pretty much have to stand back and accept that, don't you?

Cliff wrote: I don't understand what trademarking and insensitive names have to do with each other. I think the name should be changed, certainly ... but this seems strange.

(Comes back 20 minutes later after goggling the issue)

Apparently this has been in the works since at least 2013 and isn't the government acting "willy-nilly". They were petitioned by a group of Native Americans.

http://onlyagame.wbur.org/2013/03/16/wa ... -trademark
If a group of Native Americans are telling you they take it as a racial slur ... you pretty much have to stand back and accept that, don't you?

I agree. And it happened before and was overturned because the court said the plantiffs were "too old" WTF?

I just find that the courts and the suits have little to no true moral fiber when it comes to stuff like this(they bend to votes or dollars) which is why it stinks to me when they get involved, whether they were petitioned or not.

I'm admittedly an idealist and I just think it's a shame that they can possibly force Snyder to change the name, for one...because it sets a bit of a precedent. And 2, I think it's sad that the guy, Snyder, just can't see for himself, beyond the bottom line, how truly inappropriate it is to suggest that any group would find a slur type moniker to be a source of pride.

It feels a bit like a moral/economic sanction is being imposed...which I suppose is much less direct than an outright order to change the name, and appears to be the legal course for the peeps representing the interests of the Natives.

It's an interesting case.

Cliff wrote:If a group of Native Americans are telling you they take it as a racial slur ... you pretty much have to stand back and accept that, don't you?

Not necessarily because native Americans don't all think o the same or want the same things. There's not unity on the issue, even among Native Americans. There's not even unity on the idea that the name is racial slur.

For example:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/05/ ... ange-name/

There are Native American schools that call their teams Redskins. A fact which certainly seems to undermine the argument that the term is inherently offensive to Native Americans.

To a substantial degree, we choose what we find offensive and it's clear that some Native Americans choose to find the term "redskin" offensive and some don't. The etymology of the word reveals that it has been used as a term of derision at times but it's history is more complex than that and historical records indicate that "Redskin" was used as a self-identifier by Native Americans.

I think there are legitimate views on both sides of this issue. I suppose that's why it remains controversial. However, it seems to me that if the Redskins are going to be stripped of their trademarks, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish should be next.

Edit: A friend has just informed me that the Patawomeck tribe referred to at the first link above is not federally recognized but is recognized by the state of Virginia.

The Breeze wrote: I agree. And it happened before and was overturned because the court said the plantiffs were "too old" WTF?

I just find that the courts and the suits have little to no true moral fiber when it comes to stuff like this(they bend to votes or dollars) which is why it stinks to me when they get involved, whether they were petitioned or not.

I'm admittedly an idealist and I just think it's a shame that they can possibly force Snyder to change the name, for one...because it sets a bit of a precedent. And 2, I think it's sad that the guy, Snyder, just can't see for himself, beyond the bottom line, how truly inappropriate it is to suggest that any group would find a slur type moniker to be a source of pride.

It feels a bit like a moral/economic sanction is being imposed...which I suppose is much less direct than an outright order to change the name, and appears to be the legal course for the peeps representing the interests of the Natives.

It's an interesting case.

I see your point and mostly agree but I've got a slightly different take on a few things. For starters, I wouldn't care if they are bending because they're afraid of losing votes. To me that's actually ideal. It seems like that's the point of our government in the first place, the people put into office there are *supposed* to bend to the will of the people (which is reflected in voting).

I do have a problem with them "bending to dollars" but if I were to say "and that's obviously what happened when they sided with the team" that's not really a fair statement because it would mean that any time a court agreed with an NFL team they were in the wrong and this seems obviously false.

Secondly, there were already trademark laws in place (apparently, I wasn't aware until about an hour ago and don't know exactly how the laws are phrased) that prohibit racial slurs from being a source of profit via trademark. So to me this seems like courts carrying out laws that they should have earlier and either didn't because of bending to money or, what I think is more likely, enough people simply didn't care enough until recently to apply appropriate pressure to actually carry out the law.

Mothman wrote: Not necessarily because native Americans don't all think o the same or want the same things. There's not unity on the issue, even among Native Americans. There's not even unity on the idea that the name is racial slur.

But couldn't that be said about nearly any racial slur? There's hardly unity on nearly any issue among most groups of people ... but if enough people found it offensive enough to petition and go to court (and the court apparently agrees), it seems like that's enough for it to be thought of as a slur in a legal sense.

I think there are legitimate views on both sides of this issue. I suppose that's why it remains controversial. However, it seems to me that if the Redskins are going to be stripped of their trademarks, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish should be next.

I would agree, Jim, if you can find enough Irish people who find the name so offensive that they're willing to go to court and spend their time and money on the issue. I think you'd have a better argument if it were Notre Dame Fighting Micks.

The Fighting Irish would be a better example if it were the Washing Cherokee.

Cliff wrote:But couldn't that be said about nearly any racial slur? There's hardly unity on nearly any issue among most groups of people ... but if enough people found it offensive enough to petition and go to court (and the court apparently agrees), it seems like that's enough for it to be thought of as a slur in a legal sense

I suppose... the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot to me but admittedly, I can't come at it from the perspective of a Native American. I just think people who find it offensive are choosing to find it offensive and they could just as easily choose to find it otherwise, especially since it's clearly not intended to offend and since there are obviously Native Americans who have already chosen not to find it offensive. When used as a team name, it's clearly intended to be a source of pride.

I would agree, Jim, if you can find enough Irish people who find the name so offensive that they're willing to go to court and spend their time and money on the issue. I think you'd have a better argument if it were Notre Dame Fighting Micks.

The Fighting Irish would be a better example if it were the Washing Cherokee.

They seem like a strong example to me because the name is based on an ethnic stereotype. It would be like changing the name of the Redskins to "Savages". According to a Yahoo news report on this decision made by the U.S. Patent Office, regarding some of the Redskins trademarks, those marks were stripped "based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable". I would think that same law would apply to a name and logo like Notre dame's, regardless of whether there's a large group of people calling for the law to applied.

For the record, I don't care if the redskins change their name or not. I understand why Snyder and many fans of the team want the franchise to hand on to it's tradition. I know I'd be disappointed if a group of lobbyists of Scandinavian descent managed to managed to convince the Vikings to change their name.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why people who have been victims of oppression 9and more) would want the Redskins to change their name.

Mothman wrote: I suppose... the whole thing seems like a tempest in a teapot to me but admittedly, I can't come at it from the perspective of a Native American. I just think people who find it offensive are choosing to find it offensive and they could just as easily choose to find it otherwise, especially since it's clearly not intended to offend and since there are obviously Native Americans who have already chosen not to find it offensive. When used as a team name, it's clearly intended to be a source of pride.

I can't speak from a Native American standpoint either ... so I'm making the same assumption I make when approaching any racial slur; if enough people say it's offensive I take their word for it. I'm not sure how one chooses to find something offensive ... it either is offensive to you or not, I suppose.

Honestly, I'm not one to be easily offended by most things or anyone ... but I feel like I can understand why having a million/billionaire decedent of people that killed your ancestors in droves and pushed the rest of your people off of their land now making millions of dollars from what you consider to be a racial slur against your ancestors could be a sore spot.

They seem like a strong example to me because the name is based on an ethnic stereotype. It would be like changing the name of the Redskins to "Savages". According to a Yahoo news report on this decision made by the U.S. Patent Office, regarding some of the Redskins trademarks, those marks were stripped "based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable".

It seems like the terms "Savages" and "Red Skin" would be used by the same kind of people and be just as negative as each other. According to wikipedia the earliest use of the term "red skin" the person quoted saying it uses "savages" earlier in his writing;

The earliest known appearance of the term in print occurred on October 9, 1813 in an article quoting a letter dated August 27, 1813 from a gentleman at St. Louis concerning an expedition being formed and to be led by Gen. Benjamin Howard to "route the savages from the Illinois and Mississippi territories[.]" "The expedition will be 40 days out, and there is no doubt but we shall have to contend with powerful hordes of red skins, as our frontiers have been lined with them last summer, and have had frequent skirmishes with our regulars and rangers."

Heck, even the first sentence in the article it talks about how modern dictionaries describe it as "insulting" among other things.

Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]

I would think that same law would apply to a name and logo like Notre dame's, regardless of whether there's a large group of people calling for the law to applied.

The problem with the "Fighting Irish" trademark is that, in order to be "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable" a person actually has to think that it is. That's the difference. There are quite a few people out there who see "Red Skin" in those terms. Could you find one that thinks "Fighting Irish" is?

For the record, I don't care if the redskins change their name or not. I understand why Snyder and many fans of the team want the franchise to hand on to it's tradition. I know I'd be disappointed if a group of lobbyists of Scandinavian descent managed to managed to convince the Vikings to change their name.

On the other hand, I can certainly understand why people who have been victims of oppression 9and more) would want the Redskins to change their name.

I understand why the team wouldn't want to for sure (money more than anything). I can understand why fans wouldn't want to as well (tradition). My problem comes in when I consider other minorities and how the country would react to an African American racial slur or Jewish racial slur being a team name. It doesn't feel fair.

**Edit - I searched for people who think that Fighting Irish is offensive and they *do* exist ... well ... kind of ... (on facebook ... on a page with 38 likes ... ) they're more offended by the logo depicting Irish people as angry leprechauns so they wouldn't need to actually change the name in that case. Still, if enough Irish people cared I bet they'd change it.