Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

And similar other mascots removed. I assume that's what you meant, but we'll clarify for everyone else's sake. I find the Indian's logo more offensive than the Redskin's name.

Really?

I'm serious... why?

The wazoo or whatever he's called. As nkelsch said, he has a very sambo feel to him.

 whembly wrote:

Really?

I'm serious... why?

What? Why do people find Chief Wahoo offensive?


There is a reason their 'official' mascot is 'slider' now. (even slider has chief Wahoo on his hat)


But the skins had a similar mascot:

I couldn't help but notice the packed crowd in the Redskins picture, compared to the couple (bored looking) people at the Indians game...

...perhaps another reason why the Redskins are in the spotlight while the Indians seem to be getting a free pass.

nkelsch wrote:

 pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

And similar other mascots removed. I assume that's what you meant, but we'll clarify for everyone else's sake. I find the Indian's logo more offensive than the Redskin's name.

There are two distinct camps:
*Native Americans who want all native american mascots removed from sports.
*Native Americans who want just the redskins removed.

I said 2 camps. Currently there are no other teams or mascots which they are suing over trademarks because they are racial slurs. There are ones which are 'offensive' or 'dehumanizing because mascot'. The Indians mascot is offensive... but that team has distanced themselves from it and have nonsense monster mascots now. They currently can keep their trademarks and team name and slowly phase out that sambo mascot.

That is why there are two camps as the Redskins stand alone on the trademark fight and that is why this is not a suit against "Braves, Indians, Chiefs" and so on.

I know what you said. I'm modifying the second. Just because a suit isn't out there doesn't mean that we don't want it gone. As has been said, other avenues have been more successful in removing that particular image.

Ah... I see. Not a criticism from me...

Just genuinely curious why caricatures of these images were more offensive than the actual racial slurs.

:shrug:

I, for the life of me, don't see how Snyder doesn't use this opportunity to "rebrand" the franchise. Seems like a money making opportunity there...

 whembly wrote:
Ah... I see. Not a criticism from me...

Just genuinely curious why caricatures of these images were more offensive than the actual racial slurs.

:shrug:

I, for the life of me, don't see how Snyder doesn't use this opportunity to "rebrand" the franchise. Seems like a money making opportunity there...

It's a personal thing. 'A picture's worth a thousand words...'

When the Indians were perenial contenders in the 90s, the issue was a little hotter.

The owners are slowly diminishing the role of Chief Wahoo. While still around, he is less prominently featured each year.

 whembly wrote:
Ah... I see. Not a criticism from me...

Just genuinely curious why caricatures of these images were more offensive than the actual racial slurs.

:shrug:

I, for the life of me, don't see how Snyder doesn't use this opportunity to "rebrand" the franchise. Seems like a money making opportunity there...

Rabid local fanbase doesn't want the name changed. For real, they're not hurting. Last I checked (which was a while ago admittedly), tickets were sold out 3 or 4 years into the future.

nkelsch wrote:

But the skins had a similar mascot:

How have I NEVER seen that before?

fething awesome...

My first thought seeing that image was Dragonball Z.

 kronk wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

But the skins had a similar mascot:

How have I NEVER seen that before?

fething awesome...

I've lived in MD, worked in DC, went to Skin games, even into sports stars. I've yet to see that or the merchandise

I agree with the saucy one.

It is, in my opinion, a *version* of censorship in that the government is doing an "end around" to force the Redskins organization to change the name or else lose out on the cash that was being generated from said name.

The government should *not* be involved in this. Period.

1) people boycott going to games
2) people boycott watching games on tv
3) PLAYERS refuse to play or sign with the team--this one would be HUGE leverage to get a name change

This is a *private* organization that happens to have a name that some portion of society does not like.

The government should *not* have been involved.

Let the fans and NFL apply the pressure.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I agree with the saucy one.

It is, in my opinion, a *version* of censorship in that the government is doing an "end around" to force the Redskins organization to change the name or else lose out on the cash that was being generated from said name.

The government should *not* be involved in this. Period.

1) people boycott going to games
2) people boycott watching games on tv
3) PLAYERS refuse to play or sign with the team--this one would be HUGE leverage to get a name change

This is a *private* organization that happens to have a name that some portion of society does not like.

The government should *not* have been involved.

Let the fans and NFL apply the pressure.

Stop.

Just stop.

It's not "censorship" in any way, shape, or form.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I agree with the saucy one.

You should go back and read the thread then to see why you're probably incorrect. Your points have been made and answered numerous times. Even the Saucy one backed off it.

 Jihadin wrote:

 kronk wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

But the skins had a similar mascot:

How have I NEVER seen that before?

fething awesome...

I've lived in MD, worked in DC, went to Skin games, even into sports stars. I've yet to see that or the merchandise

I believe they unveiled him as the new mascot shortly after the superbowl wins in the early 90's and he was at a single Pro-bowl and a giant cartoon hook grabbed him and pulled him off stage because it was so offensive.

So we have no 'official' mascot here... but the official unofficial mascot has been super-fan Chief Zee


And the Hogettes which are now retired was always a favorite.

Wow...I forgot all about Chief Zee!

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I agree with the saucy one.
.

Mistakes were made.

Pretre,

It's certainly interesting seeing your view. I always thought hat the Redskins logo was pretty tasteful myself. I found it interesting that it is the prime culprit to you. I had no idea.

nkelsch wrote:
So we have no 'official' mascot here... but the official unofficial mascot has been super-fan Chief Zee

He probably doesn't mean to be offensive, but damn...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:
It's certainly interesting seeing your view. I always thought hat the Redskins logo was pretty tasteful myself. I found it interesting that it is the prime culprit to you. I had no idea.

The Redskin's logo IS tasteful. The name is not.



The Indian's logo is not tasteful. The name is meh.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I agree with the saucy one.

It is, in my opinion, a *version* of censorship in that the government is doing an "end around" to force the Redskins organization to change the name or else lose out on the cash that was being generated from said name.

You can't argue that this is a version of censorship. You can argue that it is intended to have a similar effect, but Censorship isn't based on the effect, but on the method used. Barring Governmental action prohibiting or punishing speech, there is no censorship. This isn't a complicated concept.

The government should *not* have been involved.

Let the fans and NFL apply the pressure.

Well, congress disagrees.

§ 2 (15 U.S.C. § 1052). Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.

nkelsch wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 kronk wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

But the skins had a similar mascot:

How have I NEVER seen that before?

fething awesome...

I've lived in MD, worked in DC, went to Skin games, even into sports stars. I've yet to see that or the merchandise

I believe they unveiled him as the new mascot shortly after the superbowl wins in the early 90's and he was at a single Pro-bowl and a giant cartoon hook grabbed him and pulled him off stage because it was so offensive.

So we have no 'official' mascot here... but the official unofficial mascot has been super-fan Chief Zee


And the Hogettes which are now retired was always a favorite.

That freaking guy like Iconic status

Just like the guy from the Capitals fan base. The one that can holler over the speaker system

 pretre wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
So we have no 'official' mascot here... but the official unofficial mascot has been super-fan Chief Zee

He probably doesn't mean to be offensive, but damn...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:
It's certainly interesting seeing your view. I always thought hat the Redskins logo was pretty tasteful myself. I found it interesting that it is the prime culprit to you. I had no idea.

The Redskin's logo IS tasteful. The name is not.



The Indian's logo is not tasteful. The name is meh.

OH, I was getting the Indians and the Redskins logos swapped. My mistake. I can certainly see why the Indians logo would be offensive.

 pretre wrote:

He probably doesn't mean to be offensive, but damn...

Well, You won't see many like him either... Dressing in warpaint or even like a stereotypical Indian simply isn't done much even at home games. This is more what you see and what the official 'merch' is focused around:




Indians and warpaint or other things which could be considered 'redface' are few and far between even among fans.

 Sasori wrote:
OH, I was getting the Indians and the Redskins logos swapped. My mistake. I can certainly see why the Indians logo would be offensive.

No prob. If the redskins had gone with that logo, we probably would have had this solved years ago.

I didn't say it was precisely/exactly censorship....but a version of because they are forcing a name change under threat of financial ruination.

That's the -government- forcing the change, and the -government- making the threat all too real.

Again, it's just my opinion that the government should not be involved.

It's a business. Let the consumers affect the change with their wallets.

That's what businesses respond to--loss of income/earnings.

Which is why it should be quite disconcerting that the government is acting in such a manner to force a name change through the trademark revocation or else the franchise will stand to lose significant value, income, etc.

 Sasori wrote:


OH, I was getting the Indians and the Redskins logos swapped. My mistake. I can certainly see why the Indians logo would be offensive.

If it was the Cleveland Redskins with Chief Wazoo, it would be a full-on gak show.

nkelsch wrote:

 pretre wrote:

He probably doesn't mean to be offensive, but damn...

Well, You won't see many like him either... Dressing in warpaint or even like a stereotypical Indian simply isn't done much even at home games. This is more what you see and what the official 'merch' is focused around:

Indians and warpaint or other things which could be considered 'redface' are few and far between even among fans.

Interesting. What's the thing with the pigs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Again, it's just my opinion that the government should not be involved.

It's a business. Let the consumers affect the change with their wallets.

Oh, sure, let's not involve the government. That eliminates all Trademarks then. Which nicely circumvents this entire argument.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

It's a business. Let the consumers affect the change with their wallets.

That's what businesses respond to--loss of income/earnings.

Which is why it should be quite disconcerting that the government is acting in such a manner to force a name change through the trademark revocation or else the franchise will stand to lose significant value, income, etc.

The business is running a business and making profit based upon government protections which keep others from counterfeiting them. Actually what the government is doing is actually stepping back and let the organization fend for themselves with ZERO government protection. It is the exact opposite of government interference.

The question is: Why should they be allowed to continue to make money off the trademark and have the government protect them and facilitate them making money from it?

 Polonius wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
I agree with the saucy one.

It is, in my opinion, a *version* of censorship in that the government is doing an "end around" to force the Redskins organization to change the name or else lose out on the cash that was being generated from said name.

You can't argue that this is a version of censorship. You can argue that it is intended to have a similar effect, but Censorship isn't based on the effect, but on the method used. Barring Governmental action prohibiting or punishing speech, there is no censorship. This isn't a complicated concept.

And one must also look at the motives of the individual parties involved.

Now the group bringing forth the complaint very much want to censor the Redskins, there is no argument there. They don't like the name and want to force a chance. They are using whatever means they have available.

The government, aka the specific office, has no feelings one way or another. They just issue trademarks in accordance with the rules.

The group that does want to censor argued that the group issuing trademarks violates their own rules. That case was examined and found valid, and the trademark was revoked.

That doesn't make it "government censorship".

 pretre wrote:

Interesting. What's the thing with the pigs?

In the 80's the offensive line of the redskins were called 'The Hogs' and were wildly successful. So a group of fans began dressing in drag and redskins stuff and called themselves 'the hoggettes' in support of the team. It stuck and they ended up doing a crap ton of charity work and were pretty great in the community.

Almost all the official merch for the skins now are pigs. If you buy a pillow pet, or slippers or a gnome that is mascot themed, it is a Pig.

Hey, d-usa. Your 'murica is not consistent between your Location and your Title.

Unless it is intentional, which is kind of 'Merican.