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.

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.

I believe that goes back to Riggins time frame. Couple years before Theisman was taking out forever. Defensive "Hog" line or something

 TheMeanDM wrote:
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.

Well... lets not go nuts. It won't be ruination, not by any means. The actual practical effect of this is likely to be small.

Still, it's not censorship. Look, words have meanings. If a guy falls down while you're yelling at him, that's not a version beating him up. Sure, he's on the ground and bruised, but you didn't actually lay hands.

If you'd like, you can rail about "political correctness," but there's simply no way this is censorship.

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.

Do you think that goverment should not be involved in Trademarks at all? Or do you simply think they got this decision wrong, depsite the pretty clear cut federal law?

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.

How do you respond to the argument that the trademark should not have been granted?

What pressure was applied eh?

 Jihadin wrote:


I believe that goes back to Riggins time frame. Couple years before Theisman was taking out forever. Defensive "Hog" line or something

Actually, it was their Offensive line during the 80s that was known as "The Hogs". This was because, at the time, they were the biggest (weight) offensive line in all of professional football.



Ive seen recent articles recapping this whole bit of NFL shenanigans and I don't think this will change anything for the Redskins.... In 1999 and 2003 they also had their trademarks removed, but later placed back in force by court judges, citing lack of evidence (in the newer case), and "any opponent to this name change should have filed suit in 1967, when it was originally trademarked" (in the 1999 suit) Soooo... for all you who are butthurt about this name, just be prepared for it sticking around a bit longer.

Thing that pisses me off on this whole issue is that even places with "respectful" names are being forced to change, like USD (South Dakota), who used to be known as the "Fighting Sioux", which, if we're ALL honest, isn't the least bit offensive. Apparently, there was also a HS in South Dakota with the same mascot, and some people took offense and demanded change; Before a new mascot could be come up with, a local "Indian School" renamed their mascot to the "Fighting Norwegians"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long overdue. Some people might wail at political correctness gone mad, but I can guarantee that if the original name had been Washington N*****s, then something would have been done about it a long time ago.

While I can't stand Yankees in general and Redskins are the enemy of my people (why is does the Dallas stadium have an open top? So God can watch his team play) trademarks are a hallmark of our legal system. Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Daily we're becoming more and more like a a banana republic.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long overdue. Some people might wail at political correctness gone mad, but I can guarantee that if the original name had been Washington N*****s, then something would have been done about it a long time ago.

While I can't stand Yankees in general and Redskins are the enemy of my people (why is does the Dallas stadium have an open top? So God can watch his team play) trademarks are a hallmark of our legal system. Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Daily we're becoming more and more like a a banana republic.

This is Frazzled, so I'm generally not sure if serious...

The Trademark in question is violating the trademark rules, as posted by Polonius. Following the rules is upholding a hallmark of our legal system, not destroying it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Yes, because almost a decades worth of hearings is 'unilateral' and 'feel good'. I'm also not sure how going through the legal system and enforcing the law makes us a Banana Republic.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Yes, because almost a decades worth of hearings is 'unilateral' and 'feel good'. I'm also not sure how going through the legal system and enforcing the law makes us a Banana Republic.

There's a long tradition of viewing any system that produces a result you don't like as deeply flawed. Because, what's the alternative? That you're wrong? Perish the thought.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


I believe that goes back to Riggins time frame. Couple years before Theisman was taking out forever. Defensive "Hog" line or something

Actually, it was their Offensive line during the 80s that was known as "The Hogs". This was because, at the time, they were the biggest (weight) offensive line in all of professional football.

They were called that because Joe Bugel made a throwaway comment in training camp, telling Bostic and Grimm, "Okay, you hogs, let's get running down there," and it just stuck.

Riggo was made an "Honorary Hog" by them as well.

 pretre wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The vast majority of natives died from disease, which would have happened regardless. .

Yeah, totally nothing to do with those free blankets.

True, the blankets weren't a nice thing to do.

But all they really did was accelerate the process.

Even if we'd been all singing Kumbaya around their campfires most of the natives would have died.


The only way that would have been prevented is if nobody had ever come to the new world at all.

Just look at the Spaniards "conquest" of the Aztecs. They had almost lost, then the Smallpox started.

 pretre wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Long overdue. Some people might wail at political correctness gone mad, but I can guarantee that if the original name had been Washington N*****s, then something would have been done about it a long time ago.

While I can't stand Yankees in general and Redskins are the enemy of my people (why is does the Dallas stadium have an open top? So God can watch his team play) trademarks are a hallmark of our legal system. Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Daily we're becoming more and more like a a banana republic.

This is Frazzled, so I'm generally not sure if serious...

The Trademark in question is violating the trademark rules, as posted by Polonius. Following the rules is upholding a hallmark of our legal system, not destroying it.

Horsecrap. Its an existing trademark. This is serious gak.


Having said that they should change their name to the Washington Lobbyists...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Yes, because almost a decades worth of hearings is 'unilateral' and 'feel good'. I'm also not sure how going through the legal system and enforcing the law makes us a Banana Republic.

No the law is maintaining the trademark. If you don't like the Redskins don't buy their crap. Or better yet destroy them utterly 49 - 0.

Go Dallas !

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Yes, because almost a decades worth of hearings is 'unilateral' and 'feel good'.

Just because there's been time spent in hearings for a decade or so that UPHELD the 'Skins name that suddenly means nothing shows that this is "feel good"

Everything I've seen thus far in regards to past attempts at forcing the Redskins to change their name has favored them. Basically, the earliest court proceedings (at least in 1999) said that, if opponents wanted the name changed, or wanted to keep the Redskins from using the name, they should have filed a suit against them in 1967, when the original trademark was filed. Then, in 2003, using the same evidence "and then some" the judge ruled in favor of the Redskins again, citing "not enough evidence". Through what I can see, it looks as though the people filing THIS action are using the exact same evidence as in 03, which means when the Snyder family takes this to court, it will be tossed as well, and they'll keep on using, and making money off the name Redskins.

 Frazzled wrote:


No the law is maintaining the trademark. If you don't like the Redskins don't buy their crap. Or better yet destroy them utterly 49 - 0.

Go Dallas !

or beat them 73-0 but you'd have to be a much older (& Better) franchise

There's something off about this interview. I can't figure it out. I feel something is missing




Edit

I'm glad fashion came along in PT clothes

 Grey Templar wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The vast majority of natives died from disease, which would have happened regardless. .

Yeah, totally nothing to do with those free blankets.

True, the blankets weren't a nice thing to do.

But all they really did was accelerate the process.

Even if we'd been all singing Kumbaya around their campfires most of the natives would have died.


The only way that would have been prevented is if nobody had ever come to the new world at all.

Just look at the Spaniards "conquest" of the Aztecs. They had almost lost, then the Smallpox started.

Almost lost? They had many tribes backing them up against the Aztecs since a lot of the tribes outright hated them worse then anything else, and thats what gave them the advantage. The smallpox was just part of the equation.

 Jihadin wrote:
There's something off about this interview. I can't figure it out. I feel something is missing




Edit

I'm glad fashion came along in PT clothes

The Disel is a badass.

The 70 Chip play from the '82 Super Bowl is the greatest moment in franchise history and probably an all-time Top10 Super Bowl moment.

This thread is a bit of an odd duck in that it both shows how more people have realized that having a racial slur as a team name is ridiculous and wrong, but also that there are still many in denial about it being a racial slur as well those seemingly ok with being insulting to the indigenous people of the US.

As always, The Onion brings you the only perspective you need.

 Ouze wrote:
As always, The Onion brings you the only perspective you need.

Well done, as always.

Full disclosure: I'm a die-hard Redskins. My hobby room is full of Skins memorabilia and I even have Redskins license plates on my car. My feelings on the team name are mixed; I understand that some people find it offensive and some people don't (though to be fair, it seems that the ones yelling the loudest in the media about how horrible it is are self-righteous white people). I also agree that they should change the name and it will happen eventually (Dan Snyder won't be around forever). However, I'm not going to burn all my jerseys and t-shirts because there is a controversy over the name nor will I be upset when they change the name (as long as it doesn't suck).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
However, I'm not going to burn all my jerseys and t-shirts because there is a controversy over the name nor will I be upset when they change the name (as long as it doesn't suck).

I've seen some more recent (as in the past couple years) articles discussing the issue of the team name, etc... and as usual, it comes down to the history of the team, as well as the colors and the specific "Redskin" things (ie, the Maroon and gold).. Some have suggested the uber-generic "Warriors" with a Patton-esque profile as the logo, others have suggested many similar, generic "fighting" names, while keeping a similar logo, etc.


What I don't think should happen is for there to be some sort of "vote" to approve any new team name. As Dan Snyder is the current primary owner (Ive honestly no idea if he's sole owner, or majority owner), he should have the ultimate say in what the team name becomes, should he decide, or be forced to change the name. (which I doubt he will be forced to, if prior cases against the team are any indication)

There is so much fan-branding going on already that "Pigskins" might just be the way to go. It has a solid football reference, and everybody already has a snout.

 Sasori wrote:
They should name themselves the "Andrew Jacksons"

That should go over much better!

In all seriousness, I wonder if this will force Synder to change it.

The Washington Confederates?

The Washington Savages?

The Washington Heathens?

No I got it!

The Washington Communists!

Then the red and gold colors still make sense!

 d-usa wrote:
There is so much fan-branding going on already that "Pigskins" might just be the way to go. It has a solid football reference, and everybody already has a snout.

Perhaps they ought to resurrect an old "Washington" name from another sport??? I think they should be the Washington Bullets


If they were the "bullets" they could use an M60 as the logo, and the pig snouts still make sense

 Frazzled wrote:

Unilaterally destroying this for some bureaucrats feel good bs is serious, serious gak.

Daily we're becoming more and more like a a banana republic.

US Federal Judge upholding laws passed by Congress=some bureaucrat's feel good bs

No wonder Texas is becoming more and more like a banana republic.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

US Federal Judge upholding laws passed by Congress=some bureaucrat's feel good bs

What laws were those?? Every previous time I've seen this issue come up, the judge has ruled in favor of the Redskins keeping their Trademark protections....

My highschool's mascot is the "Indians" Onteora Indians to be exact. There was actually quite a kerfuffle about that a few years back.

Doesn't the word Oklahoma means "the red people"?

 whembly wrote:
Doesn't the word Oklahoma means "the red people"?

I think so...

Also, the Vancouver Canucks are named after a "not nice" way of describing someone who is of French-Canadian descent (which has since been stripped of much derogatory meaning as it once had)

My give a gak on this issue is non-existent, and, frankly, takes away from the American pastime of "getting some".

Later, taters.

 whembly wrote:
Doesn't the word Oklahoma means "the red people"?

Let me guess, blog post?