1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

US Patent Office cancels Redskins Trademarks

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by Phoenix, Jun 18, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,222 Messages
    130 Likes Received
    That's rather different from "So anybody can use the Washington Redskins name and logo to sell whatever they please and Daniel Snyder can do nothing about it."



    Fight what...the name change, the trademark ruling, or suing people who attempt to use the Skins name and logo to sell "whatever they please"?





    This quote from another Forbes.com article states my views well:

    Why the Washington Redskins Will Never Change Their Name
  2. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,222 Messages
    130 Likes Received
    I wouldn't call them an Indian, either. Or a Brave or a Warrior, either.
  3. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    119,053 Messages
    2,972 Likes Received
    Those aren't the original words. They were changed because...get this...the original words were a bit racist.
  4. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,334 Messages
    1,390 Likes Received
    Do you believe for a second that if they changed their nickname that they would lose their fanbase?

    Personally, I think it's a preposterous notion. To the point if the Redskins went out and won the Super Bowl the first year under a new name...the fans would start denouncing the Redskins name as a 'curse' and the new name as why good things happened to them.

    Van Riper's notion becomes even more preposterous when he cites Passikoff. They are a well established franchise and the idea that they will be leaving in droves because the last name changed is completely ludicrous.

    But, if Snyder really believes that nonsense, then that explains why he continues to fight for the name.





    YR
  5. bb721

    bb721 Active Member

    115 Messages
    61 Likes Received
    That has no relevance to whether or not the term Redskin is derogatory.
  6. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,417 Messages
    3,746 Likes Received
    sorry people want to play these race games and I really get tired of it. It is like the N word the only people using it tend to be black they use it in their comedy routines, songs and those who talk with each other. It really has become a joke these days. Yet everyone else is suppose to tip toe around it because it is soooooo bad well if it is that damn offensive then they need to stop doing it themselfs.
    jnday likes this.
  7. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,222 Messages
    130 Likes Received
    That article wasn't about "losing their fanbase"...it was about losing the stability of their brand strength.

    And you can think it's preposterous all you want...multi-billion dollar corporations invest a crapload of time, money and resources to find out the type of info contained in that article. They base corporate decisions on that info because more times than not it turns out to be valid and valuable.

    At the very least it's much, MUCH more valuable than the opinions that two schmucks like us toss around on a message board lol...
  8. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,222 Messages
    130 Likes Received
    Then whether or not I would be in a room with a Native American and call them a 'redskin' has no relevance to whether it's derogatory, either. That was my point.
  9. bb721

    bb721 Active Member

    115 Messages
    61 Likes Received
    Well then explain why you would feel the need to refrain from using any of those terms if they're not derogatory?
  10. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    78,417 Messages
    3,746 Likes Received
    Because we live in a time of speech police, is it derogatory when a high school with 92% Native American use the name Redskins for their football team?
    jnday and NIBGoldenchild like this.
  11. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,010 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    Can you prove this? I have yet to see anyone who can.
  12. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,010 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    No, the vast majority would not because it's simply rude in our culture to call someone something OTHER THAN their actual name. Which is why no matter the race, creed, age or sex, whenever you meet someone you introduce yourself with your name and they tell you theirs. If someone introduced me to people as their "mixed race" friend, I'd find them kinda rude considering I have a name that they obviously didn't feel like using. Your hypothetical situation, which many people have used as if it actually means anything, is flawed from the very start.
    MonsterD and Califan007 like this.
  13. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,176 Messages
    2,021 Likes Received
    No, it's really not because it's not being directed at anybody who is Native American. It's ridiculous to even consider that as such. Chicago has a Hockey Team called the Black Hawks. Should African Americans be upset because they are called Black Hawks? No, because there is no intent. There is no Malice there, no prejudicial intent.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2014
    Doomsday101 likes this.
  14. bb721

    bb721 Active Member

    115 Messages
    61 Likes Received
    Only to those that have a hard time seeing the bigger picture.
  15. NIBGoldenchild

    NIBGoldenchild Well-Known Member

    1,010 Messages
    42 Likes Received
    Is that you're best response? No response at all. No surprise.
  16. Sonny#9

    Sonny#9 Well-Known Member

    1,576 Messages
    38 Likes Received
    I am going to break your post down, as there is a lot of half-truths and misinformation in it...

    That was part of it. The appeals court also ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to merit the removal, and the lower court erred in doing so. That bit was in the decision released today--which I have read. From what I read, there was really very little new evidence introduced, other than a linguistic argument, which has gaping holes in it. I.e. The plaintiff's linguist researched ~150,000 uses of the word "redskin" since the late 1800s-early 1900s. Only 71 were not referencing the team, potatoes, or peaches (I have never heard of redskinned peaches before reading the decision), and many of those were preceded by qualifiers such as "greasy" or "dirty." Yet the court ruled that the team's position that the term Redskin had lost its ethnic label was not convincing.

    Likewise, the court made an assumption that since the NCAI objected, and they represent 30% of NAs, then 30% are offended. That is a huge assumption to base a judgement on.

    This was a split decision, just like 1999, with pretty much the same evidence. This will get overturned.

    There is no evidence the term "redskin" relates to any of this.

    Several NAs refer to "redskin" as their name, as they didn't like the names the Europeans game them: i.e. Apache is a Parisian gangster or common street thug. Many NAs are proud of the name--its a name they gave to themselves. Several schools on Native reservations are called the Redskins--the principal at one in Washington was quoted saying "We are proud of our name, and I dare someone to come up here and take it."

    It's not that cut and dry. Yes there are NAs who are offended, clearly. However, this is the rhetoric that keeps getting repeated by the mainstream media, b/c who doesn't love a good emotional, populist cause? It gets good ratings.

    It only tells half the story. If paying attention to the whole story, and not the rants of Keith Olbermann, Mike Florio, or the like makes me a fool...well, how foolish are those who only pay attention to half the facts?
    NIBGoldenchild likes this.
  17. DallasEast

    DallasEast Cowboys 24/7/365 Zone Supporter

    28,415 Messages
    1,900 Likes Received
    Sing it, Sam...

    Then I go to my brother,
    And I say, "Brother, help me please."
    But he winds UP knockin' me,
    Back down on my knees...


    There been times when I THOUGHT I couldn't last for long...
    But now I think I'm able to carry on.


    It's been a long, a LONG TIME coming but I know,
    A change gonna come, oh yes it will.


  18. Califan007

    Califan007 Well-Known Member

    1,222 Messages
    130 Likes Received
    Because to talk to an individual person and referring to them only by their race/skin color/ethnicity/nationality is rude. If I were in a room with a female I would not say to her "Hello, woman". Yet if I were talking about a group of females I would have no hesitation whatsoever saying they were "a group of women". If someone came up to me and said "Hello, Black man", I'd be offended. I'm not offended because he called me "black"...I'm offended because he apparently couldn't look at me as an individual. But I don't get offended when someone, say, writes an article about Black men.

    It's the act that is rude, not the word used.
  19. 65fastback2plus2

    65fastback2plus2 Well-Known Member

    1,691 Messages
    1,014 Likes Received
    the ruling is absolutely absurd, stupid and idiotic, and sad that americans support such breaking of simple freedoms.
    NIBGoldenchild likes this.
  20. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,176 Messages
    2,021 Likes Received
    This is 100% true. It is an insult to refer to a person in terms of race, rather then name. If a White Man walked into the room and you called him "White Guy" rather then his given name, that would be rude and Disrespectful. Same for any other race. That would be much more offensive.

    That's why that whole, "If you were in a room with a Native American, would you call him Redskin to his face?" argument is so idiotic. Of course not, nor would I do that to any other person of any color because he or she has a name and if you don't know it, you can refer to them in a respectful way such as Sir or Miss or Ma'am or any number of more respectful terms. Ludicrous. I have to wonder how these things get started.
    NIBGoldenchild and Califan007 like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page