District Court Judge Upholds Trademark Trial And Appeal Board's Ruling Finding REDSKINS Disparaging

[Sharkinva]

You would have every right to insist I take it off or I should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

And not going to the games does not remove the name and the sting. Pretty safe bet 99.99999% of those offended have never been to a Redskins game. Every time they see SportsCenter or watch other teams play the Redskins name will be heard, the highlights will be seen. The name will be there for them even if they try to avoid it. That is not the answer.

Actually if we are in a public place, I would have no more right to insist you take off your shirt, than you would have to tell me to polish your shoes.

So unless you are saying we are morally obligate to NEVER offend any one by action or word, and failing the moral obligation it should be federally mandated, IM kinda not sure what you expect. And i would be willing to bet that about 85% of those "offended" where not offended until some one explained to them just how offended they should be.

But like I said, check the horses you are backing. Look at what Harjo, Blackhorse and Halbrite are REALLY going after. They dont just want the Redskins name... this is all leading up to a multi million/Billion dollar law suit. So forgive me if I find their outrage and pain just a tad bit manufactured.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Dude, they dropped $36 million just on the commercial spot that ran during the Super Bowl and the NBA Finals. So maybe not Billions, but a few Million is nothing to sneeze at.

BUt let me ask you an honest question.... when exactly did you decide the team name was actually a Slur?? And what prompted this divine enlightenment?? But cause Im pretty sure if you were a DC Football team from an early age, the concept that it was or could even be a racial slur didnt dawn on you until the past 10-15 years. Which is my real point. Words dont define people, we give them meaning.

As I said it never occurred to me until the '91 Super Bowl when I heard of the first protests. Like many I dismissed it, the story seemed to go away and I never gave it another thought. Then it came up again and like you I dug in my heals and said it's not that bad, I'm not listening to a small percentage. But that number has steadily grown, as has new information that casts serious doubts about previous polls as I have said.

So about 2 years ago, in the middle of several of these debates, I became convinced that I should not simply dismiss those who are truly hurt and offended just because I think the helmet is cool. Sounded pretty selfish to me.

 

[Sharkinva]

As a follow up to my comments about the flawed poll here is new info that cites 67% of NAs now feel the name is in fact racist.


That now infamous 2004 Associated Press Annenberg survey – quoted ad nauseam by TV pundits, fans, and even NFL representatives – said that a majority of Native Americans believe the name “Redskins” is not offensive.


Well, according to a California professor, they’re all wrong. James Fenelon, Lakota/Dakota from Standing Rock, a sociology professor at California State University, San Bernardino, compiled his own data, and the results show that 67 percent of Native Americans believe that “Redskins” is a racist word.


During a news conference in January, when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said that nine out of ten Native Americans “prefer” the name “Redskins,” he was quoting that 2004 survey of 768 people who identified themselves as American Indian.


“Of course it is both disgusting and predictable,” Fenelon told ICTMN about the 90 percent figure that Goodell quoted. “It is a major reason why I agreed to take this [study] on… The dominant society knows on some level that it is bogus to run these uncritical polls, and then reproduce results that don't resonate with real experience.”


Read more at 67 Percent of Native Americans Say Redskins Is Offensive - ICTMN.com

http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

So wait, you put validity behind a poll conducted by a website that openly admits their bias?? Dude, thats kinda like asking a bunch of Native Israelies if they believe all Muslims are potential terrorists.

 

[Sharkinva]

As I said it never occurred to me until the '91 Super Bowl when I heard of the first protests. Like many I dismissed it, the story seemed to go away and I never gave it another thought. Then it came up again and like you I dug in my heals and said it's not that bad, I'm not listening to a small percentage. But that number has steadily grown, as has new information that casts serious doubts about previous polls as I have said.

So about 2 years ago, in the middle of several of these debates, I became convinced that I should not simply dismiss those who are truly hurt and offended just because I think the helmet is cool. Sounded pretty selfish to me.

So as I have said, you like many others were some how convinced this was actually a bad thing. And again I contend that the majority of the offended NA's have likely never heard the term in a mocking or racist context. Thus much like you they had to actually be convinced this was a racial slur. Look bro I respect you, and even your point of view on a lot of things even when we disagree. I just think this is more of a contrived issue at this point than an actual outcry some would have us think it was.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

So wait, you put validity behind a poll conducted by a website that openly admits their bias?? Dude, thats kinda like asking a bunch of Native Israelies if they believe all Muslims are potential terrorists.

Fair point, I was actually going to comment about that. The point is any poll can say what you want it to. And that is why I am hesitant to form my opinion based on poll figures as so many of you clearly have done.

And again even if 9 out of 10 don't find it offensive, a figure that I don't believe is even close to the truth, does that 1 in 10 not matter? Again would only insulting one of your ten dinner guest be acceptable?

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

So as I have said, you like many others were some how convinced this was actually a bad thing. And again I contend that the majority of the offended NA's have likely never heard the term in a mocking or racist context. Thus much like you they had to actually be convinced this was a racial slur. Look bro I respect you, and even your point of view on a lot of things even when we disagree. I just think this is more of a contrived issue at this point than an actual outcry some would have us think it was.

I was not listening to Larry from New Jersey when I changed my opinion. I am listening to the many voices of the offended NAs who have made their feelings clear. As I said at first it never occurred to me that it was offensive, then I dismissed it as bunch of overreactionaries. But as it grew it became clear that a whole lot of folks are offended and once I heard their reasons I certainly understood why.

Again a $36 million Super Bowl ad means one thing to me: it's important to a lot of people.

 

[Sharkinva]

Fair point, I was actually going to comment about that. The point is any poll can say what you want it to. And that is why I am hesitant to form my opinion based on poll figures as so many of you clearly have done.

And again even if 9 out of 10 don't find it offensive, a figure that I don't believe is even close to the truth, does that 1 in 10 not matter? Again would only insulting one of your ten dinner guest be acceptable?

Again I think you would have to look at the context. If my dinner guest was a Muslim and decided that because he was offended by people eating pork and thus no one should eat pork.. I would tell him to pound sand because in fact his choice should not infringe on my enjoyment of something that i really had no intention of offending him with in the first place. Its not as if the team owner picked the name and said.. HA Im going to offend those damned native americans.

Its all about context dude. And I seriously urge you to check the people that are driving this charge. Might actually give you a little insite as to why i think this is more contrived than actual legit issue.

 

[MISKO]

i hope this eventually works out in the washington redskins favor

 

[Sharkinva]

I was not listening to Larry from New Jersey when I changed my opinion. I am listening to the many voices of the offended NAs who have made their feelings clear. As I said at first it never occurred to me that it was offensive, then I dismissed it as bunch of overreactionaries. But as it grew it became clear that a whole lot of folks are offended and once I heard their reasons I certainly understood why.

Again a $36 million Super Bowl ad means one thing to me: it's important to a lot of people.

And to me it means alot of people see a long term pay out in this some where down the road. And once again, Im not saying some people dont have a right to be offended. IF they truely believe its a slur, thats their right. But then by the same token, white americans should be outraged at the team name Yankee.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I'm fatigued by this debate but will again revisit my reasons for supporting the name.

Racism requires context and intent to be racist. Not sure why this point is always getting lost in this discussion.

Even if you accept the premise that the word is a slur (I do not) you then have to look at how the franchise uses the word (context) to describe a football team and is the word being used to demean and belittle (intent)

The word Redskin was a self described word FIRST chosen and used by NAs. This was not a word created by the white man.

I don't proscribe to the argument that if 1 person is offended, all must be. That is not the definition of a democracy.

Which brings me to my greatest issue. Government has no business dictating policy in regards to policing language.

I'm of the opinion that if a name change is mandated by government, the name should become SKINS, the spear logo should be adopted and we should move on.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

As a follow up to your last comment an informed opinion does not mean someone needed "convincing". I honestly never understood why stacking rocks in the wild was so bad, what's the big deal? Then I read other's opinions and I changed mine. That's not a contrived opinion, I wasn't talked into a position. I made an informed opinion once I heard the other side.

It's no different here whether it's me or a NA who changed his mind once he heard the objection.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I'm of the opinion that if a name change is mandated by government, the name should become SKINS, the spear logo should be adopted and we should move on.

I've always been in favor of this compromise solution.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Racism requires context and intent to be racist. Not sure why this point is always getting lost in this discussion.

It gets lost because not everyone believes it. I could wear a Redskins jersey to that cookout I mentioned earlier full of NAs with complete innocent intentions. That does not change how it will be received.

 

[Sharkinva]

As a follow up to your last comment an informed opinion does not mean someone needed "convincing". I honestly never understood why stacking rocks in the wild was so bad, what's the big deal? Then I read other's opinions and I changed mine. That's not a contrived opinion, I wasn't talked into a position. I made an informed opinion once I heard the other side.

It's no different here whether it's me or a NA who changed his mind once he heard the objection.

OK so lets agree you came to this decision on your own without convincing. You base this off the logic that the team name was directly meant to refer to the Skin color of a group of people and not a subset of those same people that actually could have taken PRIDE in the name??

And the idea that the Word redskin is definitely a slur is contrived, since there is no proof either way that it is or even was a slur as originally intended. The word Gay, originally meant simply a happy person, at some point it BECAME a slur towards some one of homosexual tendencies... now all of a sudden its NOT a slur any more.

Context dude.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

It gets lost because not everyone believes it. I could wear a Redskins jersey to that cookout I mentioned earlier full of NAs with complete innocent intentions. That does not change how it will be received.

That doesn't make the reaction correct or incorrect however. It just illustrates that not everyone will feel the same way about something. And that everyone should have the right to feel how they wish.

I'm an Asian American. I've never understood the outrage of some Asians who feel Oriental is a slur. Do they have a right to feel that way? Sure.

Do I think the courts should be involved? Hell no.

 

[Sharkinva]

It gets lost because not everyone believes it. I could wear a Redskins jersey to that cookout I mentioned earlier full of NAs with complete innocent intentions. That does not change how it will be received.

Again, you would b e wearing that Jersey in a totally benign manor with zero intent of offending any one. If some one there choose to be offended by you wearing the Jersey, why does it become your moral obligation to change your feeling towards the jersey in question because some one else has ascribed a particular meaning to the word??

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

To sum it all up for me:

Obviously a lot of Native Americans are offended by the name. So many in fact that the leaders of the 5 largest tribes voted 20-1 to oppose the name. Shark thinks that's all about money. DGF sees that as a pretty dismissive and cynical opinion that totally disregards the many NAs who are actually offended.

I don't buy for a second the poll figures those in favor of the name are using to form their opinion. As I have shown and tried to explain you can get a poll to read any way you want it to read.

I totally get that it's not the court's job to dictate. But it's also pretty clear that the voices of those NAs offended will not be head by Mr. Snyder without forced intervention. That's why a compromise such as the one suggested I hope can be found.

I think it's wrong for others to tell those offended how they should feel. Seems to me that's their decision to make, not yours.

 

[Sharkinva]

To sum it all up for me:

Obviously a lot of Native Americans are offended by the name. So many in fact that the leaders of the 5 largest tribes voted 20-1 to oppose the name. Shark thinks that's all about money. DGF sees that as a pretty dismissive and cynical opinion that totally disregards the many NAs who are actually offended.

I don't buy for a second the poll figures those in favor of the name are using to form their opinion. As I have shown and tried to explain you can get a poll to read any way you want it to read.

I totally get that it's not the court's job to dictate. But it's also pretty clear that the voices of those NAs offended will not be head by Mr. Snyder without forced intervention. That's why a compromise such as the one suggested I hope can be found.

I think it's wrong for others to tell those offended how they should feel. Seems to me that's their decision to make, not yours.

So let me put it this way... if Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and 20 other Black "Leaders" all voted that something was offensive to blacks in general, do these people speak for the entire African American community?? You are basically saying that 21 people speaking for a body of 5.2 million is indicative of how the majority of them feel?? Thats is rather presumptuous. And Im not saying that Every Native American who is against the name is in it for the money. But I fully believe that those who have been spearheading this thing are in it for the payout. The Navajo nation is the largest body of Native Americans left. I think its alot more telling that for years they have refused to change the name of one of their premier high schools from Redskins. I would think GENERATIONS of Native Americans choosing to call them selves Redskin with Pride would hold alot more weight than 20 guys at a council meeting. But thats just me I guess. After all, if the majority of the NAvajo nation felt the term was a slur, dont you think they would have changed the name of the school team by now considering it wouldnt take an act of god to make THAT happen??

 

[skinsdad62]

To sum it all up for me:

Obviously a lot of Native Americans are offended by the name. So many in fact that the leaders of the 5 largest tribes voted 20-1 to oppose the name. Shark thinks that's all about money. DGF sees that as a pretty dismissive and cynical opinion that totally disregards the many NAs who are actually offended.

I don't buy for a second the poll figures those in favor of the name are using to form their opinion. As I have shown and tried to explain you can get a poll to read any way you want it to read.

I totally get that it's not the court's job to dictate. But it's also pretty clear that the voices of those NAs offended will not be head by Mr. Snyder without forced intervention. That's why a compromise such as the one suggested I hope can be found.

I think it's wrong for others to tell those offended how they should feel. Seems to me that's their decision to make, not yours.

1) PC horse manure . 21 people with an agenda speak for a whole group of people ?

2) funny you believe a poll that was cherry picked by people who oppose the name and call it good ? foolishness
3) the voices have been heard by snyder and the answer was no why does it have to be "yes " in order to declare being "heard " more PC propaganda

4) no one is telling anyone how they should feel . what we are saying is your minority viewpoint doesnt mean we have to change our view . the minority does not dictate to the majority unless you have a totalitarian govt .
5) spending 36 mil or more on an add is political grand standing and if you can raise that kind of money for an add then you can raise that kind of money to help your people

6) the US govt should have no role in a team name period nor should some fat cat bureaucrat polishing his ass in an overpaying job either

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

An Indian Chief is the leader of the tribe, some some self proclaimed spokesperson like Al Sharpton. He is supposed to represent and speak for the people, it's an elected position. I'm just not ready to announce that all 21 had an agenda, not sure how you can make that claim with certainty. If we are to dismiss the poll that I posted, and for good reason as I said, then how can we believe the others? As I said they were plenty flawed on their own.

But like I said I'm not ready to take on the whole board on this issue.