Patent office rules against Redskins Trademark

[Caynine29]

Agreed, with both Caliskinsfan AND BOSS.

Personally, I fall pretty much square in the middle when it comes to government policies. As far as I'm concerned, there's far too many variables to lean completely one way, or another.

You've all seen that I'll debate civil rights to the end... but, if you saw me debate gun control, you'd start to wonder if I was the same liberal softy you may think I am. Most of the people with whom I've discussed firearms would probably roll on the floor laughing to hear anyone label me as "liberal". Lol.

That's why I try to never pigeon-hole someone into one category or another.

 

[ozarkram]

Well done by both sides. You are too be commended. While I do have some American Indian heritage probably enough for a roll number, its something I have never pursued. In my youth I watched a lot of Redskins football never did I believe there was anything racists connected with the team or logo. I see this as a non issue that should have never gone this far. But I will stand by my statement if the government is involved the name will be changed. But I believe it is a shame.

 

[Vitamike]

Some great posts here today!

The old stuff may very well be grandfathered in. That's why I said that I'm not 100% certain on the rules. But, even if it was, I doubt they'd use it after making the change (then again... money talks). Regardless, it'd still be a cash cow with, or without the throwbacks.

You're a little late to the party on Cleveland's "Chief Wahoo", though. Maybe it's because I live so close to Cleveland, but it always surprises me when I hear people include the Indians' logo in the "Who's next?" discussion, considering he's been under scrutiny for years. But, it's an interesting example to bring up. In case you haven't noticed, the Cleveland Indians are actively phasing Wahoo out of the mix, as he's appearing on less and less team merchandise every year.

This is now the team's official logo, as of last season. And they've been using a script "I" for the last few years prior to that. At home games, the stadium is filled with these hats and the parking lots are littered with bumper stickers, flags and license plate brackets featuring the "Block C". I can assure you... if you take a quick stroll down by E. 9th St. and Carnegie and it'll become pretty evident that the Indians' front office isn't losing any money here.

I don't mean 'next target'. I know that's been going on forever. I mean forced to comply. That's kind of the way I'm seeing this movement at this point and time now that the Patent Office has ruled against use.

 

[Vitamike]

haha, come on I'm not blaming Obama per say.

In 1988 did the Ronald Reagan speak about it and say that the Redskins needed to change their name? Oh no he did not....Why?? First the obvious he was our last good president (besides clinton) yes, yes, I think he too was a good president. And he had more important things to do than make statements about something he had nothing to do with.

btw here's some fun FACTS

“More than a decade ago, one of the foremost scholars of Native American languages, Smithsonian Institute’s senior linguist, Ives Goddard, spent seven months researching the subject and concluded that the word “redskin” originated as a Native American expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations that traveled to Washington to negotiate Native American national policies. In his words, “The actual origin of the word (“redskin”) is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. Our use of “redskins” as the name of our football team for more than 81 years has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans.

In 1971, while my father was head coach, our current logo was designed and approved by Native American leaders. One such leader was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzel worked closely with President John F. Kennedy in the national movement for civil rights. Mr. Wetzel’s son, Don, wrote just two months ago, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS! ^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Vitamike]

I'll ask again, when exactly did "several" become the majority? The fact is that it's only the minority (and very few at that) that are so called "offended" by the name. For those who are mathematically challenged, that means the majority don't give a rip. So it seems the non-Native Americans now feel its their duty and have taken up the cause for the mostly apathetic Native Americans regarding this issue. But again it begs the question; Why all of the sudden? If the very people that this name offends don't particularly care (the minority I'm speaking of) why are so many others so disturbed about it? Could it be that so many politicians have had an epiphany and have now acquired a higher set of morals and ethics? If that's the case then that would certainly be noteworthy to see any politician with an agenda other than their own. At the risk of being redundant, its so obviously politically motivated. And then there are also the people that just want to be offended----by anything, so that they can have something to complain about and make noise and draw attention to themselves. They make a great team with the PC crowd, attempting to go around covering up naked statues with fig leaves.


And as far as your statement that it was more offensive back then, well that is just ridiculous Caynine. Nobody was doing even a small percentage of the whining that is going on today about it then. Of course we didn't have the politically correct/Liberal/Groping for attention crowds back then that we have today. We also didn't have the social media back then that we have today where it's easier than ever to draw attention to ones self. Hmm, just coincidence I'm sure.....


It appears that Jacob did his due diligence in researching his information, so kudos to him. The nails are in your coffin on this one Caynine. But of course being the public relations spin doctor that you are I'm sure you'll find a way to twist this in a new direction. Can we all say, "rhetoric and propaganda" I know you can Caynine.

Here in lies the problem BOSS.

The Constant Threat
The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum............
Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

Hard for me to start picking and choosing the 'Bill of Rights'

 

[Vitamike]

No, I understand exactly where you're comin' from, jacob. You're not against the name change itself, but you resent the government's "involvement".

Look at it this way, though... if Snyder changed the name tomorrow... that'd be one less squeaky wheel to grease.

Yet another "win" that could stem from re-naming the team. Lol.

 

[Vitamike]

Telling you, Cowboys vs. the Federals........."The Feds are Coming"

The Feds????

I'm going with the Reds

 

[mikey728]

Here in lies the problem BOSS.



Hard for me to start picking and choosing the 'Bill of Rights'

I'm not sure why individual rights can't exist alongside majority rule...(the word tyranny is way out of line here, I believe)...As long as it's done within the confines of the law, how else are viable decisions to be made except by the majority ??? The most powerful man in the world is elected generally by the majority of voters...Forgive me if I'm missing something important here...Possible of course, because I've never claimed sharpest knife in the drawer status..This is probably a prime example of why I tend to shy away from discussions/arguments centering around politics or religion...I'm not really well-versed enough in either...All I'm armed with is my personal feelings and beliefs...Debate to me was just something that I put on the hook to catch fish...

 

[Caynine29]

Some great posts here today!

I don't mean 'next target'. I know that's been going on forever. I mean forced to comply. That's kind of the way I'm seeing this movement at this point and time now that the Patent Office has ruled against use.

Oh, I see. I came across a few other people who acted like this whole Redskins ordeal was the first of it's kind, or that it was somehow a new phenomenon. Lol. Although, they haven't even been "forced to comply". Clearly you're not "that guy".

Odds are slim that the Indians will be forced to comply either, since they're already (and I know... it's a terrible, horrible thing to do ) distancing themselves from the ol' Chief all on their own.

 

[Vitamike]

I'm not sure why individual rights can't exist alongside majority rule...(the word tyranny is way out of line here, I believe)...As long as it's done within the confines of the law, how else are viable decisions to be made except by the majority ??? The most powerful man in the world is elected generally by the majority of voters...Forgive me if I'm missing something important here...Possible of course, because I've never claimed sharpest knife in the drawer status..This is probably a prime example of why I tend to shy away from discussions/arguments centering around politics or religion...I'm not really well-versed enough in either...All I'm armed with is my personal feelings and beliefs...Debate to me was just something that I put on the hook to catch fish...

Debate I like that one and will use it for sure!

mikey, this isn't really politics, it's more in line with American Government as constructed by our Founding Fathers and Minority Rights are essential for Democracy to exist.

Here is some text on the subject and a link if anyone would like to read further on the subject...

Democracy Requires Minority Rights
Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members. Democracy Web | Majority Rule, Minority Rights: Essential Principles

Here's some more on Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ozarkram]

Vita sorry too say this will mostly fall on deaf ears.

 

[mikey728]

Debate I like that one and will use it for sure!

mikey, this isn't really politics, it's more in line with American Government as constructed by our Founding Fathers and Minority Rights are essential for Democracy to exist.

Here is some text on the subject and a link if anyone would like to read further on the subject...

Here's some more on Tyranny of the Majority.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia[/QUOTE

I don't see anything here that runs contrary to my opinion of majority rule...There is no reason individual ideas/ideals and opinions can't co-exist under that scenario...I agree that oppression is not tolerable..If, in fact. we agree that individual opinions are an unalienable right, than majority "tyranny" cannot exist..It seems to concur with my stated opinion that majority rule is the "law" of the land...The best, easiest and quickest way for minorities to become majorities is at the ballot box...If folks don't like majority rule, perhaps they prefer anarchy...That would severe the limbs of that nasty tyranny thing post haste...Moving on.................................Being simple-minded can make life far easier to "understand"...That's why I'm usually happier than a pig in shit...I'll peruse other topics now...I do appreciate the information, even if I choose to exercise my basic right to not be in total agreement with some of it...My last thought...I've often wondered if, under majority rules scenario, whether elected lawmakers should legislate based on the majority beliefs of constituents who elected them, or with their own conscience ??? This seems to have morphed into a slightly different discussion than the original... So rather than violate my own personal credo of little discussion of these types, I'll close my involvement with simply: how 'bout those Rams, eh ???

 

[ozarkram]

This has been a pretty darn good thread all in all IMHO. Far better than the normal, our ownership and management suck, our coach and staff are morons, our QB is a sissy Mary, and the rest of the team is crap, type of thing we see constantly. But what the hell do I know. Go Rams.

 

[bluepigpen]

 

[Rambunctious]

41QlqNjIR2L._SY445_.jpg

Nothing wrong with this redskin...

 

[ozarkram]

 

[shopson67]

'Caucasians' shirt satirizing Chief Wahoo becomes popular on Canadian Indian reservations | FOX Sports

 

[mikey728]

'Caucasians' shirt satirizing Chief Wahoo becomes popular on Canadian Indian reservations | FOX Sports

Surely I must be able to spin that into some kind of frivolous litigation...

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

Great post Shopson. I appreciate your sense of humor.

 

[shopson67]

Strange that half of the word Caucasian is "asian", which Caucasians are not. Also odd that Caucasus refers to a region that includes part of the Russian Federation, Georgia, Armenia, etc, but most would consider Caucasian to refer to white European heritage.