PonyFans.com

Another victory for the whacky outrage industry in America. Although, as I understand it, the ruling has little impact on the team's bottom line since they still get common law protections nationwide.

Over/under on how many pages this thread lasts before being deleted? I'll say 2.5

"...the appeals board was supposed to be ruling about whether the trademarks were viewed as disparaging at the time they were registered. He noted that years ago, the trademarks weren’t viewed that way"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

East Coast Mustang wrote:Another victory for the whacky outrage industry in America. Although, as I understand it, the ruling has little impact on the team's bottom line since they still get common law protections nationwide.

Over/under on how many pages this thread lasts before being deleted? I'll say 2.5

On the one hand, I hate that the Government is in the business of deciding what is "offensive" and taking people's property away from them.

On the other hand, the name is racist and they need to change it. Unfortunately, their owner doesn't have enough brains cells left to understand how much money he would make selling [NEW NAME] stuff to fans of the team.

In 5 years, the name will be gone - bet on it.

Funny thing about that ad- aren't there predominantly Native American high schools in America today that use the nickname "Redskins?"

Is "redskin" even really offensive now? I have never heard of it being used in a disparaging way, and my exhaustive poll of two card-carrying native Americans thought the whole issue was stupid.

Digetydog wrote:On the other hand, the name is racist and they need to change it. Unfortunately, their owner doesn't have enough brains cells left to understand how much money he would make selling [NEW NAME] stuff to fans of the team.

I don't think that's actually true- I could be wrong here but I think the NFL's revenue sharing plan puts all profits into a pot and then distributes them evenly amongst the teams

East Coast Mustang wrote:

Digetydog wrote:On the other hand, the name is racist and they need to change it. Unfortunately, their owner doesn't have enough brains cells left to understand how much money he would make selling [NEW NAME] stuff to fans of the team.

I don't think that's actually true- I could be wrong here but I think the NFL's revenue sharing plan puts all profits into a pot and then distributes them evenly amongst the teams

I seem to remember Jerry got the deal revised so that the Bengals (who don't sell squat) don't get an equal share of the Cowboy's sales. But, I could be mistaken.

Bottom line: Over time, language changes and certain names for other ethnic groups are no longer considered appropriate. While Redskin may not have been a slur in the past, many people now believe that it is. Thus, it is a slur and he is eventually going to have to change the name.

I'm part Cherokee (yes I'm mostly white, but I have had relatives that have lived on the reservation and my ancestors walked the trail of tears) and no one in my family could give less of a [deleted] about the word redskin. No one cares. No one talks about it. It's a bunch of control freaks that get butt hurt about everything and anything. It's about controlling other people, this is no different.

blackoutpony wrote:It's about controlling other people, this is no different.

My thoughts exactly. The Braves, Indians, Chiefs, and Seminoles will all be next on the chopping block

Didn't the Seminole tribe in Florida approve of FSU being named the Seminoles?

East Coast Mustang wrote:

blackoutpony wrote:It's about controlling other people, this is no different.

My thoughts exactly. The Braves, Indians, Chiefs, and Seminoles will all be next on the chopping block

ECM, to your/my discussion the other day re. the 1st Amendment, this is that wonderful synthesis we discussed where restriction of speech (by this writ of USSC ruling) and cost of free speech merge into one. There is a cost benefit/penalty for speech in the public and private sector that is deemed 'not correct' (politically or otherwise), and now our government is weighing in on the subject.

Back in the day, Al Jolson did blackface as part of his act. Jack Benny had 'Rochester', the stereotype of a black man-servant. Offensive? Not at the time, but in the present culture, they wouldn't fly any more than Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles if it were presented to movie studios today. The link in 'free speech' and 'culturally correct speech' has had the desired effect of neutering thought outside a very limited scope. Thus the Redskins drama, the lawsuits, the media crusade, and the false sense that by changing the name of a football team we have 'solved one more facet of institutional racism.'
Welcome to the brave new world...and for this Cowboy fan, as hard as it is to say:
"Hail To The Redskins"

mustang1108 wrote:Didn't the Seminole tribe in Florida approve of FSU being named the Seminoles?

You are correct.

But the issue has not died largely because others (read non Seminole Indians) have nevertheless deemed it offensive and in need of altering. You don't have to be of that 'people-group' to be offended, according to The Nation's Jack Zirin (January 7, 2014). As a matter of fact, there is something wrong with you if you are not offended...ahem.

I believe the Seminole tribe in Oklahoma is not OK with the name, but the Seminole tribe in Florida is.

Just call them the 'Skins. We do that now anyway.

Their mascot can be a potato.