PonyFans.com

That's their administrative job to review trademarks which come up for review I believe every 10 years. The administrative code provides procedural due process to appeal any adverse determination. Then when it becomes a final administrative decision then I believe there are judicial remedies that a party can pursue in the Courts. This is actually the second time the Redskin name triggered review. the first time a contest was made by an independent complainant. This present review resulted from a normal 10 year term review. apparently, the first review was unsuccesful under a higher burden of proof that the Trademark office faces in its 10 year review.

That's the cover anyway. It's an unlawful action, whatever the good intentions. We've got to get over this divide.

Esquire: A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term "redskins."

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well - 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."

nm

SMUer wrote:Esquire: A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term "redskins."

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well - 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."

the Smithsonian clearly debunked this. See my link above.

Never thought I'd say this, but East Coast Mustang makes a really good point.

couch 'em wrote:

SMUer wrote:Esquire: A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term "redskins."

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well - 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."

the Smithsonian clearly debunked this. See my link above.

So, because people (including native Americans themselves) referred to their skin color as "red", "redskin" is not racist? I'll use a similair argument: when the Dutch and first colonized Africa, documents show that native traders used to differentiate themselves from the Europeans by calling themselves "black men". Since "n*gro" is the Portuguese word for "black", calling someone a n*gro" or "n*gress" shouldn't be offensive at all!

If the Smithsonian had proved that the term "redskins" was never once used to describe native American scalps, you'd have a stronger argument; but because several tribes believe that the term was used for native American trophy scalps, it's offensive. Change their minds, then it's not. The groups in question get to decide whether a word is offensive, not its origin. A lot of connotations can be built into a word over time.

Let's go after other groups whose names are offensive, Planned Parenthood. Many of their clinics offer abortion options, that's not family planning in many peoples view. RedMan Chewing tobacco. That's twice offensive. RedMan and Tobacco.
By the way here are a few other registered trademarks with the name, Redskin. I hope Harry Reid and his band of, "We know what is better for you than you do" idiots don't see these names.

SMUer wrote:

couch 'em wrote:

SMUer wrote:Esquire: A 'REDSKIN' IS THE SCALPED HEAD OF A NATIVE AMERICAN, SOLD, LIKE A PELT, FOR CASH

Native Americans pass down stories to preserve their history and heritage, because we don’t have much of it left. As tribes were systemically exterminated, so too were their respective cultures. But we have our stories, and when my mother was young, her parents shared one about the term "redskins."

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, "His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians." They paid well - 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as "redskins."

the Smithsonian clearly debunked this. See my link above.

So, because people (including native Americans themselves) referred to their skin color as "red", "redskin" is not racist? I'll use a similair argument: when the Dutch and first colonized Africa, documents show that native traders used to differentiate themselves from the Europeans by calling themselves "black men". Since "n*gro" is the Portuguese word for "black", calling someone a n*gro" or "n*gress" shouldn't be offensive at all!

If the Smithsonian had proved that the term "redskins" was never once used to describe native American scalps, you'd have a stronger argument; but because several tribes believe that the term was used for native American trophy scalps, it's offensive. Change their minds, then it's not. The groups in question get to decide whether a word is offensive, not its origin. A lot of connotations can be built into a word over time.

Like every term that describe a group of any kind I am sure it has been used in an offensive way. There probably are some people out there that find it offensive. I stand by my original post on the subject - it is no more offensive than it ever has been, there doesn't seem to be a huge number of Indians who actually care about this.

This was clearly an attempt by the oil industry to get the conversation away from global warming.

If you like the name "Redskin", you can keep the name "Redskin". Just don't fa_t or we will tax you for greenhouse emissions.

I'm curious how much this had to do with politics. Daniel Snyder donates to Republican candidates.

lwjr wrote:I'm curious how much this had to do with politics. Daniel Snyder donates to Republican candidates.

I actually think the panel that decided this case were appointed during the Bush 43 administration. I'm not sure how appointments to the USPTO work, though, and how "political" of a process that is.

East Coast Mustang wrote:

lwjr wrote:I'm curious how much this had to do with politics. Daniel Snyder donates to Republican candidates.

I actually think the panel that decided this case were appointed during the Bush 43 administration. I'm not sure how appointments to the USPTO work, though, and how "political" of a process that is.

I think it is naive for anyone to believe this is not politically motivated. Everything in DC is done for political reasons, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on.