Washington loses it trademark for team name.

[Captain Silver]

Interesting. I think it is a valid argument, otherwise there wouldn't be such hubub.


STORY

[HotInHere]

I wonder what the legal implications of that are. If that impacts NFL licensing, which is a HUGE revenue stream, that could get this thing moving in a big hurry.

[BcRaven]

St. John's "Redmen" changed their name to "Red Storm" some years ago. I'm not politically correct, but I think it's time for a name change in D. C. A new logo might spark more sales of NFL stuff anyway... Bc

[The Excellector]

The name is offensive, there's no other way to put it. I don't even feel comfortable saying it anymore. I just say Washington.

[Brien Jackson]

The name is offensive, there's no other way to put it. I don't even feel comfortable saying it anymore. I just say Washington.

This. Anyone who says it's not just loses any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

[akashicrecorder]

The name is offensive, there's no other way to put it. I don't even feel comfortable saying it anymore. I just say Washington.

This. Anyone who says it's not just loses any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

+1

I applaud the publications that have already refused to use the name anymore.

I'm not sure how anyone can defend the term and its usage, but I'm sure this thread will enlighten me...

[HoustonRaven]

The name is offensive, there's no other way to put it. I don't even feel comfortable saying it anymore. I just say Washington.

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

[The Excellector]

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

Wow, Native American leaders have been trying to get this name changed for decades, but because the Smithsonian declares that some tribes are fine with it, you know, like some blacks are fine with calling each other nigga, that the word is not offensive to a race?

[Trackmaster]

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

So it seems like this ruling doesn't have a lot of teeth. The legitimate market for Reds**** merchandised might face a little bit of increased competition, but I doubt that many people will want to buy shirts that just say the city and name without the other bells and whistles that go along with it. I think that this move was pretty symbolic if nothing else. With all of Dan Snyder's protesting, it looks like he's digging himself in deeper and will go down on "the wrong side of history."

[HotInHere]

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

And Webster's dictionary says it is. All the Smithsonian has pointed out was that it did not start out as a racist term, but that's true of many ethnic slurs, including the one that's so bad no one will even utter it anymore.

The prerequisite is not that everyone finds it offensive. The fact is that many native americans do find it offensive. It is not a neutral race descriptor. It has no business being the name of an NFL team.

[bmorecareful]

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

You are misrepresenting a thoroughly debunked talking point. If you're referring to Smithsonian linguist Goddard Ives, first of all, his research did not speak for "the Smithsonian." That's an misunderstanding of the way a research-sponsoring organization like the Smithsonian Institute works--one researcher can't speak for the organization the same way that one researcher can't speak for NIH or Harvard University.

Also, Ives' research focused on the historical origin and context of the term. He explicitly said that his research did not address how the term eventually came to be used or what its relevance to modern discourse was. Like all linguists, his job was not to opine on whether or not certain words were good or bad, only where they came from.

And the National Museum of the American Indian (a Smithsonian institution) recently hosted a symposium that made clear how many academics associated with SI feel about the name: it should be changed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...2e2_story.html http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/2...nian-symposium

(By the way, the "some Native Americans don't mind the name" sounds a lot like "Well, I have a black friend, BUUUT..."

[alienrace]

To a very small minority of people who have misinterpreted the history and lineage of the word. Numerous tribes are totally fine with it.

Even the Smithsonian has weighed in in this, saying it's not a derogatory term.

Exactly. Redskins was not a derogatory term until a few people suddenly decided to view it as such, then it got listed in some dictionaries as such, with the hope that the mainstream would view it that way.

Slippery slope to say the least...what happens next, white dudes decide that being called "cowboy" is offensive, and Dallas has to change their name too?