Washington loses it trademark for team name.

[Brien Jackson]

No, they're really not. The Council hasn't spoken on the subject except to say it wont approach it. The "opposition" are a handful of old farts who aren't in the council and just trying to start a riff.

Really don't get it though. They are allowed certain rights and laws that other people are not. Did you guys know Peote is fully legal INSIDE their agreed upon lands, ALONG with Marijuana and actually most other drugs. Little known fact, but the DEA has NO jurisdiction on reservations, neither do "local law enforcement". True story.

/facepalm

[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..."

[HoustonRaven]

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.

So because a word has been co-opted a minority and turned it into a word that a small few find offensive, a business has to change its entire brand?

And that's not political correctness run amuck?

[The Excellector]

Native American Associations have been trying to get the name changed for decades. I don't know where you all have been. Just because their efforts didn't gain much traction doesn't mean their efforts were either invisible or irrelevant.

[Brien Jackson]

So because a word has been co-opted a minority and turned it into a word that a small few find offensive, a business has to change its entire brand?

And that's not political correctness run amuck?

There is so much derp in this sentence.

Tell ya what, why don't you go into your nearest black majority neighborhood and start talking to the "colored boys." That should make for a good lecture on how people should never have issue with words/phrases that have non-racist origins and that were commonly tossed around 50-75 years ago.

[lobachevsky]

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.

After the Danny Snyders exhaust their appeals, you bet your arse it will. Any & every 3rd-world manufacturer will be able to crank out stuff with the "R*dsk*ns" logos & undercut the wildly-overpriced "NFL licensed" crap without paying the team a (you should pardon the expression) red cent for the use. So long as they leave the "NFL" off the look-alikes, neither the team nor the league will have any legal recourse.

And yes, that should get things moving rather quickly. Note in particular that an earlier decision to this effect was only overturned on a technicality which the plaintiffs have corrected this time around. Danny Boy's only real option (other than changing the name) is to try & drag out the appeals long enough for the GOP to take the White House & stack the commission with corpitalist shills who'll reverse the ruling. (One brief glance at the roster of Republican hopefuls for 2016 should make cooler heads think twice...but that's JMO of course.)

And just FTR, am I the only one who's over the imbecile commenters on that site whining over the eeeeebil gummint when in fact it was that same eeeeeeebil gummint's official sanction of the R*dsk*ns trademark that has enabled the team to make obscene profits on the sale of its fan stuff? Does anyone really think an "NFL licensed" jersey that probably costs all of $0.39 to make in one of those 3rd-world sweatshops is worth paying >$100 for otherwise?? The Feds are getting out of the way of the market for once, & they bitch & moan...

[HoustonRaven]

There is so much derp in this sentence.

Tell ya what, why don't you go into your nearest black majority neighborhood and start talking to the "colored boys." That should make for a good lecture on how people should never have issue with words/phrases that have non-racist origins and that were commonly tossed around 50-75 years ago.

Talk about derp.

If that were a fungible analogy, you'd have a point.

Go find me members of the black community that find the N word ok. Or find me leaders of the black community who are ok being called colored.

Because I CAN find numerous tribal leaders who are totally ok with the term Redskin and understand it's true history.

[Mista T]

At this point I'd put the over/under on the league forcing a new nickname at two years, tops.

I believe that the league will put an end to this nonsense in less than 2 years. Maybe just in a few months. The trademark ruling will hit NFL Properties, i.e. all 32 teams will be pinched. Right or wrong, giving up the Redskins name is going to happen. Landover fans are braced for it - they'll get over it, just as they got over dropping the stolen "Bullets" name in favor of the ultra-inspiring <sarcasm> team name of "Wizards".

I personally think that this matter reflects how PC has gone nuts and that there is improper Government intervention into Snyder's private property rights, but this is 2014. In any event, Snyder has been a schmuck, steering the demise of a once-respected franchise into the 32nd best managed NFL team. Most Redskins fans I know are prepared for the inevitable, anyway.

[HotInHere]

So because a word has been co-opted a minority and turned it into a word that a small few find offensive, a business has to change its entire brand?

And that's not political correctness run amuck?

Small few? How do you know it's a small few? Seems like there are a great many people -- not just native americans -- offended by the name and believing it should be changed. I'm one of them. There are many others on this site alone. I don't see how that's a "small few."

And the word was not co-opted by a minority and more than the n-word was. Its common usage became derogatory over time. That's simply not in dispute.

The only argument being made in favor of keeping the name is, "Well, WE don't mean it in a racist way." To which I say: so what? You don't get a pass for using racially offensive terms by saying you don't mean it in a racist way.

[Jayc00]

Just change the damn name and get it over with. Move them into DC while they're at it.

[HotInHere]

Exactly!!!! It was brought by FIVE individuals. NOT the American Indian Council, which yes guys there is one, sort of like the NAACP only for well Native Americans.

Poor argument. Brown v Board of Education was filed by 13 plaintiffs, not the entire NAACP. Does that mean only 13 people that segregation was racist and unfair?