Results 49 to 60 of 536
-
06-18-2014, 12:17 PM #49Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
06-18-2014, 12:23 PM #50
-
06-18-2014, 12:24 PM #51Hall Of Fame Poster
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
- Posts
- 9,164
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
Brown V Board of Education is a poor analogy because in that case, treatment of people by the govt was the issue. The govt was treating black children differently than white children.
This instance does not involve the govt, and it really does not involve the way a native american, american indian whatever is the non-offensive term of the day is being treated. It a case of someone saying they are offended and FORCING their opinion upon the owner af a business. They are forcing their opinion upon the private property of an individual. And the govt now thinks that is OK. It's ridiculous. You can have every right to be offended, but I have every right not to give a hoot about your opinion.
-
06-18-2014, 12:28 PM #52
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
I know people in this thread (on both sides of the issues) are trying to make some more sophisticated arguments than this but ...
... why isn't the simple fact that it refers to a race of people by the color of their skin enough to deem the name inappropriate?
Would we be OK with calling a team the "yellow men" and having an Asian mascot? Definitely not. I get that the term redskin has a different history. Maybe that would hold some weight as a counter argument if I could provide only one example of race based names being offensive, but I'm pretty sure it's universally true. We wouldn't be comfortable naming a team "whiteskins" or "blacks" or any other name that refers exclusively to skin color. At this point the origin is irrelevant. This goes beyond the realm of oversensitivity an PC. It's simple racism.
-
06-18-2014, 12:30 PM #53Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Kent Island
- Posts
- 1,096
-
06-18-2014, 12:30 PM #54
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
For anyone interested, here is the complete ruling.
Of note:
The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990."Chin up, chest out."
-
06-18-2014, 12:30 PM #55Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
-
06-18-2014, 12:32 PM #56Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Kent Island
- Posts
- 1,096
-
06-18-2014, 12:33 PM #57
-
06-18-2014, 12:37 PM #58
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
This cuts to the core of the issue for me. It's beyond me how anyone would try to defent the term, which clearly seems racist, but having any gov't entity forcing Snyder to change it doesn't seem right. Snyder should change it. He won't unless he stands to lose money. So people are trying to make his use of the name less profitable, whether it be through legal means of removing a trademark or just through public rebuking.
I'm not going to lose sleep over this no matter how it plays out. But if people have the right to be offended, and Snyder has the right to the name, then why shouldn't anyone have the right to target his business for using a name they find offensive?
-
06-18-2014, 12:39 PM #59Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Kent Island
- Posts
- 1,096
-
06-18-2014, 12:40 PM #60Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Kent Island
- Posts
- 1,096
Re: Washington loses it trademark for team name.
Bookmarks