Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=tshile;1074768]Well, the suggestion to use Warriors is normally accompanied with "... and keep the logo and the colors and the rest of the imagery" which I didn't really mention in the part you seem to object to.

So yes - if they change it to warriors [b]and[/b] move away from the Native American imagery then that would work. But that's rarely the suggestion... the people suggesting Warriors and keeping everything else have not researched the issue well enough to realize that the name Warriors, when accompanied with Native American imagery, has been protested as disparaging/offensive/etc before. That was my point ;)

So if the concern is about offending Native Americans... changing to Warriors and keeping everything else the same is not an option....

I think if you offered Warriors as the option and said we'll change to some european/mid-evil theme.... i think you're going to see support for the Warriors idea drop dramatically, but I'm just guessing.[/quote]Agreed on everything (sorry, really bad day today).

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1074772]Our own U.S. soldiers are warriors. Use the head of a helmeted U.S. soldier as the logo. Rewrite the words of the team song "Hail to the Warriors", Keep the team colors. Done.[/quote]See, but that's a bit of a sticky point as well. I know plenty of people who get really pissed when athletes are called 'heroes' or are compared to soldiers going through combat. Remember this story? [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1657901]Winslow 'regrets' making comments - College Football - ESPN[/url]

Seems like there's a catch-22 for just about anything, so maybe I'm coming around on the whole "Washington FC" idea.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=FRPLG;1074735]Rebels is a no go. Had a team named that in my little league 20 years ago...one of the original teams in a historic league. Had to change it because some parents decided that since the South were called the Rebels in the civil war it was offensive.

Not kidding.[/quote]

Wow.

I guess we'd have to make sure a clear distinction was made so one would think we were honoring the Confederacy.

I think Rebels is a great name. Easy to say, abbreviates nicely, and would allow us to keep the HTTR thing. With a few changes to the fight song, maybe we could keep that too.

[quote=KI Skins Fan;1074750]"Greedy Dumbasses in Charge" is a little too long. Just change it to "Crooks".

"Beltway Bandits" is another possible government-related name.

Actually, if the name is going to be government-related it should be an acronym. What about "PALS"? No one could object to the name "PALS". It would stand for "Piss on you Asshole Liberals".[/quote]

Yes! Our new name has been found! The Washington PALS! I love it!

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=tshile;1074755]Yup. And the primary complaint was that the Warriors was alongside Native American imagery.

Anyone honestly suggesting Warriors as an option needs to do their homework. We'll be back in the same boat eventually, it's just a matter of time.

The people demanding the name change and suggesting Warriors as an alternative... well, it shows how much they know about the offensiveness they claim to care so much about.[/quote]

True. I also think about William & Mary which is called the Tribe. They used to use 2 feathers as a logo and that was deemed a no-no so they kept the name Tribe and use a stupid looking griffin creature now.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Our current conversation is the essence of what the keep-the-name camp has been arguing...

once you start down this path of 'if even one person is offended' it becomes impossible to clearly view the end point. to the point that you start asking - what is the safe option?

Warriors with Military references may now, or in the future, be considered offensive by some. Don't forget... stepping on the football field used to be colloquially referred to 'going into battle'.... now uttering that phrase draws criticism for comparing playing a game to putting your life on the line for your country...

Once you start walking down that tight rope of PCness.......

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=irish;1074777]True. I also think about William & Mary which is called the Tribe. They used to use 2 feathers as a logo and that was deemed a no-no so they kept the name Tribe and use a stupid looking griffin creature now.[/quote]

you know how stupid that sounds along with the Marquette thing?

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1074779]you know how stupid that sounds along with the Marquette thing?[/QUOTE]


It shows how stupid this whole name debate is to start with. The further down the rabbit hole we go it just gets more dumb.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Mattyk;1074757]How about all the towns or counties out there with Indian names, I know here in NY we have a ton, do we get rid of them too? Where does it end?[/quote]

Ir doesn't end. Never will

“Being offended is a natural consequence of leaving the house”

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Mattyk;1074781]It shows how stupid this whole name debate is to start with. The further down the rabbit hole we go it just gets more dumb.[/quote]

Exactly.

What continues to be ignored is that the term is not actually offensive. If it was there wouldn't be a debate right? What is offensive and what isn't? Who gets to decide? Why can something not offensive become offensive? Words aren't inherently offensive they are made that way...either by those using them or those hearing them. Is there a difference?


We don't name a team the N***, or any other commonly used pejorative why we would anyone? It's offensive. No one uses the term Redskin in any type of derogatory manner (other than that related to football). How come I never hear from any NA who talk expressly about the offensiveness of the word? It is just a couple of words together that don't mean anything and have no real historical context of a derogatory nature.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Now that Marquette and W&M have both removed these offensive images and nicknames, are the indians feeling more respected in their areas? Are they attracting more NA students? What about the issues of poverty, substance abuse, alcoholism, is that declining around those areas with the NAs?

When people think the term native american in those areas, do they not think of red skin, black haired people in in cerimonial outfits, riding horses, teepees, piece pipes, bow and arrows? Have they removed those raciest images from their minds?

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074779]you know how stupid that sounds along with the Marquette thing?[/quote]

It very stupid. Some other colleges I can think of is St. John's changing from Redmen to Red Storm, Stanford changing from Indians to Cardinal, and Indiana U of Pa changing from the Indians to Red Hawks. I remember awhile back (maybe the 90s) that the NCAA went on an anti-NA name and imagery campaign and threatened schools with not being allowed to participate in or host events if they continued with these "offensive" names and images.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Let the games begin. Chief Wahoo is in the hot seat now.

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-lawsuit-against-indians-chief-wahoo-logo]Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com[/url]

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=irish;1074788]Let the games begin. Chief Wahoo is in the hot seat now.

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-lawsuit-against-indians-chief-wahoo-logo]Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com[/url][/quote]

No surprise, you see and hear the media making garbage arguements and trolling the left...time for the lawyers to exploit it.

Reading that article, I just picture ashy larry pulling up in his newport truck saying "im richhhhh bitchhhhhh"

Good.

The sooner this branches out past the redskins, the sooner the silent majority will stop being silent and tell these people to piss off.

In the past I would have agreed, wahoo is a symbol for how the US thought of native Americans in a disparaging way going back to cartoons in the 60s and 70s.

But now? After the relentless attack on our team, the disingenuous arguments, and the implications of ignorance and racism of the team and its supporters... screw em. please start suing them all so that we can unite all the resources and make this go away.

The time to make rational and reasonable arguments on the issue has passed. You don't get to turn around and try to gain support. The enemy of the enemy is now a friend.

Shame it has to be that way, but it's how I feel now.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=irish;1074788]Let the games begin. Chief Wahoo is in the hot seat now.

[url=http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-lawsuit-against-indians-chief-wahoo-logo]Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com[/url][/quote]

Those poor fellows. They have no idea what they're in for.

Agree with tshile. The more teams that come under attack, the more people that will begin to speak out against this whole "being offended" thing that is becoming more and more popular. Probably won't save our team, but if it helps others, excellent.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=irish;1074788]Let the games begin. Chief Wahoo is in the hot seat now.

[URL="http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-lawsuit-against-indians-chief-wahoo-logo"]Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com[/URL][/quote]

$9 billion dollars? LOL! Good luck with that one!

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=skinsguy;1074752]She's gotta understand that many mascot names/logos of the NFL and other leagues represent times in history. Why does the logo have to represent the 21st century Native American? The Patriots' logo does not represent the 21st century Patriot. The Vikings logo most certainly doesn't. The 49er's mascot name represents the gold rush back in the 1800's for Pete's sake. These names are often created from a piece of this country (and that general area's) history, and doesn't have to be updated to reflect modern culture. Progressive thinking doesn't mean tossing history aside like a worn out pair of shoes.

In my opinion, I think it's great having historic names and symbols used in professional sports - especially if your children are watching the games with you. It gives you a chance to teach them about where the names came from and history itself. Because Lord knows, there are plenty special interest groups like this one who's sole purpose is to revise history and leave out parts that might "offend" someone. Please! History isn't all roses and ice-cream. Much of it is quite bloody - just like football.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that when you see the Cowboys and Redskins on the field, they are going into "battle" against each other. It's almost like going to a reenactment of a historic war battle. Most of these NFL names represent some type of warrior or solider - whether human or animal (Patriots/Bears), and most represent a specific time period. Heck, the way people keep revising history, the NFL might be the only place to get a history lesson from.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more, your making a great point!

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Looks like Dan will continue to fight this. Interesting development here.

[url=http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2014/06/redskins-tap-tribbett-to-help-in-fight-over-nickname.html]Redskins tap Tribbett to help in fight over nickname - Decision Virginia[/url]

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=skinsguy;1074795]$9 billion dollars? LOL! Good luck with that one![/quote]

Yeah, they need the money for a new casino.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=skinsguy;1074752][B]She's gotta understand that many mascot names/logos of the NFL and other leagues represent times in history. Why does the logo have to represent the 21st century Native American? The Patriots' logo does not represent the 21st century Patriot. The Vikings logo most certainly doesn't. The 49er's mascot name represents the gold rush back in the 1800's for Pete's sake.[/B] These names are often created from a piece of this country (and that general area's) history, and doesn't have to be updated to reflect modern culture. Progressive thinking doesn't mean tossing history aside like a worn out pair of shoes.

In my opinion, I think it's great having historic names and symbols used in professional sports - especially if your children are watching the games with you. It gives you a chance to teach them about where the names came from and history itself. Because Lord knows, there are plenty special interest groups like this one who's sole purpose is to revise history and leave out parts that might "offend" someone. Please! History isn't all roses and ice-cream. Much of it is quite bloody - just like football.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that when you see the Cowboys and Redskins on the field, they are going into "battle" against each other. It's almost like going to a reenactment of a historic war battle. Most of these NFL names represent some type of warrior or solider - whether human or animal (Patriots/Bears), and most represent a specific time period. Heck, the way people keep revising history, the NFL might be the only place to get a history lesson from.[/quote]

While I am not supporting Amanda Blackhorse, there's a hidden difference in your argument. Time-wise real Vikings are gone, 49ers are gone, Paul Revere-type patriots are gone. They are historical. But Native Americans continue and would like to be appreciated for who they are now, not frozen in amber in images from the past.

[QUOTE=Lotus;1074804]While I am not supporting Amanda Blackhorse, there's a hidden difference in your argument. Time-wise real Vikings are gone, 49ers are gone, Paul Revere-type patriots are gone. They are historical. But Native Americans continue and would like to be appreciated for who they are now, not frozen in amber in images from the past.[/QUOTE]

If we talk the root of the issue, maybe the reason they are more often remembered for their past is not because a football team is named the redskins but because the image of the current day native American is poverty, substance abuse, low-quality education, and casinos (and the problems that comes with.) In other words: it's a depressing thought especially when you factor in their path that took them from then to now.

If the current day native American had a better image, maybe they could join us in celebrating the redskins the way we do.

There's a lot of ways to try to fix that. I fail to see how changing the name is any of them.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin"]Oxford[/URL]

[URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin"]Merriam-Webster[/URL]

[URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin"]Free[/URL]

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=tshile;1074807]If we talk the root of the issue, maybe the reason they are more often remembered for their past is not because a football team is named the redskins but because the image of the current day native American is poverty, substance abuse, low-quality education, and casinos (and the problems that comes with.) In other words: it's a depressing thought especially when you factor in their path that took them from then to now.

If the current day native American had a better image, maybe they could join us in celebrating the redskins the way we do.

There's a lot of ways to try to fix that. [B]I fail to see how changing the name is any of them.[/B][/quote]

Those comments were not about the name change. They were about perceptions of the logo.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=itvnetop;1074811][URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin"]Oxford[/URL]

[URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin"]Merriam-Webster[/URL]

[URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin"]Free[/URL]

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.[/quote]

There are lots of things considered official.

The dictionaries all define it as such, but where are there references to how that got there? I looked at the links and maybe I'm crazy, but didn't see any.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=12thMan;1074798]Looks like Dan will continue to fight this. Interesting development here.

[URL="http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2014/06/redskins-tap-tribbett-to-help-in-fight-over-nickname.html"]Redskins tap Tribbett to help in fight over nickname - Decision Virginia[/URL][/quote]

Makes me want to .........hug Dan's neck

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=itvnetop;1074811][URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin"]Oxford[/URL]

[URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin"]Merriam-Webster[/URL]

[URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin"]Free[/URL]

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.[/quote]

My bigger problem with these dictionaries, and I know it's my bias showing, is that the term's primary use, in my belief, is the representation of an NFL Sports team. If you walk on any reservation in the fall and say did you see the Redskins last weekend, I would wager that most would not think you were speaking of the group of people you are talking to, but a football team.

If you walk into lower Philly (as a white guy) and say, on any day, did you see those n***** last week, an ambulance would be your likely ride home.

the term, in a vacuum of real world expression, may be perceived as a pejorative term, but in the US in 2014, I believe the primary use of the word is not.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Lotus;1074815]Those comments were not about the name change. They were about perceptions of the logo.[/quote]

I see even less reason to change the logo. It was designed by native americans, made the logo at their request.

The perceptions about it... well, that's not my problem. There is a story behind it. It's up to the individual to be interested enough to find out what it is.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Hog1;1074698][url=http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/school-board-votes-to-keep-wellpinit-redskins/26580298]School board votes to keep name Wellpinit Redskins | Spokane/E. WA - KXLY.com[/url]

“To me it's a proud name and any school that uses Redskins as their mascot makes me feel proud,” Wellpinit resident Celia Stearns said.

“We decided last night that we weren't going to change it. Talking to a lot of community members, the majority of the community don't want it changed,” Williams said, adding there is too much pride in being a mighty Redskin that he wouldn't want to be one to take that away.

“I think it would be more demeaning to them if we made them change it, in fact I wouldn't want to be on the board if we tried to make them change the name Redskins."

As Thom and Kevin point out.......is ALL this just another example of the Great White Father doing whats best for the lowly incompetent Indian who cannot manage their own lives?[/quote]

So the Amanda Blackhorse challenge is calling a Native American Redskin to their face. There should be a similar challenge to call Native Americans like the Wellpinit residents Racists or at least ignorant to their faces.

There's also another quote in the article acknowledging that Redskin may have been used as a pejorative in the "Wild Wild West days", but is not used today.

I've seen that argument in other articles about NA school districts who vehemently support the use of Redskin as their team name. They say the word in any other context other than the name of a sports team is obsolete. Kind of how most dictionaries define the word 'Yankee' as "sometimes offensive", but it's been largely redefined to mean the baseball team in NYC. It's kind of corny to use the word Yankee as an insult today, but at one point in time it wasn't.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[IMG]http://whistleblower-newswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/image0076.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=itvnetop;1074811]But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries.[/quote]

The point may stand but is a weak point.

In the real world...not on paper or the internet...how is the term being used today in a generally disparaging way? How was it ever used in a generally disparaging why?

A discussion on whether to change a name or ban a term because it is offensive ought to start with the aggrieved party
A) actually being reasonably offended
B) able to show said examples of said offense

This seems like it should be simple enough. Instead the supporters of a name-change just say its offensive and move forward with their agenda. As far as I can tell its eerily similar to a Big Lie...tell everyone long enough that it's offensive and everyone will soon be offended by it.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=FRPLG;1074827]The point may stand but is a weak point.

In the real world...not on paper or the internet...how is the term being used today in a generally disparaging way? How was it ever used in a generally disparaging why?

A discussion on whether to change a name or ban a term because it is offensive ought to start with the aggrieved party
A) actually being reasonably offended
B) able to show said examples of said offense

This seems like it should be simple enough. Instead the supporters of a name-change just say its offensive and move forward with their agenda. As far as I can tell its eerily similar to a Big Lie...tell everyone long enough that it's offensive and everyone will soon be offended by it.[/quote]

Most dictionaries don't define it as a racial slur, but they all pretty much acknowledge it as being offensive or derogatory. Some also acknowledge that the word was only used as an insult a long time ago:

an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American

Yankee has a similar definition:

1. derogatory often a native or inhabitant of the US; American


Redskin, like Yankee, has largely been redefined to mean the name of a professional sports team. Before the recent media avalanche, a vast majority of the population associated the word with the football team more than anything else.

And did the dictionaries JUST start to define Redskin as being offensive? If not, why the sudden movement to change a brand name that's been in existence for 80 years?

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Lotus;1074804]While I am not supporting Amanda Blackhorse, there's a hidden difference in your argument. Time-wise real Vikings are gone, 49ers are gone, Paul Revere-type patriots are gone. They are historical. But Native Americans continue and would like to be appreciated for who they are now, not frozen in amber in images from the past.[/quote]

I would say that the flaw in your argument is that present day soldiers consider themselves patriots, just like the patriots of the Paul Revere days, and could also be appreciated for who they are now in terms of looks and uniform. So why represent the Paul Revere Patriot and not the "Desert Storm" Patriot?

In terms of the Redskins logo, again, it was not whitey who created the logo - it was a Native American artist. Obviously, the artist understood the concepts of many NFL logos, which goes back to my previous point. The logos represent [I]history[/I] and was meant to honor the Native American's history much like the Native Americans do when their tribes get together for ceremonies and dances (I have a Native American friend who's family attends these Indian tribal dances every year.)

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=skinsguy;1074837]I would say that the flaw in your argument is that present day soldiers consider themselves patriots, just like the patriots of the Paul Revere days, and could also be appreciated for who they are now in terms of looks and uniform. So why represent the Paul Revere Patriot and not the "Desert Storm" Patriot?

In terms of the Redskins logo, again, it was not whitey who created the logo - it was a Native American artist. Obviously, the artist understood the concepts of many NFL logos, which goes back to my previous point. The logos represent [I]history[/I] and was meant to honor the Native American's history much like the Native Americans do when their tribes get together for ceremonies and dances (I have a Native American friend who's family attends these Indian tribal dances every year.)[/quote]

1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.

2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.

3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.

Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

The Washington [Redacted]

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Just saw that the Seattle Times will no longer use the word, Redskin, even when writing about the Wellpinit Redskins.

Wow, telling the Native American residents of Wellpinit that they're ignorant racists is pretty harsh. Does it get any more pompous and arrogant than that?

I was starting to warm to Redtails or Red Clouds, but now I'd like Danny to stick it to these clowns and slap the sweet-looking, classic Redskin 'R' on the helmets. Tell everyone the name is now associated with redskin potatoes and be done with it. Force these a-holes to start using the name again.

Team names are, by and large, stupid and don't honor or dignify anything. Who do the Giants, Jets, Panthers, Seahawks and Cardinals honor? The PELICANS? Having a team name associated with a potato is just as dumb as being associated with a type of plane, but nobody gives it a second thought.

I just want to keep calling them Redskins. Doesn't matter to me what the background of the name is. Does anyone think of the Indian Meat Packing company when Green Bay plays? Does 49er fans care any more about gold miners that anyone else? It's a BRAND NAME, people, and a strong one at that.


The yellow helmets with the 'R' look cool and no, logos don't need to match names. They usually don't actually.

What could anyone do about it? Absolutely nothing!

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Lotus;1074850]1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.

2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.

3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.

Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.[/quote]


I wonder if Danny would compromise on the logo in order to maintain the Redskins name? Maybe update the side of the helmet, eliminate the old "buffalo nickle" indian head. I would be for that.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Lotus;1074850]1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.[/quote]

But Patriots have never died out. Patriots still exist, they just don't dress in colonial garb anymore. Patriots are simply soldiers who fight for the country they represent.

[quote=Lotus;1074850]2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.[/quote]

So there would be no issue if the owner back then was a different race?


[quote=Lotus;1074850]3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by seeking real, living experiences of the present through those dances. What does that mean?

All what is past is dead. The question is, where is the offense in representing what was in the past? Secondly, if Blackhorse wishes for the logo to better represent present day Indians, have a Native American create another logo.


[quote=Lotus;1074850]Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.[/quote]

I'm just trying to understand the logic behind what they argue. What I'm finding is, there isn't much logic.

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

Here we go

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/]Plaintiff in Redskins patent case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Redskins Trademark cancelled
 

[quote=Mattyk;1074861]Here we go

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/]Plaintiff in Redskins patent case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk[/url][/quote]

Is Florio going to post 5 articles a day now criticizing the entire Chiefs organization from head to toe?

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1074862]Is Florio going to post 5 articles a day now criticizing the entire Chiefs organization from head to toe?[/QUOTE]


Probably not, he clearly only has a boner for anything anti-Redskins. "Chiefs" isn't a slur so apparently that's ok (slur or not shouldn't matter).