Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge has sided with the [URL="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/redskins"][COLOR=#800080]Washington Redskins[/COLOR][/URL] in a lawsuit brought by American Indians who consider the team's name racially offensive.

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/07/11/redskins.ap/index.html]Judge sides with Redskins in Indian lawsuit - NFL - SI.com[/url]

Again.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

Enough already

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=Mattyk72;456226]Enough already[/quote]

Seriously.

:sleep:

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

Nothing like :bdh:

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

How many times can the same law suit get filed. wtf

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

I'm really tired of hearing about this lol.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

From the article:

"But a U.S. district judge in Washington says the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their case to court."

Anybody know if this means there was some excessive delay in *this particular* case, or has the name been in use so long that nobody can contest it?

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

Thought this was a non issue. Seems pretty silly to me

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

This shit is way old! Get the Fck over it! How bout them REDSKINS!

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan_nn;456262]This shit is way old! Get the Fck over it! [SIZE="7"][B]How bout them REDSKINS![/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE]:D
No kidding..... When will they give up?

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;456260]From the article:

"But a U.S. district judge in Washington says the plaintiffs waited too long to bring their case to court."

Anybody know if this means there was some excessive delay in *this particular* case, or has the name been in use so long that nobody can contest it?[/quote]

No, it means nobody gave an ish about the Redskins being called that for 65 years until some Native Americans got pissed about it in the 90's/2000's. I would sympathize with them here but the fact that most Native Americans don't have a problem with it suggests to me that it's just a small group of Native Americans that are going out of their way to try and get rid of the name.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

The basketball team for the University of Northern Colorado calls themselves the Fightin' Whites. Personally I think it's pretty funny.


[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w316/redskins5605/3478817_zoom.jpg[/IMG]


Anyone want a T-Shirt? :)
[url=http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite]The Fighting Whites Online Shop : CafePress.com[/url]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=mooby;456275]No, it means nobody gave an ish about the Redskins being called that for 65 years until some Native Americans got pissed about it in the 90's/2000's. I would sympathize with them here but the fact that most Native Americans don't have a problem with it suggests to me that it's just a small group of Native Americans that are going out of their way to try and get rid of the name.[/quote]

The reflexive response to the issue of Native American mascots is not particularly surprising given the forum, but I am more ambivalent (at best) and would make a few points.[LIST=1][*]It is incorrect to say that "nobody gave an ish about the Redskins being called that for 65 years." Much of the energy to fight the use of Native American mascots came out of the Civil Rights era and as early as 1972 Native Americans petitioned Washington Redskins lawyers to change the name and began attempting to meet with ownership, though no litigation began (because no viable strategy existed). (Suzan Shown Harjo, "Fighting Name Calling: Challenging 'Redskins in Court', 189-207, in C. Richard King and Charles Fruehling Springwood, eds., [I]Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [/I][Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001]). It seems disingenuous to claim that a minority group lacked the power or organization to launch a formal challenge so therefore no one must have cared.[*]It also seems dishonest to say that the courts "again" ruled in the Redskins favor. In 1999 a panel of three trademark judges ruled that the trademark registrations on the name Redskins "would be canceled in due course." The case was a culmination of a legal strategy begun in 1992 to challenge the trademark rights of the team name (one developed by Stephen R. Baird) under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act which states, "No trademark...shall be refused registration on the principla register on account of its nature unless it - (a) Consists of or comprises ... scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage...persons...or bring them into contempt, or disrepute" (Harjo, 198, 203-205; see also and [url=http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html]15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)[/url]). The ruling was vacated in 2003 by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who said that the plantiffs waited too long to file a challenge of the original 1967 trademark. It then went to the U.S. District Court of Appeals, who said that the youngest plantiff was only one year old in 1967 and thus too young to take legal action. The case was sent back to Kollar-Kotelly, whose latest ruling said that the plantiff had waited too long after reaching the age of majority (in 1984, lawsuit filed in 1992) to take legal action ([URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483"][COLOR=#810081]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483[/COLOR][/URL]). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.[*]Though you provide no evidence for your claim that "most Native Americans don't have a problem with it", I would be willing to bet that you probably have a point. I would also bet that the number is inversely proportional to socio-economic and educational status. That Native Americans are, as a group, among the poorest in the nation is a product of a history of colonial power relations between Euro and Native Americans. That the majority group historically had the power to define a minority group in official discourse (in this case the naming of sports teams) and that those names continue to be perpetuated is a product of that same historical legacy.[*]I realize few, if any, here will agree with me. I am conflicted myself, as I own as much "Redskins" branded merchandise and memorabilia as just about anyone. But even if you don't agree I think it is worth thinking about more deeply then just reflexively saying "I like the Redskins, the name has always existed in my living memory, I am not offended, therefore anyone who thinks a problem exists is a fringe radical". I wanted to think some more about this so I went and picked up the book I referenced above[I], Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy[/I]. I have only read the introduction and the chapter on the Redskins (which is not particularly scholarly since it was not written by a scholar), but it appears quite interesting and scholarly from the introduction. It is an edited volume so it contains a number of articles.[/LIST]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Riggo44;456278]The basketball team for the University of Northern Colorado calls themselves the Fightin' Whites. Personally I think it's pretty funny.


[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w316/redskins5605/3478817_zoom.jpg[/IMG]


Anyone want a T-Shirt? :)
[url=http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite]The Fighting Whites Online Shop : CafePress.com[/url][/QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that's not the school's official mascot. I think I've read that it's a club team made up of Native American players.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites]Fighting Whites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Riggo44;456278]The basketball team for the University of Northern Colorado calls themselves the Fightin' Whites. Personally I think it's pretty funny.


[IMG]http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w316/redskins5605/3478817_zoom.jpg[/IMG]


Anyone want a T-Shirt? :)
[url=http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite]The Fighting Whites Online Shop : CafePress.com[/url][/QUOTE]

That has Daseal written all over it. LOL

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;456632]The reflexive response to the issue of Native American mascots is not particularly surprising given the forum, but I am more ambivalent (at best) and would make a few points.[LIST=1][*]It is incorrect to say that "nobody gave an ish about the Redskins being called that for 65 years." Much of the energy to fight the use of Native American mascots came out of the Civil Rights era and as early as 1972 Native Americans petitioned Washington Redskins lawyers to change the name and began attempting to meet with ownership, though no litigation began (because no viable strategy existed). (Suzan Shown Harjo, "Fighting Name Calling: Challenging 'Redskins in Court', 189-207, in C. Richard King and Charles Fruehling Springwood, eds., [I]Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [/I][Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001]). It seems disingenuous to claim that a minority group lacked the power or organization to launch a formal challenge so therefore no one must have cared.[*]It also seems dishonest to say that the courts "again" ruled in the Redskins favor. In 1999 a panel of three trademark judges ruled that the trademark registrations on the name Redskins "would be canceled in due course." The case was a culmination of a legal strategy begun in 1992 to challenge the trademark rights of the team name (one developed by Stephen R. Baird) under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act which states, "No trademark...shall be refused registration on the principla register on account of its nature unless it - (a) Consists of or comprises ... scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage...persons...or bring them into contempt, or disrepute" (Harjo, 198, 203-205; see also and [URL="http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html"]15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)[/URL]). The ruling was vacated in 2003 by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who said that the plantiffs waited too long to file a challenge of the original 1967 trademark. It then went to the U.S. District Court of Appeals, who said that the youngest plantiff was only one year old in 1967 and thus too young to take legal action. The case was sent back to Kollar-Kotelly, whose latest ruling said that the plantiff had waited too long after reaching the age of majority (in 1984, lawsuit filed in 1992) to take legal action ([URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483"][COLOR=#810081]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483[/COLOR][/URL]). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.[*]Though you provide no evidence for your claim that "most Native Americans don't have a problem with it", I would be willing to bet that you probably have a point. I would also bet that the number is inversely proportional to socio-economic and educational status. That Native Americans are, as a group, among the poorest in the nation is a product of a history of colonial power relations between Euro and Native Americans. That the majority group historically had the power to define a minority group in official discourse (in this case the naming of sports teams) and that those names continue to be perpetuated is a product of that same historical legacy.[*]I realize few, if any, here will agree with me. I am conflicted myself, as I own as much "Redskins" branded merchandise and memorabilia as just about anyone. But even if you don't agree I think it is worth thinking about more deeply then just reflexively saying "I like the Redskins, the name has always existed in my living memory, I am not offended, therefore anyone who thinks a problem exists is a fringe radical". I wanted to think some more about this so I went and picked up the book I referenced above[I], Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy[/I]. I have only read the introduction and the chapter on the Redskins (which is not particularly scholarly since it was not written by a scholar), but it appears quite interesting and scholarly from the introduction. It is an edited volume so it contains a number of articles.[/LIST][/quote]

Yeah, I have a response. Uh, what?

[IMG]http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1873/caveman3tx6.jpg[/IMG]

Here's your link below. Most Native Americans don't care. And you're right in saying those who are uneducated care less than those who are. But a not insignificant number of them are indeed educated. From the data, by simple math, once can infer that half those polled were college graduates. And only 14% of those educated found it offensive.

[URL="http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/"]'Redskins' mascot acceptable, poll says - NFC East - MSNBC.com[/URL]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;456635][URL="http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6093796/"]'Redskins' mascot acceptable, poll says - NFC East - MSNBC.com[/URL][/QUOTE]

Did anyone else notice the overuse of the term "Indian" in that article...it struck me as odd.

EDIT: Fixed the misspelling of notice (somehow it was "not")

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=jdlea;456638]Did anyone else not the overuse of the term "Indian" in that article...it struck me as odd.[/quote]

Yeah I noticed that too and at first it made me question the authenticity of the article. But then, it's posted on MSNBC, a legit source of journalism.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;456639]Yeah I noticed that too and at first it made me question the authenticity of the article. But then, it's posted on MSNBC, a legit source of journalism.[/QUOTE]

I agree, it just struck me as odd

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=jdlea;456642]I agree, it just struck me as odd[/quote]

Maybe this helps explain it:

[COLOR=black][QUOTE][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][COLOR=black]A 1995 US Census Bureau survey found that more American Indians in the United States preferred [I]American Indian[/I] to [I]Native American[/I].[77] Nonetheless, most American Indians are comfortable with [I]Indian[/I], [I]American Indian[/I], and [I]Native American[/I], and the terms are often used interchangeably.[78] The traditional term is reflected in the name chosen for the National Museum of the American Indian, which opened in 2004 on the Mall in Washington, D.C..[/COLOR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][/QUOTE][/COLOR]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States"]Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;456651]Maybe this helps explain it:

[COLOR=black][/COLOR]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States"]Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL][/QUOTE]

Interesting...

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

I watched a show on this subject a year or so ago and it just did not seem like it was that big of an issue. This one lady on the show was trying to hold a protest out side of the RFK back some years ago. They showed her doing all of this planning and calling of Native Americans to come out and support the cause. They then showed her protest at the game and it was just her and her two children. So that tells me it must not be that big of a concern. Where do all of these people who protest stuff get the time to do them and work?

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

It's not that the term "redskin" is offensive as much as it is another example of the majority using the culture of a minority for profit without comprehension of it's meaning. Putting on headdresses, doing a tomahawk chop while chanting or calling oneself a "brave" is rude and demeaning. However, is it any more so than suburban kids listening to rap music? The difference is that Johnny lives in a cul-de-sac while promoting himself as a straight up gangsta with all of the vernacular and actions associated with another culture every day while he is spending his parents money and giving it to the industry that is fed off of his ignorance and stupidity. Our money goes to the NFL and Snyder, not an American Indian.
As long as mainstream news can and do use a racist term like "Indian Summer" to describe those untrustworthy and sneaky days of heat, I'll wear my Redskins shirt with pride and lament the day that Wanchese and Manteo welcomed a boat of Europeans into this land.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=SC Skins Fan;456632]The reflexive response to the issue of Native American mascots is not particularly surprising given the forum, but I am more ambivalent (at best) and would make a few points.[LIST=1][*]It is incorrect to say that "nobody gave an ish about the Redskins being called that for 65 years." Much of the energy to fight the use of Native American mascots came out of the Civil Rights era and as early as 1972 Native Americans petitioned Washington Redskins lawyers to change the name and began attempting to meet with ownership, though no litigation began (because no viable strategy existed). (Suzan Shown Harjo, "Fighting Name Calling: Challenging 'Redskins in Court', 189-207, in C. Richard King and Charles Fruehling Springwood, eds., [I]Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [/I][Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001]). It seems disingenuous to claim that a minority group lacked the power or organization to launch a formal challenge so therefore no one must have cared.[*]It also seems dishonest to say that the courts "again" ruled in the Redskins favor. In 1999 a panel of three trademark judges ruled that the trademark registrations on the name Redskins "would be canceled in due course." The case was a culmination of a legal strategy begun in 1992 to challenge the trademark rights of the team name (one developed by Stephen R. Baird) under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act which states, "No trademark...shall be refused registration on the principla register on account of its nature unless it - (a) Consists of or comprises ... scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage...persons...or bring them into contempt, or disrepute" (Harjo, 198, 203-205; see also and [url=http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html]15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)[/url]). The ruling was vacated in 2003 by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly who said that the plantiffs waited too long to file a challenge of the original 1967 trademark. It then went to the U.S. District Court of Appeals, who said that the youngest plantiff was only one year old in 1967 and thus too young to take legal action. The case was sent back to Kollar-Kotelly, whose latest ruling said that the plantiff had waited too long after reaching the age of majority (in 1984, lawsuit filed in 1992) to take legal action ([URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483"][COLOR=#810081]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483[/COLOR][/URL]). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.[*]Though you provide no evidence for your claim that "most Native Americans don't have a problem with it", I would be willing to bet that you probably have a point. I would also bet that the number is inversely proportional to socio-economic and educational status. That Native Americans are, as a group, among the poorest in the nation is a product of a history of colonial power relations between Euro and Native Americans. That the majority group historically had the power to define a minority group in official discourse (in this case the naming of sports teams) and that those names continue to be perpetuated is a product of that same historical legacy.[*]I realize few, if any, here will agree with me. I am conflicted myself, as I own as much "Redskins" branded merchandise and memorabilia as just about anyone. But even if you don't agree I think it is worth thinking about more deeply then just reflexively saying "I like the Redskins, the name has always existed in my living memory, I am not offended, therefore anyone who thinks a problem exists is a fringe radical". I wanted to think some more about this so I went and picked up the book I referenced above[I], Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy[/I]. I have only read the introduction and the chapter on the Redskins (which is not particularly scholarly since it was not written by a scholar), but it appears quite interesting and scholarly from the introduction. It is an edited volume so it contains a number of articles.[/LIST][/QUOTE]

Great points, and I'm in the minority of fans who agree with you. I do think that there is a lot invested in the Redskins trademark, I've seen the bust of the Chief at Fedex Field, and I recognize the positive spin that is placed on the name Redskins by historians. In the end, I have to side with the sentiment put forth by the American Indian Movement (AIM), American Indians are people and not mascots ([url=http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html]National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media[/url]). I also read Russell Means' book "Where White Men Fear to Tread" and gained a greater appreciation for the American Indian Movement, their struggle and their issues. In the end, the Kenyan proverb "Until the lion has his or her storyteller, the hunter will always have the best part of the story" seems apropos.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=rypper11;456751]It's not that the term "redskin" is offensive as much as it is another example of the majority using the culture of a minority for profit without comprehension of it's meaning. Putting on headdresses, doing a tomahawk chop while chanting or calling oneself a "brave" is rude and demeaning.[/quote]
From the poll Schneed posted earlier, 90% of Native Americans do not find the Redskins name offensive, which would include "rude & demeaning". I believe that percentage probably holds true for "braves" or "fighting Sioux" or Seminoles".

Not sure in this case how the majority is using the minority for profit, these teams could chose any other name/mascot with little effect on their profitability. They would actually see short term profit gains by changing their name/mascot in a spike of new jerseys, hats, t-shirts sales.

The "majority" is not the only group concerned with profits. If you have any knowledge of government contracting or Native American casinos, you will find that there are several government programs that give specific advantage to Native Americans in these areas and Native Americans are certainly taking advantage of them, for a great deal of profits. (Profits are not a bad thing, no matter if it is the "majority" or "minority" making them)

As for the meaning, most on this site know the history of the team name (from the article):
"The franchise began in Boston as the Braves but was purchased in 1932 by George Preston Marshall, who changed the name to honor head coach William “Lone Star” Dietz, an American Indian. The team kept its monicker after moving to the nation’s capital in 1937."
Not sure how this is rude or demeaning or "using the minority for a profit".

[quote]However, is it any more so than suburban kids listening to rap music? The difference is that Johnny lives in a cul-de-sac while promoting himself as a straight up gangsta with all of the vernacular and actions associated with another culture every day while he is spending his parents money and giving it to the industry that is fed off of his ignorance and stupidity.[/quote]
Are you saying that suburban kids who listen to rap are ignorant & stupid? Or that their behavior is "rude & demeaning?" Whatever you're saying, I'm sure the rap artists and record labels sure appreciate the behavior....all the way to the bank.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=memphisskin;456755]Great points, and I'm in the minority of fans who agree with you. I do think that there is a lot invested in the Redskins trademark, I've seen the bust of the Chief at Fedex Field, and I recognize the [B]positive spin that is placed on the name Redskins by historians[/B]. In the end, I have to side with the sentiment put forth by the American Indian Movement (AIM), [B]American Indians are people and not mascots[/B] ([URL="http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html"]National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media[/URL]). I also read Russell Means' book "Where White Men Fear to Tread" and gained a greater appreciation for the American Indian Movement, their struggle and their issues. In the end, the Kenyan proverb "Until the lion has his or her storyteller, the hunter will always have the best part of the story" seems apropos.[/quote]If by recognizing "positive spin" you mean facts, then OK.

Nice slogan, but are Irish people "people and not mascots" too? How about people with Nordic ancestry (Vikings)?

This whole issue is PC at its worst. I don't believe for one second the owners who created these team names intended ANY racism. Plus if 90% of the folks who are perceived by some to be offended, aren't, it's a non-issue.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

If the numbers were in favor of Native Americans fighting against this mascot/name, I have a hard time believing fans would suddenly have a change of heart and support a change. I think we'd still hear the arguments that the name is a symbol of pride or we've become to PC or the marginalized group is too sensitive.

Just because a small percentage of NAs are polled to be "against" the name, that doesn't make the term any less offensive. Type in "redskins" and "definition" in google- see what the dictionaries say. More sources than not include the word "offensive."

There was a time "Amos and Andy" was considered acceptable in popular culture. The civil rights movement changed things for the better. Take the time to see outside of your own looking glass and understand where the other side is coming from. Why hasn't there been a similar civil rights movement for Native Americans? Read some of the books listed in this thread and you'll understand why. Read beyond the numbers that say there isn't an outcry from the Native American people re: mascots and names. This group is uniquely different than any other group in the United States: namely in its historical treatment and current condition due to its past. The poll numbers are direct reflections of a deeper problem.

This is one instance where the power to change things may not come from the weakened group. This change must come from the ones in control. And as such, I don't see it changing any time soon.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

Are you saying that suburban kids who listen to rap are ignorant & stupid? Or that their behavior is "rude & demeaning?" Whatever you're saying, I'm sure the rap artists and record labels sure appreciate the behavior....all the way to the bank.[/quote]
That is exactly what my point was. If an American Indian had any ownership of any of the sales and they were benefiting from the mascots, I think there would be no problem at all. That was my attempt at comparing the two.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=itvnetop;456761]If the numbers were in favor of Native Americans fighting against this mascot/name, I have a hard time believing fans would suddenly have a change of heart and support a change. I think we'd still hear the arguments that the name is a symbol of pride or we've become to PC or the marginalized group is too sensitive.

Just because a small percentage of NAs are polled to be "against" the name, that doesn't make the term any less offensive. Type in "redskins" and "definition" in google- see what the dictionaries say. More sources than not include the word "offensive."

There was a time "Amos and Andy" was considered acceptable in popular culture. The civil rights movement changed things for the better. Take the time to see outside of your own looking glass and understand where the other side is coming from. Why hasn't there been a similar civil rights movement for Native Americans? Read some of the books listed in this thread and you'll understand why. Read beyond the numbers that say there isn't an outcry from the Native American people re: mascots and names. This group is uniquely different than any other group in the United States: namely in its historical treatment and current condition due to its past. The poll numbers are direct reflections of a deeper problem.

This is one instance where the power to change things may not come from the weakened group. This change must come from the ones in control. And as such, I don't see it changing any time soon.[/quote]

Well said.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=itvnetop;456761]If the numbers were in favor of Native Americans fighting against this mascot/name, I have a hard time believing fans would suddenly have a change of heart and support a change. I think we'd still hear the arguments that the name is a symbol of pride or we've become to PC or the marginalized group is too sensitive.

Just because a small percentage of NAs are polled to be "against" the name, that doesn't make the term any less offensive. Type in "redskins" and "definition" in google- see what the dictionaries say. More sources than not include the word "offensive."

There was a time "Amos and Andy" was considered acceptable in popular culture. The civil rights movement changed things for the better. Take the time to see outside of your own looking glass and understand where the other side is coming from. Why hasn't there been a similar civil rights movement for Native Americans? Read some of the books listed in this thread and you'll understand why. Read beyond the numbers that say there isn't an outcry from the Native American people re: mascots and names. This group is uniquely different than any other group in the United States: namely in its historical treatment and current condition due to its past. The poll numbers are direct reflections of a deeper problem.

This is one instance where the power to change things may not come from the weakened group. This change must come from the ones in control. And as such, I don't see it changing any time soon.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? This post is so full of convoluted nonsense I can't even express how ridiculous it is. It sounds like you're trying desperately to find a way to dismiss the overwhelming empirical evidence against your argument.

So basically, the Native Americans are weak and can't stand up for themselves, so that's why they figure I might as well vote for complacency in this MSNBC poll? FOR WHAT? TO WHAT END? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? You make it sound like they're women with battered wives syndrome.

If you're asked in a harmless poll whether you find something offensive, you don't have to stand up and take a stand, or fight the good fight, or anything like that. You give your answer, you hang up the phone, and you go back to reading your kids a bedtime story. They have no reason to say they're not offended if in fact they are.

Bottom line: An astoundingly [B]OVERWHELMING[/B] percentage said they did not find it offensive. You can read all the ridiculous books you want. But you can't change facts.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

I don't think it would be the end of the world if they changed the name. What I don't get is that some people claim the logo that's on the helmets is offensive. Anyone want to explain that one? I mean if they were the Warriors or the Tribe or some other name, wouldn't the logo be okay?

For me it's about football. They could go completely without a nickname for all I care. They could call themseves coffee table or candy bar or mandolin and I don't care as long as they line up with 11 and play the Cowboys and do it in Washington.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456760]

This whole issue is PC at its worst. I don't believe for one second the owners who created these team names intended ANY racism. Plus if 90% of the folks who are perceived by some to be offended, aren't, it's a non-issue.[/QUOTE]

Won't go into Vikings, but they are no longer around. American Indians still do, well at least 3 million of them do.

I can believe that the majority of Redskins fans do not intend any racism when mentioning the team. I don't think any of us have any racist intentions when we buy Redskins gear, or even come into The Warpath and type what we feel about the Redskins. But I also don't think any one of us started liking the Washington Redskins because it was a way to celebrate the American Indian, or 90% of us sure didn't.

I won't belabor this, but that survey really only speaks to the 90% of people they surveyed, it cannot and should not be used to extrapolate to the greater population. So 90% of the people the University of Pennsylvania surveyed in 2003 did not find the term Redskin offensive. Without seeing their methodology their are two major problems with this reasoning. 1) Not every American Indian had an equal chance of being chosen to participate in this survey, so the survey results only apply to the survey participants which in this case is 768 people. 2) I haven't seen their methodology but how the question was asked in large part dictates the answer. By the information given in the article there is no way to tell if they were asked to rank certain words, or to give their response to certain words, or how the question was framed. So to use this survey as proof is at the least spurious and possibly disingenous.

I saw that George Preston Marshall named the team after his coach. So in 1933, George Marshall was so enamored with his American Indian coach that he nicknamed his team the Redskins to celebrate the coaches ancestry? In 1933? In Boston in 1933? And that's a fact? I guess King Kong was just about a giant gorilla wreaking havoc on New York too, huh? And Tarzan was just a story about a guy raised by apes who somehow became King of the Jungle? Dude if you piss in my water and call it lemonade it doesn't make it so, its still piss.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;456789]I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about? This post is so full of convoluted nonsense I can't even express how ridiculous it is. It sounds like you're trying desperately to find a way to dismiss the overwhelming empirical evidence against your argument.

So basically, the Native Americans are weak and can't stand up for themselves, so that's why they figure I might as well vote for complacency in this MSNBC poll? FOR WHAT? TO WHAT END? FOR WHAT PURPOSE? You make it sound like they're women with battered wives syndrome.

If you're asked in a harmless poll whether you find something offensive, you don't have to stand up and take a stand, or fight the good fight, or anything like that. You give your answer, you hang up the phone, and you go back to reading your kids a bedtime story. They have no reason to say they're not offended if in fact they are.

Bottom line: An astoundingly [B]OVERWHELMING[/B] percentage said they did not find it offensive. You can read all the ridiculous books you want. But you can't change facts.[/QUOTE]

If you've read any of these books, I'd doubt you'd call them ridiculous. Go ahead and ignore the correlation between their past decimation and the resulting outcome (seen in the state of the general NA population today). I wouldn't call the Native American tribes "weak" as being the reason they don't stand up for themselves. If you'd taken the time to read anything regarding their current state in this country, you wouldn't use a poll to dismiss the lack of outcry. You have the audacity to call my statements "convoluted nonsense" and "desperate", yet you'll take one poll's numbers over hundreds of years of history, nearly every dictionary's inclusion of the word "offensive" (in the definition of "redskins") and tons of books/research that discuss the Native American experience... all which provide the very reasons why we aren't able to see a noticeable movement on their behalf.

I'm not desperately grasping at anything... I'm adding to a discussion. If you polled African-Americans in the 50s, I'm guessing the overwhelming majority weren't offended at the term "colored" back then either. Are you saying we have to wait until some future point in time where the polls will reflect otherwise for NAs? *Although, I'd like to fast forward to such a time in order to see if your stance on our team's name was really, in fact, dictated by poll numbers. The term "redskins" isn't really even borderline in today's non-football vernacular. Quite the opposite, the majority of dictionary publishers, English professors and most citizens (in general) cite an offensiveness with this term [I]when used to describe the Native American people[/I]. Why do we have to wait until there's some type of government-sponsored poll of Native Americans to do the right thing? Several universities have already reversed their long-standing traditions... they've waken up. As a society, we make the conscious decision to render words obsolete- we don't have to wait until the offending group deems it so.

But feel free to continue responding to something you don't agree with using emotional pejoratives... everything's black and white, right?

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

For those that will only listen to some random poll for their sole basis of argument supporting their case, there's always another poll to state the opposite:

[URL="http://www.allarm.org/articles/indiancountrytoday.html"]American Indian Opinion Leaders Poll[/URL]

Point being? We can find fault with any poll we pull up. Questionable sampling methods used in an SI or MSNBC poll that reflects non-offensiveness or the poll above, conducted by a NA newspaper.

Here are a few links to organizations trying to make a stance (just do a quick google search):

[URL="http://www.allarm.org/articles/resolution_list.html"]Allarm[/URL]
[URL="http://www.racismagainstindians.org/UnderstandingMascots.htm"]STAR[/URL]
[URL="http://www.aimovement.org/ncrsm/index.html"]AI Movement[/URL]
[URL="http://aistm.org/fr.groups.htm"]General listing[/URL]

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

My Great Aunt (by marriage) is a Native American, American Indian, or whatever the hell you want to call her. I prefer American, but she goes by Bev (Beverly). She is originally from Michigan and moved here as a young adult. She is one of the biggest MFin Redskins Fans on this side of the Potomac. The name is not offensive to her, she embraces it. HTTR!

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

Funny how this is always discussed each and every off-season. I'm getting tired of hearing it. Screw the PC movement. I live in the United States of America and not the United States of the Offended.

If the sentiment that the Vikings name is ok because there are no Vikings around, how about the Fighting Irish? Plenty of Irish still around. It's all bunch of stupid bunk. Give over it already.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=memphisskin;456822]Won't go into Vikings, but they are no longer around. American Indians still do, well at least 3 million of them do.[/quote]
There are plenty of people with Nordic ancestry around, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian and many other. I've never heard one complaint of being offended by the Viking name. Plenty of Irish around, and the "Fighting Irish" has often been mentioned as a veiled reference to the "drunk Irishman" sterotype. No Irish are compaining about ND. Those were just a couple that came to mind quickly. There are other many other team names/mascots people could find offensive.

[quote]I saw that George Preston Marshall named the team after his coach. So in 1933, George Marshall was so enamored with his American Indian coach that he nicknamed his team the Redskins to celebrate the coaches ancestry? In 1933? In Boston in 1933? And that's a fact?[/quote]
Actually some more background so you don't think I'm "pissing in your water". The Boston Braves came from the old Duluth Eskimos, who were bankrupt (I guess that team name was offensive too). Marshall wanted to distinguish his team from the Boston Braves baseball team, but keep with the same Indian theme. This was also an honor to his new coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, a full blooded Indian who played with Jim Thorpe at Carlisle. The team moved from Braves Field to Fenway Park and changed the name to Redskins.

For the record, my wife has Indian ancestry in her background and has no problem with the team name, should we include her in the survey too?

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[quote=itvnetop;456840]If you've read any of these books, I'd doubt you'd call them ridiculous. Go ahead and ignore the correlation between their past decimation and the resulting outcome (seen in the state of the general NA population today). I wouldn't call the Native American tribes "weak" as being the reason they don't stand up for themselves. If you'd taken the time to read anything regarding their current state in this country, you wouldn't use a poll to dismiss the lack of outcry. You have the audacity to call my statements "convoluted nonsense" and "desperate", yet you'll take one poll's numbers over hundreds of years of history, nearly every dictionary's inclusion of the word "offensive" (in the definition of "redskins") and tons of books/research that discuss the Native American experience... all which provide the very reasons why we aren't able to see a noticeable movement on their behalf.

I'm not desperately grasping at anything... I'm adding to a discussion. If you polled African-Americans in the 50s, I'm guessing the overwhelming majority weren't offended at the term "colored" back then either. Are you saying we have to wait until some future point in time where the polls will reflect otherwise for NAs? *Although, I'd like to fast forward to such a time in order to see if your stance on our team's name was really, in fact, dictated by poll numbers. The term "redskins" isn't really even borderline in today's non-football vernacular. Quite the opposite, the majority of dictionary publishers, English professors and most citizens (in general) cite an offensiveness with this term [I]when used to describe the Native American people[/I]. Why do we have to wait until there's some type of government-sponsored poll of Native Americans to do the right thing? Several universities have already reversed their long-standing traditions... they've waken up. As a society, we make the conscious decision to render words obsolete- we don't have to wait until the offending group deems it so.

But feel free to continue responding to something you don't agree with using emotional pejoratives... everything's black and white, right?[/quote]

You'd have to explain the math of this to me, I'm not quite getting it. So a book, written by one person, is supposed to carry more weight than one person's vote in a poll? Why? Because it's a book??

In the end, a book is one author's point of view.

When a poll is conducted by an Ivy League institution, you can rest assured that the population was sampled in a sufficiently random manner. Meaning when you sample 768 people in a random manner, you get a conclusive result that can be used to approximate the sentiments of the Native American population in general. And I think it's pretty safe to say that this poll does not carry a 50%+ margin of error - the overwhelming response of 90% - 10% says it all. I recognize most people don't understand statistical sampling and how it can be a true barometer for a population's sentiments - I can give a math lesson if you wish. To suggest that this poll means nothing because it only sampled a small portion of Native Americans is to completely dismiss the mathematical foundation for nearly every scientific and sociological research endeavor over the last 100 years.

Here's my question. Who the eff cares about what someone said in a book?? I've got a brain of my own, I don't need to read a book to be told what to think. I can consider the other side's point of view on my own, objectively, without reading these opinions. A book is one man's opinion - for every book you mention I can probably find a book with the opposing viewpoint. Mathematics, however, are cut and dry.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;456854]

Actually some more background so you don't think I'm "pissing in your water". The Boston Braves came from the old Duluth Eskimos, who were bankrupt (I guess that team name was offensive too). Marshall wanted to distinguish his team from the Boston Braves baseball team, but keep with the same Indian theme. This was also an honor to his new coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, a full blooded Indian who played with Jim Thorpe at Carlisle. The team moved
from Braves Field to Fenway Park and changed the name to Redskins.

For the record, my wife has Indian ancestry in her background and has no problem with the team name, should we include her in the survey too?[/QUOTE]

Wait, so you're telling me a man identified as "the leading racist in the NFL for 24 years" (courtesy of his wikipedia page) and one who only drafted a black man upon pressure from the federal government, chose a pejorative name for the team as a way to "honor" his coach? That is piss, not lemonade sir, and I shall not drink it!

Won't get into the argument about other team nicknames as it is irrelevant.

Re: Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit
 

It admittedly does get increasingly difficult to pretend that the team's name does not have some other connotation. And the really cold fact is that, because Native Americans have been so marginalized in our society (once their society), that the offensiveness passes unnoticed because there is really no one around to hear the tree fall in the forest. A name that gave that kind of depiction to Blacks or Ricans like me would get shouted down because there are enough people in that constituency with enough of a relevant voice sure to tell society that that is unacceptable.

Couple of ironies though. One is that the fact is that when you say the word "Redskins" in so-called mainstream U.S. society, what people think of first IS the football team, and NOT the ethnic group. Another is that research (which I don’t have right in front of me right now) reveals that Native Americans themselves throughout the years at all levels of sport have themselves named their teams Redskins. Hmm.

When people talked about "ni**ers" that word was laced with hatred and a misguided superiority at the time it was being said, with violence, lynchings, separate restrooms, back of the bus, you name it. But when we say the word Redskins today, there is no associated hatred or sense of
supremacy vis a vis Native Americans; the word comes out of the mouth without any associated negative baggage. Sure, it is the same "word," but the substance is not the same at all. The prevailing argument is that we should dispense with the word because it is offensive and does not
represent our society today. But since we know that it does not represent today's society, then the alleged offensive substance of the word has already been rendered meaningless !

Even on the team itself, I don't remember anyone thinking Mark Rypien was dumb or reviled as the quarterback because he was Native American; of course not. So, where is the real offensiveness? What was that we learned in school, "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Growing up for me (and I’m sure others), the name depicted bravery and glory etc. and that, as far as the Washington Redskins were concerned specifically to be called a "true Redskin" was a badge of honor in the sports world and in the local community, as it stood for humble guys who worked hard on the field with great teamwork and gave to the community off of it. It was hardly
disparaging at all and really had nothing to do with offending Native Americans b/c again, Redskin conjured up the image of Darrell Green and Art Monk, not Sitting Bull.

As a minority myself, I sometimes find it perplexing that other minorities in the U.S. would look so quickly to self-identify as hyphenated, and to marginalize themselves by choosing to direct their collective energy to take up the cause of being offended by labels and semantics.