Redskins Trademark cancelled

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Please re-read my stance on boycotting. Another example- not a fan of Orson Scott Card's personal beliefs and public statements. Huge fan of Ender's Game. Wagner was one hell of a composer despite being an unapologetic anti-Semite. Mel Gibson's drunken rants? Don't tell me some of you aren't disgusted by his words, yet still watch his films. Separate the art from the artist. A song's message from its offensive content. A team from its nickname. It's the same way I can dance to "Ain't No Fun" in a club without stomping off the floor because of its misogynist (yes, offensive) lyrics.

Although I see the word Redskin as an offensive label, I tolerate it because I don't define the team I root for by its mascot or nickname. Being from the DMV area ties me to this team. I understand not everyone weighs the word equally right now. Just like how the n-bomb was part of everyday vernacular not so long ago, it took a few decades for the word to become universally rejected (despite some who say there are more important things to worry about than such words). But with sentiment quickly growing, right now will be tomorrow's misstep. Our future generations will wonder how exactly this name stuck around for so long.

I'll still be supporting this team after the name switches. For everyone holding on to the name for dear life- will you?

See I think this is where we differ. I don't equate tolerance to offense. Those are two different things. Tolerance means I accept whatever it is I tolerate. Doesn't have to be something I even like, but I accept it. Heck I might even be entertained by it.

Being offended, again my opinion, means that I do not tolerate whatever it is that has caused me offense. It's caused me personal grief, directly, and its caused me disruption in my soul.

Completely my opinion, but I would wager to say that a good amount of those who have hopped on the "change name" bandwagon, are there, not because they are personally offended by the name, but support the possibility that someone might be offended. In other words, they're looking to be offended at something.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

See I think this is where we differ. I don't equate tolerance to offense. Those are two different things. Tolerance means I accept whatever it is I tolerate. Doesn't have to be something I even like, but I accept it. Heck I might even be entertained by it.

Being offended, again my opinion, means that I do not tolerate whatever it is that has caused me offense. It's caused me personal grief, directly, and its caused me disruption in my soul.

Friend A: Your religion/god/diety is about as legitimate as the flying spaghetti monster.

Friend B: That statement totally offends me and what I stand for.

Friend A: So where do you feel like eating?

Friend B: Let's go grab some sushi.

See what I did here? Friend B does not define Friend A by his conflicting perspective towards his religious beliefs. Friend B is even offended by the statement. But it's just part of what makes Friend A, Friend A. There's much more to Friend A than just his offensive spiritual statement- honesty, loyalty, etc. Values that Friend B exhibit trump his offended feelings when religion is discussed.

I sincerely don't like the team name... But the name doesn't negate all the reasons (listed several pages back) why I follow the organization. Behaving in absolutes will eventually trip you up somewhere down the line.

How many people here saw the new X-Men? Bryan Singer (the director) is being accused of some pretty serious stuff. The average person had no idea this is going on, those who knew are naturally withholding judgment before boycotting... but I know quite a few industry heads who think he's guilty (based on years of well-known industry lore regarding Singer's circle) and went to see it anyway. I'm fairly certain they are offended/disgusted/soul crushed by child rape, but they did not define the entire film by the alleged actions of its director. When you boycott a film you originally intended to see, you also hurt the writers, editors, VFX, camera, talent, etc. (OT- Amy Berg is working on a documentary that is going to blow the lid off Hollywood's evil secret; just like she did with her previous documentary dealing with the Catholic Church).

Similar to how a director has the biggest creative role in a film, the Redskins name is obviously a big part of the team's brand. But there are other elements that connect a fan with the team; elements that trump the name.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Friend A: Your religion/god/diety is about as legitimate as the flying spaghetti monster.

Friend B: That statement totally offends me and what I stand for.

Friend A: So where do you feel like eating?

Friend B: Let's go grab some sushi.

See what I did here? Friend B does not define Friend A by his conflicting perspective towards his religious beliefs. Friend B is even offended by the statement. But it's just part of what makes Friend A, Friend A. There's much more to Friend A than just his offensive spiritual statement- honesty, loyalty, etc. Values that Friend B exhibit trump his offended feelings when religion is discussed.

I sincerely don't like the team name... But the name doesn't negate all the reasons (listed several pages back) why I follow the organization. Behaving in absolutes will eventually trip you up somewhere down the line.

How many people here saw the new X-Men? Bryan Singer (the director) is being accused of some pretty serious stuff. The average person had no idea this is going on, those who knew are naturally withholding judgment before boycotting... but I know quite a few industry heads who think he's guilty (based on years of well-known industry lore regarding Singer's circle) and went to see it anyway. I'm fairly certain they are offended/disgusted/soul crushed by child rape, but they did not define the entire film by the alleged actions of its director. When you boycott a film you originally intended to see, you also hurt the writers, editors, VFX, camera, talent, etc. (OT- Amy Berg is working on a documentary that is going to blow the lid off Hollywood's evil secret; just like she did with her previous documentary dealing with the Catholic Church).

Similar to how a director has the biggest creative role in a film, the Redskins name is obviously a big part of the team's brand. But there are other elements that connect a fan with the team; elements that trump the name.

What could possibly make you think that it would be appropriate to compare the Redskins name issue to the rape of a child? That is disgusting!

[ram29jackson]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

See I think this is where we differ. I don't equate tolerance to offense. Those are two different things. Tolerance means I accept whatever it is I tolerate. Doesn't have to be something I even like, but I accept it. Heck I might even be entertained by it.
Being offended, again my opinion, means that I do not tolerate whatever it is that has caused me offense. It's caused me personal grief, directly, and its caused me disruption in my soul.

Completely my opinion, but I would wager to say that a good amount of those who have hopped on the "change name" bandwagon, are there, not because they are personally offended by the name, but support the possibility that someone might be offended. In other words, they're looking to be offended at something.

tolerance does not mean acceptance. I tolerate what gay people think is ok to do in their lives but I will never accept it. I can be nice to a gay person without accepting the gay lifestyle as right or normal. That is tolerance.

people try to define tolerance as acceptance and by definition it simply isnt

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

tolerance does not mean acceptance. I tolerate what gay people think is ok to do in their lives but I will never accept it. I can be nice to a gay person without accepting the gay lifestyle as right or normal. That is tolerance.

people try to define tolerance as acceptance and by definition it simply isnt

My point is that if one is a fan of the Redskins, wears Redskins jerseys, cheers for the Washington Redskins, or sings the fight song when they score a touchdown, I don't see how one can be, staunchly, against the name of the team. That's just my opinion.

I honestly believe the difference of opinions among those people who are not Native American, is a politically driven one - not one where they are personally effected by the name. Just my opinion. Especially when political figures are trying to get involved, those on one side or the other is going to be supporting their political "team" in anything. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but there are those who are so staunchly for their political party that they'll go along with anything that party says or does, and will argue for those actions - even if they don't understand what it is they are fighting for. And I believe when President Obama and a few other political figures came out against the name, that was enough to sway a few sitting on the fence, over to the "change name" camp.

The bottom line is, if there is overwhelming evidence, damnable evidence that the name of the team is derogatory, and an overwhelming majority of Native Americans agree that the team name is racist, then the name should change. But if there is NOT overwhelming evidence (and so far, there hasn't been), nor an overwhelming majority of NA's coming out against the name, then fighting for a name change simply doesn't make any sense.

What basis of argument do Non-NA's have against the name, if the majority of NA's come out and say that they do not find offense in the name? Going along with the argument that there might be 10% who are offended and that's enough for those opposed to fight the "good fight" seems pretty ignorant to me. That is when I say if there is division within the NA community, then let them figure it out among themselves.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I honestly believe the difference of opinions among those people who are not Native American, is a politically driven one - not one where they are personally effected by the name. Just my opinion. Especially when political figures are trying to get involved, those on one side or the other is going to be supporting their political "team" in anything. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule, but there are those who are so staunchly for their political party that they'll go along with anything that party says or does, and will argue for those actions - even if they don't understand what it is they are fighting for. And I believe when President Obama and a few other political figures came out against the name, that was enough to sway a few sitting on the fence, over to the "change name" camp.

Agreed. As someone who's spent the last few years ridiculing my republican friends over a few things, I can't help but see some of their warnings about other things in action on this issue.

I don't know if the vast majority of people see things this way, but I'm certainly on the same page as you at this point.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The bottom line is, if there is overwhelming evidence, damnable evidence that the name of the team is derogatory, and an overwhelming majority of Native Americans agree that the team name is racist, then the name should change. But if there is NOT overwhelming evidence (and so far, there hasn't been), nor an overwhelming majority of NA's coming out against the name, then fighting for a name change simply doesn't make any sense.

But therein lies the issue for me that is going to forever make it difficult for me to change from the keep-the-name camp to the change-the-name camp.

If, up until a point, there was no significant proof of disparagement etc, then why should I put any stock into that changing over time?
If when the team was named... when the cases were previously fought... when the name was trademarked... if there was no problem then, why should I give any credit to the idea that there is a problem now or in the future?

If there never existed a problem then the whole platform upon which the change-the-name camp sits goes away... Simply rallying more people onto their non-existent platform doesn't do anything for me.

They may able to recruit more in the future under the guise of righteousness and 'making a difference' because, from where I sit, the trend of people wanting to be a part of that sort of thing seems to continue to grow - especially as more and more people become reliant on the internet as a means of social interaction and source of happiness.

But it's not going to change anything for me. I'll see it exactly for what it is.. a bunch of phony nonsense that's been talked into 'existence,' but not really...

This isn't an issue that changes over time... or at least, it shouldn't be.