Judge Sides With Redskins in Team Name Suit

[GhettoDogAllStars]

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?

[mooby]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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?

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.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by mooby

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.

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.

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., Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [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.
2. 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 15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)). 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 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.
3. 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.
4. 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, Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. 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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

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.

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., Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [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.
2. 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 15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)). 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 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.
3. 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.
4. 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, Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. 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.

Yeah, I have a response. Uh, what?



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.

'Redskins' mascot acceptable, poll says - NFC East - MSNBC.com

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

'Redskins' mascot acceptable, poll says - NFC East - MSNBC.com

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")

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Did anyone else not the overuse of the term "Indian" in that article...it struck me as odd.

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.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

I agree, it just struck me as odd

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

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.

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., Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy [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.
2. 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 15 USC 1052, Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration (BitLaw)). 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 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3483483). So basically one judge has twice ruled in the Redskins favor on what strikes me as a fairly specious premise.
3. 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.
4. 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, Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. 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.

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 (National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media). 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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

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 (National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media). 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.

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.

[memphisskin]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by memphisskin

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

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.

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?

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?

[Jacobylookalike]

RE: SC Skins Fan;456632

Thank god there is a person of intelligence and rational thought out there. Most of the morons who post on this site cite a procedural ruling as vindication for just cause. 'Hell, YA!' 'were right because they filed too late!'

Regardless of whether the team name is racist, it is, there seems to be a point to the longevity of the trademark that mums the overt in racism. I suggest change the spelling of the name to Wredskins and change the logo away from the war chief head. Even the Neanderthals can understand this.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Jacobylookalike

RE: SC Skins Fan;456632

Thank god there is a person of intelligence and rational thought out there. Most of the morons who post on this site cite a procedural ruling as vindication for just cause. 'Hell, YA!' 'were right because they filed too late!'

Regardless of whether the team name is racist, it is, there seems to be a point to the longevity of the trademark that mums the overt in racism. I suggest change the spelling of the name to Wredskins and change the logo away from the war chief head. Even the Neanderthals can understand this.

Your second post and you're already referring to long-term members as "morons who post on this site"

That won't help you

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Your second post and you're already referring to long-term members as "morons who post on this site"

That won't help you

Definitely not.

In fact, everyone let's welcome the latest moron to the site, Jacobylookalike!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Jacobylookalike

RE: SC Skins Fan;456632

Thank god there is a person of intelligence and rational thought out there. Most of the morons who post on this site cite a procedural ruling as vindication for just cause. 'Hell, YA!' 'were right because they filed too late!'

Regardless of whether the team name is racist, it is, there seems to be a point to the longevity of the trademark that mums the overt in racism. I suggest change the spelling of the name to Wredskins and change the logo away from the war chief head. Even the Neanderthals can understand this.

I encourage you to engage in a thoughtful debate because you may find this place worth visiting routinely if you do. But until you do, I could care less if we never hear from you again.