Redskins Trademark cancelled

[SFREDSKIN]

Washington Pale Faces with Harry Reid's face in the helmet.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FYI -
For those that keep posting why Braves, Chiefs and other Native team names are not offensive, the issue is the word SKIN. A reference to someone's SKIN COLOR. REDSKINS. Get it?

I do not care what our team name is. I was born and raised in the Washington DC area so I am a huge fan of the team. I would be a fan regardless of the name. The name means nothing to me.
If this is SO upsetting to you, you need to get a life.

According to the Indians fighting against the name, they claim that they are all offensive. They are going after every name that involves Indians. They stopped targeting the other names because it was hurting their cause with redskins, but they claim all sports names with Indian mascots are derogatory to Indians. According to Susan Blackhorse, they needed one name to fall, then the rest would go like dominoes.

Also, if its about skin color, then the state of Oklahoma needs to change its name. As Oklahoma translates out to "Red People" or "People with red skin".

[Lilman52]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

According to the Indians fighting against the name, they claim that they are all offensive. They are going after every name that involves Indians. They stopped targeting the other names because it was hurting their cause with redskins, but they claim all sports names with Indian mascots are derogatory to Indians. According to Susan Blackhorse, they needed one name to fall, then the rest would go like dominoes.

Also, if its about skin color, then the state of Oklahoma needs to change its name. As Oklahoma translates out to "Red People" or "People with red skin".

Personally, until that happens, get off our backs

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Lilman52

[/B]

Personally, until that happens, get off our backs

What exactly are you babbling about?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FYI -
For those that keep posting why Braves, Chiefs and other Native team names are not offensive, the issue is the word SKIN. A reference to someone's SKIN COLOR. REDSKINS. Get it?

I do not care what our team name is. I was born and raised in the Washington DC area so I am a huge fan of the team. I would be a fan regardless of the name. The name means nothing to me.
If this is SO upsetting to you, you need to get a life.

I agree, I live in WDC and that's why I'm a fan of the team. If they moved to another city then I dont see myself caring about them anymore. Change the name or dont change it, I dont care. Why do they even need a name? Call them Washington Football (like how you might see a college shirt that says Maryland Football) and keep the logo and colors.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FYI -
For those that keep posting why Braves, Chiefs and other Native team names are not offensive, the issue is the word SKIN. A reference to someone's SKIN COLOR. REDSKINS. Get it?

FYI -

Many Native Americans are offended by the Kansas City Chiefs, because the title of Chief is such a great honor to be given, that they consider that word sacred. So for Kansas City to use that title in their name is nearly blasphemy in the eyes of Native Americans.

Secondly, if you actually read your history, you'd realize that the reference was first used by the Indians themselves to distinguish themselves apart from the settlers. Which is where we also get the term "pale face" as that described the white settlers.

It was also used to describe their "home made" bug repellant that they would apply to their skin. This stuff would would turn their skin red. (I believe I heard that from a Native American.)

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I do not care what our team name is. I was born and raised in the Washington DC area so I am a huge fan of the team. I would be a fan regardless of the name. The name means nothing to me.
If this is SO upsetting to you, you need to get a life.

Wait. So you're saying if one did not grow up in Washington D.C. then we have no right to be fan of the team? And if one loves the nickname because the name is what got them interested in Native American culture and history, then they need to get a life? Wow...seems a bit narrow-minded to me.

[WillH]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

FYI -
For those that keep posting why Braves, Chiefs and other Native team names are not offensive, the issue is the word SKIN. A reference to someone's SKIN COLOR. REDSKINS. Get it?

I do not care what our team name is. I was born and raised in the Washington DC area so I am a huge fan of the team. I would be a fan regardless of the name. The name means nothing to me.
If this is SO upsetting to you, you need to get a life.

So, should the NAACP change their name?

And everyones got it all wrong, Red was a man, he had native american blood, so the name was in reference to them being family . . . RED'SKINS.

It's just been misinterpreted for years.

[That Guy]

nothing changes unless they lose on appeals, which in they case they do lose, could take years.

meanwhile, no real evidence was submitted, so it's hard to see them losing this.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by That Guy

nothing changes unless they lose on appeals, which in they case they do lose, could take years.

meanwhile, no real evidence was submitted, so it's hard to see them losing this.

Not true. The noise will continue until the name changes, regardless of this trademark appeal. Like it or not, sooner or later the name will change.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Not true. The noise will continue until the name changes, regardless of this trademark appeal. Like it or not, sooner or later the name will change.

yes true. i was only talking about the trademark, and as far as that's concerned, nothing changes unless they lose, which is very unlikely.

[ram29jackson]

Washington Redskins

When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.

Why?

As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [Board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.

In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:

It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.


The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”

[ram29jackson]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/expert...155501828.html

[over the mountain]

i just hope the DS, while defending the redskins name, is also alternatively creating a plan b for when he is forced to change the name.

the change is inevitable. a smart person would be thinking of a way to spin this into a positive as much as possible.

the "over his dead body" letter, seemingly faux PR driven native american charity and directing fans to tweet/harass senator reid were not examples of being forward thinking, smart or positive.

[ram29jackson]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i just hope the DS, while defending the redskins name, is also alternatively creating a plan b for when he is forced to change the name.

the change is inevitable. a smart person would be thinking of a way to spin this into a positive as much as possible.

the "over his dead body" letter, seemingly faux PR driven native american charity and directing fans to tweet/harass senator reid were not examples of being forward thinking, smart or positive.

no one gives a damn about the twitter world for ultimate change in anything.its just a gossip channel .

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by ram29jackson

no one gives a damn about the twitter world for ultimate change in anything.its just a gossip channel .

agreed ram fan. i was using the skins twitter campaign as an example of what not to do.