Redskins Trademark cancelled

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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

Exactly.

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


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

[Chico23231]

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

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

[irish]

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

Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by irish

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

Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com

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

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

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by irish

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

Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com

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

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

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by irish

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

Native American group planning $9 billion lawsuit against the Indians - CBSSports.com

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

[SFREDSKIN]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

Yeah, they need the money for a new casino.

[tshile]

Good.

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

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

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

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

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

[12thMan]

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

Redskins tap Tribbett to help in fight over nickname - Decision Virginia

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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

Redskins tap Tribbett to help in fight over nickname - Decision Virginia

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

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

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

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

[itvnetop]

Oxford

Merriam-Webster

Free

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

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

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Oxford

Merriam-Webster

Free

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

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

There are lots of things considered official.

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

Oxford

Merriam-Webster

Free

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

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

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

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

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

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by itvnetop

But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries.

The point may stand but is a weak point.

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

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

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