How Trademark Law Can Finally Kill Dan Snyder's Racist Dreamworld
from the trademark-slurs dept
Before we dig into this, let's put a couple of facts into evidence. First, Dan Snyder is the owner of the NFL’s Washington Redskins football franchise. Next, as we've covered before, Dan Snyder is an idiot. In addition, the term "Redskin" is a taboo word, commonly considered offensive and detested by Native American groups that have visited with the team to explain to them that they'd prefer not to be disparaged in such a manner. Now, there is a contingent of strange people in this country that insist that fighting back against an NFL team using the Native American version of "darky" is the height of our overly political correct culture and is a waste of time. If you're one of those people, I invite you to voice that opinion in the comments section, not because I think your stupid argument has any merit, but rather because I just want to watch you look silly.
That said, the controversy over the team's name has existed since roughly the time us white folks landed on this land and began helpfully distributing small-pox-ladened blankets to shivering women-folk. So how do we finally get the name changed? As it turns out, the answer just might be trademark law. See, the United States government is a lot of things, and not all of them good, but they sure don't like to officially sanction racial slurs. Couple that with how important trademarks are to NFL teams and we have a light at the end of this racist tunnel. Per trademark lawyer Christine Haight Farley:
Since 1905 federal trademark law has banned the registration of scandalous or immoral marks. In 1947, marks that may disparage, bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols were also banned. U.S. trademark law is not unique in prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks. Many other countries' trademark laws contain similar provisions.So, the starting point is that you can't trademark an offensive term. This, for obvious reasons, essentially amounts to the government not wanting to be in the business of hate-speech. Court cases have been brought in the past asserting the Redskins mark to be invalid on these grounds, with a tribunal in 1999 agreeing that the mark should be cancelled. Unfortunately, that ruling was overturned on federal appeal, which asserted that the lawsuit was brought by old people who should have been offended long before they formally stated so (unjustified delay in bringing the suit) while simultaneously stating that they just weren't quite sure most Native Americans disliked being referred to primarily by their ill-described skin.
However, a younger group of Native Americans has refiled and a ruling is expected fairly soon. If Farley's analysis is correct, there seems to be only one logical way for the court to rule.
The term used by the Washington football team has been demonstrated by overwhelming linguistic and historical evidence to constitute a disparaging epithet insulting to Native Americans. Many Native American organizations, including the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Education Association, the Native American Journalists Association, the Native American Rights Fund, the Morning Star Institute, the International Indian Treaty Council, and the National Indian Youth Council, have publicly and vociferously opposed the continued use of the term in trademarks or as the name of sports teams. The director of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian has said he considers that name to be the most offensive name in current use. The trademark office tribunal was satisfied by survey evidence that showed that 37 percent of the Native Americans surveyed found the word the team uses as their name to be offensive.Now, while the cancellation of the mark wouldn't require the team to change its name, or even stop using the epithet in commerce, it might as well. Trademarks on team names, perhaps most-so in for NFL teams, is where a vast amount of team revenue is achieved. If they lose the mark, it would open the commerce door to all manner of groups to use the name in commerce. That isn't something a team run by Dan Snyder would stand for. In other words, trademark might actually kill off the most offensive team name in sports. As far as I'm concerned, it can't happen soon enough.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dan snyder, offensive, redskins, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> contemplating a name change that would
> remove "Washington" from their name because
> it was embarrassing.
Good one. And well-deserved, considering what comes out of their namesake city on a regular basis.
However, all this trademark business is silly hoopla over nothing. Even if the lawsuit is successful and the team loses the trademark on the word "Redskins", they still will have trademark on every *other* aspect of their logo and merchandising-- the Indian-head logo, the team colors combined with the name "Washington" etc.
If "Redskins" goes back to the public domain, other people will be legally allowed to sell merchandise with the name Redskins, but the team will still be the only ones who can legally print "Redskins" on their t-shirts and coffee mugs *along with* the team colors combined with the name "Washington" and the Indian head logo (to which they will also still have exclusive rights).
The only things Joe Salesman on the street will be able to sell are off-color, no-logo non-team-looking hats and shirts. Who wants to buy that stuff anyway?
I just don't see this as much of a threat to the team's revenue stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm quite sure you meant "refiled". I do hope you did, however, mean "refilled" as in ammunition and that "ruling" refers to an awesome, gory Django Unchained-style shootout that we can expect to happen in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I mean, yeah, he�ll have to do it without owning the trademark on �Redskins� (and thus eat away at the profits of the NFL�s vast merchandise empire), but can�t he still keep the name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
'Censorship' is being prohibited from speaking or expressing yourself, generally by an official like someone representing the government or state, though it can also encompass those using government or state laws to do so. Nowhere in the definition does it say you're also guaranteed the right to be able to profit on your speech.
Of course the above is rather a moot point, as even without the trademark, the owner of the team is still quite able to profit by selling merchandise with their logo/name, they just wouldn't be able to keep others from doing the same.
If anything losing the trademark on the name/logo would be the direct opposite of censorship, as people who were previously prohibited from using the name/logo would suddenly be able to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
2. dictionary definitions are NOT 'the' definition, WE -as a collective group- make the definitions, and the dictionary simply records that AFTER the fact... words mutate and change definitions and connotations all the time...
(see, "literally")
3. although you leave yourself a little wiggle room, i am about tired of people claiming that censorship is only censorship when it is done by official/gummint agencies...
wrong, wrong wrong: ONE of the major problems we have now, is the SELF-censorship of the lamestream korporate media...
(of course, we ALL self-censor, don't we: we don't call out that loudmouth at the mall saying bizarre tea party idiocy, we don't bother correcting our brother-in-law at thanksgiving dinner for spouting reichwing -or libtard- received wisdom based on lies, we don't open our mouths when our boss says some stupid shit, etc, etc, etc...)
further, i realize this is an outdated concept, but i actually believe in free speech... if dan snyder wants to name HIS team the 'Washington Niggers, Spics, Kikes, and Wops', that is his absolute right to do so... presumably, that would lead to many/most of the fans rejecting the team, and the world would go on as it should, snyder goes bankrupt, and team is sold to the gay mafia who proceed to rename them the Washington Rainbows or whatever...
problem solved...
...or, Snyder just claims they are now named after redskin peanuts or redskin potatoes or redman chewing tobacco...
can everyone just chill the fuck out going apeshit over real and perceived marginal injustices ? ? ? EVERYONE is going to be the morality police about stupid shit OTHER people do (excepting THEIR own stupid shit, of course), we got the planet's ecosystem circling the toilet, we got Empire locking down the last corners of an authoritarian, lawless, fascist society, and we got a system of 'morality' based on profit uber alles which is destroying humanity AND the planet, and people prioritize some bullshit insulting sports team name as our number one problem to address...
that's swell, we won't have a planet worth a fuck any longer, but we shamed a stupid rich white guy to change the name of a stupid sports team to the Washington Pussy Riots, or something...
what ? ? ?
is there something wrong with *that* name ? ? ?
*sheesh*
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Pirates was something intended to be offensive now is a sign of proud.
Big Horn there should get his own and start using the term in a brighter light and transform it into something to be proud not ashamed.
Turn that trash into gold, then there is no need to have the government involved at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
so what ?
you missed my point after all, and -frankly- *you*, of all people...
IF (and that is a huge, 150 point 'if') you believe in free speech, THEN dan snyder/whoever can name THEIR team/product/etc WHATEVER they want to name them, 'offensive' or not...
THEN, depending on how truly 'offensive' the public finds such names/brands/etc, they will refuse to patronize said offensive brands, and the people who produce them are deemed bigots/asshats, and the planet spins on...
no fascist laws need passing (which WILL be corrupted and turned against *you*, when the time comes); no zombie mob of screeching banshees need descend upon the transgressor, no hypocritical moralizing by privileged pwogs butthurt-by-proxy need apply...
y'all need to turn your faux-ire up to 11 on more deserving targets and injustices...
how about you actually show some concern for how indians are actually treated on their reservations, rather than the theoretical offenses you suffer on their behalf for the humiliation from being sports mascots...
(as an aside, did not hear the valid query of why MANY similar names/teams/etc are not subject to these 'rules', the KC chiefs, etc... have they managed to find the right tribal leaders to bribe to be 'okay' with it ? ? ? )
furthermore, if the polls cited by a number of other posters are in fact and in deed correct, it *SOUNDS LIKE* actual INDIANS don't have a major problem with it, only slacker-libtard, concern trolling, trust funders who have nothing better to do than have a butthurt-by-proxy-of-the-month club are the ones 'offended' by this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Wow, talk about missing the point. I didn't say the government should pass a law stripping the team of their name. I said the US Government should not be in the business of sanctifying racist terms via trademark. Dan Snyder could also name his team the Washington Flaming Ass-Pounding Faggots. My response wouldn't be that a law should be passed to keep that from happening, but I damn well would say you don't allow a trademark on that term. Like I said before, this really isn't that hard....
"no fascist laws need passing"
Fascist? Groooooaaaaan. Nobody is talking about passing any fucking laws here. We're talking about applying the law as it's written. Did you even read the post?
"how about you actually show some concern for how indians are actually treated on their reservations, rather than the theoretical offenses you suffer on their behalf for the humiliation from being sports mascots..."
I'll thank you for not assuming you know what causes I "actually" support and have supported, and in what way, thank you very much. I'm a secular humanist for Christ's sake. Real concern for my fellow human beings is my god damn oxygen....
"(as an aside, did not hear the valid query of why MANY similar names/teams/etc are not subject to these 'rules', the KC chiefs, etc... have they managed to find the right tribal leaders to bribe to be 'okay' with it ? ? ? )"
While there is an obvious difference between the term "Chiefs" and "Redskins" (please tell me I don't have to explain that to you), I wouldn't mind if all those depictions went away. The Cleveland Indian logo is particularly offensive, and the Blackhawks logo is downright stupid....
"furthermore, if the polls cited by a number of other posters are in fact and in deed correct, it *SOUNDS LIKE* actual INDIANS don't have a major problem with it, only slacker-libtard, concern trolling, trust funders who have nothing better to do than have a butthurt-by-proxy-of-the-month club are the ones 'offended' by this..."
Sigh, the commenters above are missing out on the fact the tribal leaders at both a local and nat'l level met with Snyder and the NFL and asked them again to change the name just a few weeks ago. But here's a fun tip for you: I tend to know exactly what kind of person I'm dealing with when they make sure they let me know that they think "liberal" is a dirty word, or derogatory. That's how I know I'm dealing with an idiot....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Irony alert...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Here's what you said as swipe:
So how do we finally get the name changed? As it turns out, the answer just might be trademark law.
The name is already trademarked. Move on. There are hundreds of other futile, meaningless pseudo-injustices for you to rail against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
you might be right, they are in the business of upholding free speech though, and free speech is free speech, you cant support free speech and work against terms of free speech.
The Government sanctifies your right to use any terms, and your opinion to its implications are up to you, not the Government and not trademark law.
Its a slippery slope to have the government accept a morality issue, particularly when there is not even close a consensus that the term is even a racial slur, it appears most do not think so, particularly when only 37% of that group feel it is, and without knowing how the question was framed or who they asked.
"redskins" is not a common slur for native americans, if you ask ANYONE anywhere in the western world "what are the redskins" most would be able to tell you instantly its a sports or football team.
But if you asked the same people what they thought a Nigger is, the answer would surly be different.
Nice long post, a shame you still sound like a PC idiot..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
> the business of snactifying racist terms
> via trademark.
So you've gone from equating the grant of a trademark with endorsement of that mark to equating the grant of a trademark with sanctification of that mark?
Really?
You're a professional writer. Surely you know what 'sanctification' actually means. Don't you think you're overstating things a tad here?
No matter how you want to spin it, the grant of a trademark is merely a government grant to the holder of the mark to its exclusive use in commerce. It brings with it no official endorsement, support, approval, or sanctification by the government of the mark, the business behind it, or the products of the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
I can say I hate the Redskins, and everyone will KNOW I am referring to a football team, but if I can "I hate the nigger's" everyone will know I am referring to an ethnic group.
If you cannot see the difference, you are the person with the problem, not everyone else.
The New Zealand "ALL BLACKS" football team, is that referring to the color of their skin, or the color of the clothes they were ?
It's the name of a team not a slur on a race !!
If it was racist, I am sure your anti-racist laws would be better suited to this, not TRADEMARK for censorship..
You honestly cannot tell the difference between a name and a racist slur ?
if you don't know, a racist slur is a term used to denigrate a particular group, and is used in that context.
Redskins football team is a name NOT used in the context of a racist slur, it does not denigrate what it describes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
darryl greatly loathes it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
And I would still love to see you in a mainly African american neighbourhood and call some people that name.
Then watch the medics come and work on your for awhile afterwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
what the fuck does that actually mean fuckfreetard ??
and can you justify that statement or would you rather just continue to look like a fuckwit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
> those kinds of words via trademarks.
That's a false premise. The granting of a trademark to a business is not an endorsement of that business by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
We're going to the (motherfucking eagles) birds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
that is the stupidest argument ever !!!
so it's not about the term, it's not about racism, its about profit, am I getting it right ????
You think he's profiting from the use of a term, so you say you don't like the term, so you can use it to make your own profit ?
So would you not want to reduce the amount that term is used, and not increase it?
Seems you are upset because your not getting a cut of the profit, more than you are upset that 'some' people might find it offensive, (probably not you though).
This entire article is a fabrication of an idiot, and the intent has nothing to do with race, it has to do with who's making money, and you think you should be able to use that term too to make money, even if you think it is offensive !!!
Its offensive so use it more !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Plus I wonder where the part "not allowed to profit from your speech" comes from since I can't find in the law anything about you not being able to get paid at all if you lose your trademarks or even copyright on your own speech.
Geezuz F. Christ a carpenter had no such monopoly privileges and I am sure he still got paid for his work despite other carpenters trying their best to best him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
It is not trademark being used. It is an exception to trademark law being used! That is a pretty significant distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Steve Gaucher on Nov 8th, 2013 @ 6:12pm
Racistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracis tracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracistracist racist racism racists
Do you agree with my point yet?
No?
RACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRAC ISTRACISTRACISTRACISTRACIST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The overturning of the �Redskins� trademark would mean anyone could sell �Redskins�-themed apparel without going through either the team or the league as a whole, and that would hit the revenue stream of the entire NFL pretty damn hard.
The NFL and other team others have pressured Snyder to change the team name in order to keep this from happening, but Snyder�s refused because he�s a stubborn idiot who thinks he knows better than�well, the people slandered by his team�s name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> would mean anyone could sell 'Redskins'-themed
> appareal.
No, it actually doesn't mean that. The team would only lose the exclusive rights to the word "Redskins". They'd still have valid trademarks on the team colors and the Indian-head logo and combination of those with the word "Washington". That means they'd still be the only ones who could sell stuff that says "Redskins" combined with any (or all) of those other elements.
The guy on the street looking to cash in could now legally sell t-shirts that say Redskins, but he can't sell red-and-gold t-shirts with the Indian-head logo on them that say "Redskins". What fan would want to buy a blue or green or brown t-shirt with just the word "Redskins" on it?
This isn't as much of a threat to the team or NFL merchandising revenue as the proponents want to make it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absolutely not true. The team will have the same trademark rights it always had. Lack of registration wouldn't even move the needle on ability to enforce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And no, having a registration doesn't insulate you from someone else claiming you infringe their trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
-the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
So you can 'claim' a trademark without registering it based upon proof of you having used it for long enough, but you cannot claim exclusive use of it, or file a suit in federal court, without having registered it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only rights the original holder might have is other IP rights such as copyright not available on clothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
True, but I believe the important word in G. Thompson's post is "exclusive."
You can still use the mark. You simply cannot bring a trademark suit against anyone else who also uses that mark.
You could possibly bring some other suit against them - a common-law unfair competition claim, for example. Those, however, are state claims, and since the Langham Act preempts state claims, they would be unlikely to succeed (and cover claims that are very different than trademarks).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
State law trademark and unfair competition law is not preempted by federal trademark law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only 37% ??!*&#@!!!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But I find myself wondering about reason behind this number.
Are the majority (but certainly not vast majority) truly not bothered by this because they don't consider it an insult?
Have they lost their sense of cultural pride and just don't care (and being a white guy from the south, what do I know about cultural pride really)?
Do they have a cultural "sticks and stones" pov, and from what you're pointing out in their past and from what I've seen of their present lifestyle, why would they give a fucking fuck about the fucking NFL?
Are their any Native Americans reading this blog who can give me a clue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those were presented as two different and unrelated possible explanations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It gets worse. From the "Redskin" wiki:
"Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name. The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (e.g. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over represented and the exact wording and order of questions). But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions."
So that 37% may be on the high end depending on which poll is the most accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I too was astonished at: ONLY 37% object?!
I'm not going to get excited if they can't get even a majority on a biased poll question.
As for NFL: it's a legislated monopoly (that apparently Timmy and Mike Masnick approve of, so much for their consistency on either trademark or monopolies), so remove its statutory exemptions from anti-trust, and it collapses in a free market. End of problem, plus end of the obscenity of making millionaires out of athletic brutes while honest laborers get almost nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and we'll totally use government violence to enforce my feelings, so, checkmate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
voted insightful x 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) Meanings change, just like a previous article about the word 'tweet' becoming generic. I may be in the minority, but when I hear 'Redskins' I think 'football' not 'inaccurate derogatory word for those who moved here before everyone else'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I'm insensitive, but I don't see the big problem. 'Redskin' has long lost it's power as a disparaging name. Pretty much like "Sooner". It's not a particularly good name for a team, so eventually it might change anyway. I'll put in a vote now for "Gridlock".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps you�re not aware that the term �redskins� refers to a group of people who ended up systematically slaughtered and driven off their native lands by a bunch of white guys with guns and smallpox, but I don�t think you see the problem Native American people have with the term.
How much would it really hurt Dan Snyder (and the NFL by extension) to stop using the Redskins name � and, if he wants to honor Native Americans via the team name, consult with Native American groups to come up with a team name that doesn�t use a racial slur?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
so, snyder gets with 'the' 'official' 'Indian' (what 1/256th Indian now?) spokespeople/group (and WHO would that be, and WHAT will the Indians who disagree do?) and they decide to call them, what, the Washington Native Ameri-Indians (In A Totally Respectful Way) (tm) ? ? ?
...and we STILL have the his story of genocide THAT 'represents', HOW do you get out of this conundrum you have manufactured ? well, we can't, can we ? ? ?
let's just name them all The (cityname) Generic Sports Team, surely no one can object now...
*snort*
shit, lets just get rid of sports, we're already doing that in the schools, so we won't have any athletes left in a generation... oh, and art, too, there is a LOT of offensive crap in that little realm...
'cause -you know- the absolute highest and most precious value of nekkid apes is to NOT be offended... IF i get offended by something/anything, SOMEONE has to pay, boyo ! ! !
oh, and comedians, those assholes are nothing but offensive, how they are allowed to live is beyond me...
lastly, do kampers realize that this faux outrage over EVERYTHING is a method to keep you distracted from the real source of problems on this planet, and blame *someone*, *anyone* but the real perps ? ? ?
no, let's blame the world's problems on a stupid logo instead...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a previous poster pointed out, I hope they also get rid of any reference to Vikings, as it affects me personally, it's a word which could be taken as "derogatory". Wouldn't want to risk that, now would we?
I do think it's worthwhile to point out this term has been used to further hateful/fearful endeavors, but again it's not the case here. The issue here is theirs a group of people unable to differentiate between it being used in a hateful manner or not. Perhaps this group of people ought to take a closer look at their own overtly negative world-view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overlooking your hypocrisy (for now) in wanting to misuse trademark law in an attempt to censor speech, your mewling, smarmy political correctness marks you as the poster boy of much of what is wrong in contemporary society. You, and other cringing, guilt-ridden pantywaists spend much of your time obsessing over what might be offensive, gauche or in some way unsupportive of the Kum-Ba-Yah world you think is just around the corner.
You totally ignore history and context, because [mercy me!] someone finds a name offensive. So let's use the law to try to coerce someone from using a term that might be offensive to some. That's what you; the former-Mr. Free Speech are advocating?
When I was a kid, my grandparents referred to African-Americans as "colored people" or simply "coloreds". It wasn't to disparage. I'd bet most black folks would find that offensive today. As a matter of fact, use that term around the wrong black guy today, you may find yourself picking your teeth up off the ground. Yet, you don't seem to be climbing on to your soapbox, advocating that trademark law be used to force a name change of the National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People, are you? And I will bet that more than 37% of black people would find "colored people" offensive.
My parents would admonish my grandparents to refer to them as "negroes". As at that time, that was the "PC" term. Again, today you'd get hostile stares (or worse) for using that term. But, I am waiting for your spleenful plea to use trademark law to force the United Negro College Fund to abandon its hateful, bigoted name.
In closing, I will say that while it's nice to see you in such close touch with your touchy-feely, feminine side; you are still a hypocrite and ginormous douchenozzle. If the team name offends your delicate sensibilities sweetboy, don't buy an RG III jersey; watch them lose to horrible teams like the Vikings; grow a pair and get the fuck over it; or cry in your pillow tonight over the inhumanity of it all.
Now that I've set you straight, I'm off to watch the Canucks game. (oops, apologies to the millions of Canadians who are offended).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Censorship'
'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.'
Check your definitions before commenting, someone losing the (gov/state granted) ability to keep other people from using a name/logo isn't even remotely censorship, and would if anything be the direct opposite of censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Censorship'
So how do we finally get the name changed? As it turns out, the answer just might be trademark law.
Tim's agenda is not open that trademark to the public so it can be exploited and enlarged by greater commercial proliferation. What Tim advocates is the same sort of conduct that is routinely decried by him and other Techdirt readers and writers- the misuse of IP law to affect speech that some don't like.
That's hypocrisy in its most pure and unalloyed form. Tim has a career (such as it is) writing advocacy articles defending free speech, denouncing the misuse of intellectual law; and he comes up with this?
Worse still, the palace guard rushes to his defense- willfully ignoring the fact that what he advocates in this article runs contrary to the general consensus around TD about free expression and the misuse of the law to prevent speech or a term that some find objectionable.
I doubt that you and other defenders of the realm would be so quick to battle had the article been written by OOTB or some average Joe (or the Average Joe, for that matter). You and others would be well served not choosing sides based on who is saying something. Rather you should consider what they're saying instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Censorship'
but that would render TD pointless,, oh wait !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Censorship'
Any name change would not be forced by the law, but rather encouraged financially due to the fact that no trademark = no exclusivity. The team wouldn't be forced to do anything, they could continue to use the name all they want, the only change would be that others could as well.
Saying that Person X cannot use a particular name, is not the same as saying that they cannot stop others from also using it; the first is taking away their right of expression, the second is removing the taking away of those rights of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Censorship'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do know how I feel about the Chiefs. They're not quite as good as their record indicates, but are playing exceptional defense. Jamaal Charles, however is simply amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mediocre trolling at best. Random use of all caps, run on sentences, and adherence to Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies are all required for grade "A" trolling. I did give you some bonus points for the amusing, but not surprising, use of "ginormous douchenozzle".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Like...
Wait a minute? North Dakota? What right do we have to that name? Or South Dakota? Or Arkansas? Or New Mexico? And we haven't even gone through the city names yet...
Maybe there's a point at which, if it isn't blatantly offensive like Gov. Perry's ranch, don't change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Like...
I must admit, as a non-American, I keep being surprised how bent out of shape you guys get about racism (along with all the myriad other dumb things that blow your minds).
Maybe if we could replace Piers Morgan with a married lesbian black female gun-control supporter from Kenya you'll all go 'pop'! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So are you quite sure that it's not a matter of some "community organizer" having decided to make some noise turning a non-issue into a big issue, as happens sometimes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This *has* to be a troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or how you critize the media for bias but join up with the 'anti-white' groups whos only supporter is your biased media.
Calling racism on everything is bad. Calling black people niggers is not as bad as beating them up or hanging them. You guys are taking it too far. Even the constitution supports it.
And they use the word every day.
Srsly guys chill down and stop using racism as an excuse to get attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me it sounds like Black Panther, is that racist?
It was easier when I was a kid, I didn't had to care about those things, all I knew was that the little plastic soldiers where always green, the cowboys were always blue and the indians were always red, and I had to find one in a horse to be Custer to re-enact the Battle of Little BigHorn aka Custer's Last Stand as imagined by an 6 years boy, meaning Custer was not the incompetent idiot that attacked a superior force got boxed in and massacred but the brave soldier that got himself in a difficult position and fought to his last breadth out of courage.
One thing that I always liked about the native American-Indian stereotype was how you just got what you saw in someone and named it, there was something innocent and honest about that was appealing, there was no euphemisms, no hiding behind invisible walls you had to accept things like they were, that mean you had at some point in life to accept what you were and not what you thought you were or something like that and I wonder if this redskin name affair is not the white culture destroying the beautiful American Indian one, playing the same little word games as the white people.
Sometimes I resent growing up in all of this world full of "don'ts".
People where I live were throwing garbage in my garden I know why, they told me to my face that I am not welcome because I not one of them, then when I starting composting whatever organic matter they threw in my garden and started growing food with it they stopped, because after all they were giving me free raw material (LoL), then they started throwing non organic trash, which I promptly recycled, the plastic bags became rope, which I made a hammock, ceiling plant hangers and much more, the metals I melted and created some replicas of old street lamps posts, all those nails, cans are really something now (LoL), but it is getting hard where before those people were happy to give me their trash, now they go all the way to not let any on the streets so I don't collect it anymore, silly people.
I think what I was thinking is why the American Indians there are not turning that trashy name into something else, something good and that everyone could be proud of, get the trademark revoked by all means not because it is offensive but because you want to do something good with it, now that would be greater than anything else, it means whatever others do to hurt you you can make it work in your favor, it means that even if life only gives you shit, you will make a treasure out of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I find that offensive and want that name CHANGED !!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not saying whether he should or should not change the name. I am merely pointing out what is likely really behind all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. He would have had valuable market research on how popular the new brand (and subsequent sales of new merchandise under that brand) would be that he could consider against the cost of developing that brand.
2. If the majority rejected the idea, he could simply point to the results and state that the people didn't want it changed instead of taking the morally indefensible position he has and allowing that minority to paint him as a racist asshole, garnering more support from some those who were otherwise indifferent to the issue.
But he can't do that now because he's taken a position and he has to stick with it which was truly a dumb move on his part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's his team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Washington Swindlers
Washington Lobbyists
Washington Spymasters
Washington Dissemblers
Washington Incompetents
Washington Tyrants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example: The Seven Nations, would they open groups of Red Skin Casinos?
How about Red Skin gas, Red Skin Cookies, Red Skin Dairy products the list goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change name, make tons of money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change name, make tons of money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what do you say Timmy? Are you going to take the lead on forcing Queer Nation to change its name to Gay Nation or Homosexual Nation?
Are you starting to see how stupid you look yet? I'm guessing you must, as we haven't heard a peep from you since you posted this embarrassing screed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
no because that would be discrimination against transgender and other types of sexual preference people's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
as an African American can you agree with this 'person's" statement ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who's been called a redskin actually???
If a gang of white guys insisted on calling themselves n***gers should black community be polled on how they feel about it? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who's been called a redskin actually???
people are just TOO quick to get all up in other people's shit over relative NOTHING-BURGERS, EXCEPTING the crucial people who actually run this here ball-o-mud: if the concern trolls put 1/10th their effort into (rightfully and righteously) excoriating the rich, the pols, the banksters and korporadoes who have fucked this planet, we would have won the day already...
instead, we're going to get butthurt-by-proxy over relatively inconsequential injustices (if that), but we're too chickenshit to confront the stuff that REALLY matters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who's been called a redskin actually???
There is a controversy over a non-Jewish soccer club calling themselves the Yid Army, which sounds analogous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It requires a "vast" majority? So if say 65% of people find it offensive, it isn't offensive? I don't much care for your definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of looking silly....
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets- infected-with-smallpox
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Racist comments are a common way of bullying and inciting hatred.
Calling a football team "redskins" is not a racist comment, its a name of a football team, not a slur on an ethnic group.
Calling an African American a Nigger is a racist slur with the intent to slur and denigrate a specific ethnic group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay then, so we can just rename the team the Washington Niggers, and nobody would have a problem with that, right?
Or, in honor of Dan Snyder's heritage he could rename the team the Washington Kikes, because clearly that wouldn't be an offensive slur against practitioners of Judaism, but just the name of a football team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, except, redskin has a much better ring to it.
But all for it, as I'd love to see the resulting logo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Indians don't need white people to tell them what's offensive to their race. If a clear majority aren't offended, what exactly is the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people don't, but it also matter if you are 'in that group' so to speak, many white Americans are not offended by the term "Nigga", but I would say most of them are not African Americans either.
When I went to school Negro was what African Americans were called, they we leaned that in school, it was not meant to be derogatory at all. And was not used in that context, therefore it is not a racist term.
But this, Tim, this is CRAZY STUPID, made worse by your desire to employ trademark to be even more crazy.
I am guessing the US has laws on the books in regards to racist slurs and derogatory comments, so why try to distort trademark law to supersede racial vilification laws ?
Is it because this is clearly NOT racial vilification ?
and is in fact some idiot PC thug ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America is racist - generally
to be racist the term needs to be directed at that group of people, but the redskins football team is not 'that group', again its the name of a team, and is not used in that context as a racist slur.
the majority of native Americans understand this, and it is amusing that once again, TD is applauding trademark for censorship.
it is not a derogatory term if used to describe a football team, the intent is not to denigrate a race of people, the term is used to describe a football team.
The same applies to the New Zealand ALL BLACKS for example, it describes a football team, it is not a 'slur on all people with black skin'.
What is the real shame Timbo, is you cannot seem to tell the difference !!!
are you going to go after Eskimo pie's next ? or "black cat lollies" or "red skin candy bars" ?? what about "white sox softball team?
a racist slue is a 'term used to denigrate a specific ethnic group, the term "redskin" is well know to be a name of a football team, and not a term to denigrate a specific ethnic group.
Trademark should not be used for censorship, political correctness run wild.
for example, as a lot have pointed out here, the term "redskins" is commonly known to refer to a football team, and not known to be a slur on an ethnic group, but on the other hand everyone knows what "Nigga" means !!!
Do you notice the difference ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if I said.
"I hate the niggas" what would you think I was referring to then ?
Tim I wonder who the real idiot is here ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh-oh...
Needless to say, it was probably a good idea that we didn't go with our original name, "The Smelly Swedes".
It's probably for the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yea right !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
oh you think that because you read it in a book ?? !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That you think of Maya Angelou as some "book" - she's an author, so you know - is an indication that reading, research and intelligence are not your strong suits. But anyone without a turd for a brain already knew that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fun fact: the term "redneck" arose to describe poor, white Southern farm laborers - probably indentured servants or their descendants - in the late 1800's. Around the turn of the century, it was used to describe poor white southern Democrats. In the early 20th century, it was co-opted by the UMW (a multi-racial union of Appalachian coal miners) to refer to a union man or striker.
It was only in the post-Civil-Rights era that the term became a derogatory stereotype of poor whites, especially poor white Southerners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not so sure about that. I think it was originally indicative of anti-poor classist attitudes. The rednecks did not have much higher of a social standing in the South than black slaves did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In both cases it started as a descriptive term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have a suspicious that is was applied to poor people because they had to pass long hour under the sun which made their exposed necks red, while their hats protected their faces.
...
Aha! Wikipedia to the rescue.
Wikipedia: Redneck
Wikipedia: Redskin(slang)
Wikipedia: List of ethnic slurs
Did anyone know that "apple" is a derogatory term for Native American Indians?
The vast majority of derogatory terms in Portuguese uses the color (black), instead the race (negro) that is why if you refer to someone in Portuguese by calling them black they will call you a racist.
Pink in Asian countries is a just another color for males they don't have that connotation that it has in Europe or the Americas.
http://www.simplybodylanguage.com/finger-gesture.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ gestures
The Ok symbol in America is a good sign do it on a Latin country and it means a-hole specially if you invert it and have your fingers pointing down which in English speaking countries and some Asian ones means coins but in other countries means F. YOU!.
The marvels of cultural BS and perceived wrongs.
Some things are regional, pertinent to only part of the whole group.
Things I started thinking about:
- Prejudice has a temporal component, what is a sign of prejudice today, may not be in the future, using words as a guide to what is racist may or may not be akin to using a word filter to block spam.
- Prejudice has a cultural component, what is derogatory in some places is not in others or vice versa.
- Prejudice has physical properties meaning it can be universal or can be localized, restricted geographically to some region.
What that means?
Have no idea it just crossed my mind that this is a complicated things to deal and is just mind boggling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word "redskins" should be allowed to evolve into something else. Not cemented as always to be a derogatory term for Native Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next thing you know they will take from the Muslim playbook and threaten violence. With all this PC BS we will be subservient to every Tom, Dick and Henry!!!
Call a spade a spade and nigger a nigger, if they can do it why cannot the world in general say those words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's this working out for you Timmy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the business?
No. This does not mean the government is in the business of hate speech. If the government allows the Whig party to trademark their name that does not mean the government is endorsing the Whigs, or political parties in general, or words that start with W. And this would not change if the Whigs endorsed legalizing the murder of all non-Whigs.
And referencing the owner's political views in your article makes it WORSE. Because now you're saying that you're intentionally denying equal protection under the law based on someone's politics.
You know what? Since you used an offensive word or two yourself, maybe the government should prohibit Techdirt from showing any Internet ads or selling or promoting any products online. After all, we wouldn't want the government to "endorse" such an offensive word by allowing a site using it to profit via an Internet that gets some government funding. That's totally not censorship because you can still write the articles, right? We're just using the power of the federal government to make sure you lose money doing it.
I know lots of people have already pointed this out, but that's not just a minority of people - it's a minority of the people who are supposedly being disparaged. I'm astounded that you could quote a number like 37% and think it HELPS your cause. Do we really need to give minority groups (and a MINORITY of a minority group) veto power over all product names?
This might have more weight if we didn't already have the survey saying how the average tribal member felt. I mean, American leaders at both the local and national levels might endorse a restrictive trade agreement, but that does not mean that most Americans support it or that it would be beneficial for them.
Yeah, of course every person with white skin is responsible for this. Even though it was centuries ago and not only has nobody alive today ever done that, many of us do not even have any ANCESTORS who were in this country at a time where they could POSSIBLY have done that. You profess to hate racism and then you assign blanket guilt (pun intended) based on skin color. Lovely.
In closing, to quote a wise man:
I guess you weren't feeling mentally courageous when you wrote this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Redskins are older than that. Was the 1947 law also intended to be retroactive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It can't be. Ex post facto laws are not allowed. Looks like game, set, match Timmy. Maybe you should move on to another hopeless (and meaningless) cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But still, I believe it's ridiculous to attempt to invalidate a trademark that's over 40 years old for this reason.
Also, I found this on Wikipedia:
And this is why people advocate for smaller government. When the government has its fingers in everything, people with an agenda can use the government to pressure a private organization in multiple ways until they are forced to cave. Deny them trademarks, deny them radio and TV, maybe next deny them building permits so they can never repair their stadium. Heck, let's cut off their public electricity, water, and sewer, and tear up any nearby roads so people have no way to get there. Anything goes, because we don't like a word they use!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TIM TIM TIM
Trademark for censorship of free speech, the trifecta!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TIM TIM TIM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: TIM TIM TIM
His comment stands, Timmy got his bottom smacked good on this one, and not only by due process, but public opinion as displayed right here on TD.
Lets have far more "due process" please !!! the more the better, that's how much I hate due process !!!
I am glad you think using trademark law to censor free speech and to subvert common use entomology is 'due process' lets see how this pans out.
(or do you think the term "pans out" is a slur on early American settlers who mined gold?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: TIM TIM TIM
You're a complete and thorough fucktard, and the world pities anyone who purchases a solar panel you touched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: TIM TIM TIM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TIM TIM TIM
It's hilarious to watch you confuse derision with rage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So every time a term changes from "socially acceptible" to "offensive to a minority of a minority" anyone who had been using said term, no matter how long they've been using it, needs to be pressured through the government revoking their trademark registration into changing it? And you, Tim, think that's a good policy? Wow. What could go wrong there? But since I think that's a pretty short sighted way to use trademark law and could easily lead to censorship, I must be stupid and silly according to Tim.
I wish someone in the TD office, like, I don't know, and editor, would read some of Tim's screeds before they are posted and maybe tone down the sarcasm and self rightousness a tad before putting them on the site. It doesn't make TD as a whole look very good, IMO. And I'm a loyal reader, even though I don't post as much as I used to. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pick a name that has something to do with Washington
No matter what people might think of the word "Redskins", the fact of the matter is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Washington DC. Why not use a name like "Senators" (baseball) or "Capitals" (hockey)? Technically "Wizards" (basketball) doesn't fit either, but it's better than "Bullets".
And why doesn't someone fight the name-changing battle from this angle (and maybe appeal to the owner's vanity of picking his own Washington-related name) instead of beating him up over a racially-charged word. Like I said, he's stubborn and more people who fight him, the more he'll stand his ground and defend his position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Washington football team name change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]