- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I don’t care how you slice it, the term Redskin is a negative term towards a race of people.
You apparently have a limited knowledge of cuttlery skills and historical context. Native Americans referred to themselves as “red”,”red skinned”, and “red peoples” before us “pale faces” did.
But I guess they, like the 90% of today’s Native American population who do not find it offensive, were just too damn dumb and ignorant to know better. Just like them Irish Catholics and Christians, per Notre Dame and Wake Forest. And let’s not forget about the BLACK Knights of West Point. I wonder where they keep their white hoods.
It’sca freakn color, used simply adjective. With all the countries ills, you’d think over sensitive panzy asses would have something more important to worry about… like how about the actual living conditions on government managed reservations. Those might be a little more important than the freakn name of an NFL team named so to HONOR Native Ameticans.
This bs is what we get with the nullification of survival of the fittest andva subsidized gene pool.
PS: Dietz’s Native American heritage is now under question, but yes, the intent of the name was to honor him and his claimed heritage.
Most today, not all CD, that find it offensive do so because they’re told it’s offensive.
This bs is what we get with the nullification of survival of the fittest and a subsidized gene pool.
Except that’s not how evolution works….
Whether native americans ever called themselves redskins is irrelevant. As has been pointed out previously, black people used to call themselves negro or colored, but I think it’s accepted by everyone outside of a small subset of Nevada ranchers that those terms are considered offensive today.
. Politically unpopular speech is exactly the kind of speech the Founding Fathers intended to protect with the First Amendment.
That’s not the argument, though we’re not really arguing, here. We all know that the team has the right to call themselves whatever they want.
The point is that the Skins, as a public business, should do what is ethically and morally correct. Just good business practice. They have the Constiutional right to call themselves the Washington Negro’s but I doubt they would do that either. Just because one group of people have a much higher political clout than the other, does that mean that one group of people is more important than the other. I suppose to some yes but to me no.
I suppose I just have more empathy towards the Native American tribes. They got totally screwed over by us Whiteies many times over the years and even to this day it’s ok to make fun of them in movies but god forbid if you make fun of an African American in a movie.
Actually that is precisely the argument. An arm of the United States Government revoked their trademark because of their political position on the subject. This should chill everyone to the bone, whether they agree with the Redskins nickname or not. Eventually “they” will come after some thought that you have.
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?
Does the declaration of independence say something about the right to life, liberty, and the protection of corporate logos?
The trademark, copyright, and patents are all completely made up. They have absolutely no basis in reality.
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?
Really good point. There is no such right.
I’m worried about far more important things (IMHO) than a logo/name for a football team. But maybe that is just me.
Where did the idea come from that a trademark that has been in place for decades can be revoked for political reasons? The ACLU will side with the Redskins organization on this.
I’m a Native American bandit. My parents were descendants from the Cherokee and Choctaw tribes. My wife, who is a Chippewa, is very unique.
Nice
That’s not what happened here. Why do you think this was a political decision?
The USPTO held a hearing and was presented evidence they felt established the term ‘redskin’ as an racial slur, an therefore not trademarkable. Just because a politician agrees with the decision doesn’t make it a political decision.
Where did the idea come from that a trademark that has been in place for decades can be revoked for political reasons?
It’s called progress. It’s an American thing. We’ve been doing this for a few centuries now. Attitudes change.
I’m admittedly not as hell bent on this one as I have been with Sterling and Paterno (Sterling continues to show his behind). I recognize there is a debate as some Native Americans do not consider the name offensive. But some clearly do. And now some media (more will follow) won’t be using the name. The name will change in due time.
Pakfanistan –
Trademark, Copyright, and Patent rights derive directly from the U.S. Constitution – Article 1, Section 8. Trademark rights derive from the Commerce Clause and Copyright and Patent rights derive from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.
Thus, Trademark, Copyright, and Patent rights are no more “completely made up” than any other right that is recognized by the U.S. Constitution. These rights are as valid and real as any in the U.S. and derive from our true founding document.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;No, no trademark there…
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
No, no trademark there.
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
No, no trademark there.
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
No, no trademark there.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
No, no trademark there, copyright and patent yes. But it also says limited time for Authors, but now copyright is 120 years, which is completely ridiculous.
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
No, no trademark there.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
No, no trademark there.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
No, no trademark there.
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
No, no trademark there.
To provide and maintain a Navy;
No, no trademark there.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
No, no trademark there.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
No, no trademark there.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
No, no trademark there.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
No, no trademark there.
So no, no trademarks in the constitution.
Regardless, trademarks, copyright and patents are completely unnatural, and exist only because the government exists, and should exist for the greater good, which is why they were created, to foster creativity and innovation by protecting authors and inventors. But, they were always meant to be limited in time, so that works pass into the public domain. The current copyright and patent laws are a travesty.
Texpack wrote –
Federal judges have upheld the rights of the American Nazi Party to march and express views several orders of magnitude more offensive than having Redskins as a mascot. Politically unpopular speech is exactly the kind of speech the Founding Fathers intended to protect with the First Amendment. There are multiple public high schools in the heart of Indian Country in Oklahoma who have “Savages” as their nickname. Government funded institutions so if they’re really serious about this they will cut off funding to these institutions before they go after the Redskins.
My Libertarian streak is getting wider as time goes on.For the record I despise both the Cowboys and the Redskins.
Texpack –
You are confusing First Amendment rights with the right to have a federal trademark registration. As others have pointed out, these are vastly different rights. This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with “politically unpopular speech” and has no “chilling effect” on the same.
The U.S. government has a right to regulate commerce in the several States. Rights in trademark whether common law, state or federal are rights tied to the identification of a source of goods or services. Rights granted under a federal trademark registration are rights granted solely at the discretion of the Federal Government under the governments rights to regulate commerce. One of the regulations as set by Congress is that in order for a party to obtain a federal trademark registration, the mark, at the time of registration, cannot consists of or comprises matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute. Congress has appointed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to regulate federal trademark registrations and to make such determinations. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board after reading and hearing all the arguments from both sides ruled that “REDSKINS” was a slur and was disparraging to people of Native American descent. Therefore, the TTAB canceled Pro Football, Inc.’s federal registrations, revoking the rights granted by the Federal Government for the special protections afforded them by those registrations.
Pro Football, Inc. can still call the team they own whatever they like – including the “REDSKINS.” They just will not be able to stop others from using the mark REDSKINS under the special rights that Pro Football, Inc. had under those federal registrations if the TTAB ruling stands. Also, Pro Football, Inc. still may have some common law rights in the mark even if the ruling is upheld.
Similarly, the American Nazi Party can keep their name, march and espouse their views. I don’t think, however, they would be able to get a federal trademark registration on a nazi swastika or a yellow star with “JUDE” written across it as source identifier for any goods or services that they provide.
Strictly speaking on free speech and trademarks, while I think SAVAGES and REDSKINS may be on different levels of disparagement, those Oklahoma high school football teams can still continue to call themselves the “SAVAGES” but they may not be able to obtain a federal trademark registration on the name (for several reasons). They could have other issues related to state and local government sponsorship if an issue is ever raised, though.
As for being a Libertarian – you can start a movement to strike the commerce clause from the U.S. Constitution and allow “true” free reign for goods and services provided by business – but I don’t think you will like the outcome.
Pakfanistan,
Sorry – I guess you do not understand that Congress is given the right under Articel 1, Section 8, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” You may not realize that federal trademark registrations are only granted by the Federal Government on marks solely used to identify the source of goods and/or services that are being sold in interstate commerce in the U.S.
Since Congress has the right to regulate commerce – the rights granted under a federal trademark registration “derive” directly from powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
Pakfanistan,
All laws that govern society exist only because governments exist.
I understand your point of view about the intellectual property rights existing for the greater good. My view differs, in that I think, generally speaking, that they do serve the greater good and promote the sciences and the useful arts, especially as they relates to patents. I have to admit though – the “Mickey Mouse” effect on copyright longeivty has me a little worried…
Pakfanistan,
Sorry – I guess you do not understand that Congress is given the right under Articel 1, Section 8, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” You may not realize that federal trademark registrations are only granted by the Federal Government on marks solely used to identify the source of goods and/or services that are being sold in interstate commerce in the U.S.
Since Congress has the right to regulate commerce – the rights granted under a federal trademark registration “derive” directly from powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
The point about trademarks being solely for goods and services is, in fact, new to me. I still think it’s rather flimsy to extrapolate out from “regulate commerce” to protect names and images.
I do think trademark is a good thing. I’m glad I don’t have to wonder if I’m eating at a real McDonalds or a knockoff. Or that I’m getting a genuine Apple computer and not a chinese clone.
And yes, my beef is primarily with the length of copyright, and the triviality of some patents, both of which I think are crushing creativity and innovation at the moment.
The Skins eventually will be forced to change their name. Your going to start seeing all sorts of Redskins paraphernalia popping up by knock offs. Not that anyone wants it anyways (kidding). But the Skins and the NFL won’t share in the profits/royalties. In other words, they won’t be protected and their name is bad for business.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. This certainly qualifies as such, which is why I think it is only a matter of time before the name is changed.
Most of us are looking at this thing saying “what is the big deal?” Just change it now and be done with it. If the Skins think they are going to beat this thing, they have another thing coming. It’s going to get ugly, and again, will be very bad for business.
At first, I thought the TTAB ruling was petty and a little absurd. But after reading portions of the plaintiff’s brief, I agree with Pakfanistan and nav. The mark REDSKINS should not be afforded federal trademark protection.
The term “Redskins” is clearly, and clearly has been for a long time, a pejorative term. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias defined the term “Redskins” as “offensive” going as far back as 1911. Groups and organizations of Indians and their leaders have objected to the use of the team name for a long time even going so far as having a national Indian organization that represented several Indian nations meet with the Redskin’s owners to aski them to stop using the name when the trademark registrations were fairly new and some of the trademark applications were either still pending or not filed yet.
As pakfanistan and nav have astutely pointed out, the standard is not – and should not be – what people in a bystander class of people think of the term, it is what the affected group of people think the term means to them. To a large portion of the Native American population in America, “Redskin” is akin to what the N-word means to black people when used by people outside the African-American race. To discount what the term “REDSKIN” means to Native Americans because you do not find it offensive, is not too much different from the general population accepting politicians using the N-word in speeches in the 1940’s and 1950’s. It may not have been offensive to the majority of whites who heard it, but I bet it was offensive to a large portion of the blacks.
There are multiple public high schools
in the heart of Indian Country in Oklahoma who have
“Savages” as their nickname.I thought someone would have mentioned this by now:
Oklahoma is Choctaw for “red people”.Oops. What are the Feds gonna do about this injustice!
What does the decision mean in the short term?
Raskopf: “Our registration is still valid, was not canceled, would not be canceled until such time as the case was over. Last time, it was 11 years from the date of the trademark decision that the case finally ended in favor of the Washington Redskins, and we anticipate that the same will occur here, hopefully on a more accelerated timetable.”
[snip]
Would the Redskins be damaged if they lose the federal registrations?
Raskopf: “We’ve looked at that. We think there would be additional costs, for sure, if we lost the registrations. Enforcement issues would become difficult, just because more people would come out of the woodwork to challenge you, perhaps not recognizing how strong our common law rights are. We have our registrations, but then we also have our common law rights. We have one of the most valuable brands in sports, so there’s enormous underlying value.”
[snip]
Update: Later, Raskopf appeared with the Junkies on 106.7 The Fan. He answered many of the same questions, but was also asked whether he would refer to a Native American as a Redskin.
“That’s not what this case is about. It’s what OUR word means,” he said. “It’s how you use it, it’s not whether you use it. You need to put the word in context. Once you get the context, this case falls apart in two seconds for them. And that’s where we’re standing. We’re standing on that ground….It may or may not be used disparagingly, just like many other terms can. So we don’t really think there’s much to that claim…..We, the Washington Redskins, have made something honorable and successful and imbued that into this brand. There’s no way that anybody can say we use that mark disparagingly. It’s a mark. That’s what trademark law’s all about.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
