Redskins lose their trademark

[D.o.s.]

Nobody has anything against empathy or compassion.  This is about interpretations of whether the team moniker Redskins is pejorative or not, a matter on which there is disagreement, but one in which the vast majority of people don't view it as a pejorative, and wish for the team to keep the name.  Which brings up the larger issue here; just who decides what is or is not acceptable speech?  Who decides what is or is not offensive? 

If I disagree with someone about whether something is offensive or not, I don't want them imposing their interpretations on me, and vice-versa.  That really is the crux of it.  I don't much care whether they change their name or not.

As to the Skins, though.  My feeling is that the word is not in use except as the team moniker, and in that usage, the word portrays them positively.

Who decides what's acceptable and what's not in this sort of instance is very easy: it's among the group of people being categorized -- and it doesn't have to be all of them, which seems to be a common (although confusing) belief among the people who want the name to stay the same.

[Mencius]

Who decides what's acceptable and what's not in this sort of instance is very easy: it's among the group of people being categorized -- and it doesn't have to be all of them, which seems to be a common (although confusing) belief among the people who want the name to stay the same.

I don't have a problem with that.  If Native Americans decide that they'd like it changed, so be it.  I do disagree that some small fraction should dictate to the larger group (among NAs) about what is or is not offensive. 

I take more issue with one group of white people arguing with another group of white people about what is or is not pejorative about Native Americans, particularly where moral preening is involved.  What paternalistic chutzpah.

[D.o.s.]

Sure -- but when someone like Baxter Holmes says "hey, this is what this word means to a particular group of Native Americans" and the result is something that's objectively offensive, I'm more inclined to pay attention to that than someone like Dan Snyder, who is demonstrably an overly defensive nitwit clinging desperately to any chance he has to absolve himself of any ethical wrongdoing, especially when he's got a fiscal incentive to do so.

[angryguy77]

I'm guessing the gov will now revoke protection for hollywood and the music industry as well. Both industries produce products and contain labels offensive to many group on a yearly basis.

[byennie]

Who decides what's acceptable and what's not in this sort of instance is very easy: it's among the group of people being categorized -- and it doesn't have to be all of them, which seems to be a common (although confusing) belief among the people who want the name to stay the same.

I don't have a problem with that.  If Native Americans decide that they'd like it changed, so be it.  I do disagree that some small fraction should dictate to the larger group (among NAs) about what is or is not offensive. 

I take more issue with one group of white people arguing with another group of white people about what is or is not pejorative about Native Americans, particularly where moral preening is involved.  What paternalistic chutzpah.

It's not like we can go hold an official Native American vote on the issue. How exactly should Native Americans "decide" other than what they are already doing? Keep in mind that there is a difference between a minority of people speaking out, and those people holding a minority opinion. Even if 99% of people agree, only a small portion are likely to rally around this particular issue.

As for white people arguing... many of the players involved (team owners, league, fans, etc) are white. Obviously the opinion of the NA community should weight heavily, but paternalistic chutzpah? Should white people just stay out of this? How's that going to work?

[mmmmm]

If the team was initially named the Washington Negroes, do you still think that would be their name today?

But it wasn't named that, was it? Perhaps there's a good reason.

It's well known that the founder of the Redskins was a racist (via his struggles with integration, and so forth). I'd say that's a very good reason right there.

So let me get this straight -- he hated Native Americans, so he chose to pick a team name that supposed that his players will identify with and be referred as such? Yes, that certainly makes perfect sense.

By the way, there's no evidence that Preston Marshall had any racially biased attitude against Native Americans (he vehemently refused to sign African Americans, yet the inaugural Redskins roster featured several Native American players).

Did you know that the team was established in Boston, and shared fields with the Boston Braves (when they did, they were, in fact, listed as the Boston Braves for their inaugural 1932 season) and the Red Sox. Notice a pattern there?

All that establishes is that the team was named with ignorance and/or indifference to whether the name was a derogatory racial insult.

That doesn't change whether the name is a derogatory racial insult.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm guessing the gov will now revoke protection for hollywood and the music industry as well. Both industries produce products and contain labels offensive to many group on a yearly basis.

If you find any trademarks from Hollywood or the music industry offensive, you're welcome to file a complaint, just as groups of Native Americans did in 1999 and again in this instance. 

The patent office isn't just deciding to do this on their own, they're fielding complaints from private citizens that the trademark violates an existing law against trademarking disparaging terms.  They've now twice concluded that it does.  So in the heavily paraphrased words of Gandhi, go be the change you wish to see.