|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
WASHINGTON -- The Washington Redskins have won the latest round in a 16-year court battle against a group of American Indians, prevailing on a technicality that again skirts the issue of whether the team's nickname is racially offensive. In a ruling dated June 25 and first circulated Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the youngest of the seven Native American plaintiffs waited too long after turning 18 to file the lawsuit that attempts to revoke the Redskins trademarks. The lead plaintiff, Suzan Shown Harjo, said Friday the group will appeal. "She ruled as we anticipated she would: for the loophole that would allow everyone to avoid the merits of the case," said Harjo, president of the Washington-based Morning Star Institute that advances Native American causes. Harjo and her fellow plaintiffs have been working since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid. They initially won -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999 -- but Kollar-Kotelly overturned the ruling in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued in 1967. The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1 year old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time. But Kollar-Kotelly's new ruling rejects that possible argument. She wrote that the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore "waited almost eight years" after coming of age to join the lawsuit. The judge did not address whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist. She wrote that her decision was not based on the larger issue of "the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names." The Redskins declined to comment, referring calls to attorney Bob Raskopf, who has been representing the team and the NFL in the case. Raskopf did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The case now heads back to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Should it agree that Harjo's group was too old to sue, she has a backup plan: A group of six American Indians ranging in age from 18 to 24 filed essentially the same lawsuit two years ago. That suit is on hold until Harjo's case is resolved. Harjo therefore anticipates that one day, a court will have to decide once and for all whether the Redskins name is offensive. "It's so ironic that they would like to get rid of this through the loophole of passage of time, when we're in our 16th year of litigation," Harjo said. "Unbelievable. If this (lawsuit) were a child, we would be preparing the child to go to college." Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press Link
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
My attitude has changed since living in Arizona and see this ruling as technical baloney. But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
I'm Italian,, I don't think I'd be upset if somebody named thier team the WOPs. But then again, who in thier right mind would do that  ("wop" stands for "with out papers" if you ever wanted to know) I wonder sometimes, this fight with Native americans has been going on for, (according to the article) 16 years. Yet the Redskins have been so named since 1933. (when formed in Boston in 1932, they were called the Braves) Why has it only been since the last 16 years that Native Americans feel offended? What took them so long to file a law suit. This team, named the Redskins, has been around for 75 years. Why now? (why only 16 years ago) Maybe I"m wrong, but this smacks of a fight being fought over Political Correctness.. It's like Chief Wahoo for the Indians. If you go back, you will find that the sentiment of the Chief Wahoo symbol was to honor a native american player... Sockalexis! Never once was the intention to demean anyone, or so it appears. Yet, up until a few years ago, Native Americans were picketing outside Jacobs (now Progressive) field. (to be honest, they still may be, but I haven't been to a game in 3 years, so I wouldn't know) I know that there are two responses and both seem to be siding with native americans... But I really believe that this is nothing more than someone offended over nothing.. But that's just me I guess.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
My attitude has changed since living in Arizona and see this ruling as technical baloney. But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
How many millions of dollars would it cost to change the team name and logo? Just because half a dozen people are offended? Bet they aren't offended when they are cashing their casino tax-free checks, and all the other freebies they get.
The court ruling in favor of these individuals would set off a chain reaction, and soon you'll be rooting for the Clevelanders, rather than the Cleveland Indians.
Then I can see everyone with the last name Brown, suing the Cleveland Browns organization, and mandating either a name change or a minimum number of Browns on the team.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
My attitude has changed since living in Arizona and see this ruling as technical baloney. But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
How many millions of dollars would it cost to change the team name and logo? Just because half a dozen people are offended? Bet they aren't offended when they are cashing their casino tax-free checks, and all the other freebies they get.
The court ruling in favor of these individuals would set off a chain reaction, and soon you'll be rooting for the Clevelanders, rather than the Cleveland Indians.
Then I can see everyone with the last name Brown, suing the Cleveland Browns organization, and mandating either a name change or a minimum number of Browns on the team.
Wow, I can't begin to describe all that is wrong with your post.....
You think it's only a half a dozen people that are offended by the term Redskins? I promise you, there are more. Heck, I'm offended by their team name. It's the freaking REDSKINS! You can't have a team called the Blackskins or Yellowskins......so why is it ok for the Redskins? Because the name was created during a time where those people didn't have a voice to complain. You do realize that only 40-50 years ago blacks and other minorities were still segregated in the United States. Who would have listened to them complaining about a football team name? They couldn't go to schools or vote for Pete's sake. And you wanted them to complain then? Ha ha ha...get real.
Not ALL American Indians get freebies. They don't ALL live on casino property and get tax-free checks. Some actually work and live like the rest of us citizens. Oh my!
People with the last name of Brown aren't a race of humans, weren't driven off their land and murdered in a massive migration of American settlers. If that's the best analogy you can come up with....I feel bad.
And for anyone to say, "it doesn't offend me, so it's fine" or "I'm <insert race/creed/religion here> and if they named a team after me I'd be happy" is a little misguided. It's really not about you or how you perceive the term, it comes down to how THEY feel about the name. And I'm fully aware that not all American Indians dislike the names.
My favorite baseball team is the Cleveland Indians. And I can't stand Chief Wahoo. I'm a fan of theirs because I was raised a fan of all Cleveland sports. If the Indians changed their logo and/or changed their name, I would be happy. I'm not a fan of the "Cleveland Indians"....I'm a fan of Cleveland baseball.
....as good as my or anyone else argument on this topic, people tend to not change their minds. I've been a part of every Chief Wahoo thread on this board (and on the old board). And there is rarely a mind changed. So I really just wasted my time.
...and sorry FF, I don't mean to attack you. I've heard so many similar arguments on the subject. Like if we change the Indian team names, the animals will be suing next. We're talking about a race of humans that feel they don't like being a mascot for a sports team.
Last edited by Punchsmack; 07/14/08 12:06 PM.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Wow, I can't begin to describe all that is wrong with your post.....
Well you began anyway, so I can label you a liar. 
Quote:
You think it's only a half a dozen people that are offended by the term Redskins?
Since, this topic was about this article which states "..seven Native American plaintiffs..", that's what I was referencing as the allotted number, since the "more" aren't named in the lawsuit, I guess they aren't offended enough to put in the effort to change it.
Quote:
Heck, I'm offended by their team name. It's the freaking REDSKINS! You can't have a team called the Blackskins or Yellowskins......so why is it ok for the Redskins?
Why can't you have a Blackskins or Yellowskins, I doubt it would go through without a lot of hoopla and protest, but you could sure try, there's no law opposing it.
Quote:
Because the name was created during a time where those people didn't have a voice to complain. You do realize that only 40-50 years ago blacks and other minorities were still segregated in the United States. Who would have listened to them complaining about a football team name? They couldn't go to schools or vote for Pete's sake. And you wanted them to complain then? Ha ha ha...get real.
You get real....it's just a bunch of letters, and only mean what you want it to mean, change the logo from a tomahawk to a bottle of Coppertone, and Redskins means sunburned people. You know, sticks and stones.
Quote:
Not ALL American Indians get freebies. They don't ALL live on casino property and get tax-free checks. Some actually work and live like the rest of us citizens. Oh my!
You right, not all, that was poor wording on my part.
Quote:
People with the last name of Brown aren't a race of humans, weren't driven off their land and murdered in a massive migration of American settlers. If that's the best analogy you can come up with....I feel bad.
Redskins are not a race either, it's a slang term. The race name is American Indians.
And nations have been killed and driven from their land since man learned to walk upright. It's called command and conquer, it's how the world's lands became claimed and nations formed, and in some cases are still being formed. If China, Japan or Russia attacked and defeated the US on US soil, do you think they would give a damn that we were here before them?
Indian tribes were killing and forcing each other from land before the Europeans even came here.
It doesn't make it right, but it happened and it was considered 'normal' back then.
Quote:
And for anyone to say, "it doesn't offend me, so it's fine" or "I'm <insert race/creed/religion here> and if they named a team after me I'd be happy" is a little misguided. It's really not about you or how you perceive the term, it comes down to how THEY feel about the name. And I'm fully aware that not all American Indians dislike the names.
Well I never said that in my post. So I'll assume you are referencing the Daman's post.
Quote:
My favorite baseball team is the Cleveland Indians. And I can't stand Chief Wahoo. I'm a fan of theirs because I was raised a fan of all Cleveland sports. If the Indians changed their logo and/or changed their name, I would be happy. I'm not a fan of the "Cleveland Indians"....I'm a fan of Cleveland baseball.
Well then, maybe these plaintiff's should just be fans or not of the Washington football team.
Quote:
....as good as my or anyone else argument on this topic, people tend to not change their minds. I've been a part of every Chief Wahoo thread on this board (and on the old board). And there is rarely a mind changed. So I really just wasted my time.
Your right, I probably won't change my mind, but I read your topic, and there are some things I see I could have worded better, and probably should not have implied that all American Indians are gettign freebies or run casinos.
Last edited by FloridaFan; 07/14/08 12:22 PM.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,234 |
So the team wasn't named after those little potatoes??? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363 |
Quote:
My attitude has changed since living in Arizona and see this ruling as technical baloney. But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
When did the courts FORCE them to keep the names 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Harjo therefore anticipates that one day, a court will have to decide once and for all whether the Redskins name is offensive.
Isn't whether or not something is offensive fairly subjective? And to how many people does it have to be offensive before the court says you can't use it? 1? 6? 1000?
I look for the court ultimately to rule, yes it's offensive... but we still can't stop them from using it.
If you're Native American and you don't like the Redskins imagery then root for the Cowb..... ok, I see why that might create a conflict... so root for the Giants or the Eagles... 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Since when does anyone have a right to not be offended anyway?
The last I knew, that isn't one of the Rights of all Americans.
Granted, if you don't like something that some else does, it is popular to get them to change the way they do things to a way that pleases you by suing them for no reason other than "It bugs me (or it offends me, whichever, same thing).... and sadly our courts have allowed this to continue, but for the life of my I cannot figure out why. Not one of us has the right to not be offended. I don't see how or why it could be the basis of a legitimate lawsuit other than some judge up for re-election being afraid to just toss it out of his court and not even hear it as he shouldn't.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
j/c
If Snyder wanted to make a killing on souvenir sales he could change the name to the "Washington Whiteskins", and even though I don't like the team, I'd buy stuff, and I bet a whole lot of other people would buy whiteskins stuff as well. He could be making serious coin!
I'm being serious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,609
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,609 |
Reminds me of a story I read about Tyson Gay. Basically a news service that picked up one of his stories after he won a race had an automatic filter. It took words that some view as offensive and makes them more "PC". So it's headline read that "Homosexual runs for......" All that because some people might become "offended" by what they read.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 805
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 805 |
Quote:
But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
Which is never happening so I guess the offended people may as well deal By the way when was the last time anybody has called an Indian person a Redskin anyway in a racist tone,can anybody name one time 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
What I don't understand is how everyone has forgotten the blatantly offensive racism by the Boston Celtics and the University of Notre Dame. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Just because Irish people aren't offended, doesn't mean that Native Americans can't be.
BTW, Celtics and Fighting Irish sound a helluva lot better than Redskin.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Those Leprachauns are racis, if Chief Wahoo is.. Just because American Indians are offended doesn't mean that Snyder doesn't have the right to put whatever he wants on his team's helmets and merchandise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
The point is that those Leprechauns are just as "offensive" as Chief Wahoo.
American Indians can be "offended" all they want. That doesn't deny Snyder the right to have whatever he wants on his merchandise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Just because Irish people aren't offended, doesn't mean that Native Americans can't be.
Regardless of how many times you say that, people don't understand.
The term "redskin" is derogatory slang for American Indians. The Fighting Irish isn't slang for anything. It isn't the same thing. That example would only work if the Notre Dame nickname was the "Alcoholic Ill-tempered Red-headed Potato Eaters" (and I'm using that only as an example - AND I'm part Irish). Only then could you compare the too.
And even then still, like ndutyme said, if you weren't offended by my obvious insane new nickname of ND, it still doesn't mean American Indians can't be offended by the term Redskin or caricatures like Chief Wahoo.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
The point is that those Leprechauns are just as "offensive" as Chief Wahoo.
American Indians can be "offended" all they want. That doesn't deny Snyder the right to have whatever he wants on his merchandise.
I'm not denying that the leprechauns are offensive. They don't offend me because I'm not Irish, but if an Irish person says it offends them, I can understand and RESPECT that.
So, if Snyder decided to rename his team the Sambos, and the caricature was a black face doll with huge red lips...do you think that would fly?
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Unfortunately, these words fall on deaf ears. Sad really, that as much progress that we've made in race relations in this country, something like this can still continue, and people will still defend it.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363 |
Did you realize some people are offended by the game of football, and by boxing. Should they have the right to sue the NFL to outlaw football because it offends them?
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
Yes, I do. Would he lose money? Absolutely. Would he have the legal right to use it? Absolutely. Ive yet to see anyone show a law that he is breaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not they find it offensive... I think the arguments are "Who Cares?", and "What difference does it make even if they are offended?".
You aren't free from being offended, so I don't see what the point is.
If an owner thought they could do it and have it make money, they could call a team the Georgia Slave Traders, the Raleigh Ragheads or the Carolina Cotton Pickers and it'd be perfectly fine and legal.... even complete with cartoon caricatures. A lot of folks might not like it, but it is the owner's business and he can call it whatever he wants and use whatever he wants as a logo as long as it isn't illegal.... and offensive does NOT equal illegal or grounds for a court to force a change.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Yes, I do. Would he lose money? Absolutely. Would he have the legal right to use it? Absolutely. Ive yet to see anyone show a law that he is breaking.
Agreed, it's all about being PC, which is causing much more division that it was intended to unify.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
it still doesn't mean American Indians can't be offended by the term Redskin or caricatures like Chief Wahoo.
I will concede the argument that they are ALLOWED to be offended. My question is, why do they believe the court has jurisdiction to protect them from being offended?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Like I said, call them the Washington Whiteskins and I'd buy their stuff (I still wouldn't like them though).
Call them the Washington Whities, or Washington Honkies. I'd buy that stuff. Snyder is sitting on a gold mine!!!
Screw the redskins.
On second thought, where do I get in line to sue the Cowboys? I could make some cash of my own. It's about damn time someone sues the cowboys for using a slang term for cattle herder. Millions could be offended by that!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Quote:
My attitude has changed since living in Arizona and see this ruling as technical baloney. But it more disappointing that team owners will only do the right thing if forced to by the courts.
When did the courts FORCE them to keep the names
September 23, 1947
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
You could take an NBA team and call it the "N" word... I'd love to see them argue it's offensive when that's what many of them call each other right on the court. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Well, as much as I agree in spirit, sad fact is you will soon be told that what blacks call each other doesn't matter since it is not offensive for them to call each other that. It's only offensive if someone of a different race calls them that.
And yes, I know you were making a statement to that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363 |
Got a link
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Quote:
Got a link
No thanks, I already got one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 901 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
it still doesn't mean American Indians can't be offended by the term Redskin or caricatures like Chief Wahoo.
I will concede the argument that they are ALLOWED to be offended. My question is, why do they believe the court has jurisdiction to protect them from being offended?
And that point is where I totally agree with you. I'm not for these lawsuits or how the NCAA has forced the universities to change their nicknames by penalty of bowl/tournament play. The teams and universities should want to change their nicknames/logos on their own. The era in which a team can be named after a racial slur (redskins) or stereotypical caricature (chief wahoo) have long passed this society. And it's not being "PC"....it's doing what's right.
Like I said above, nobody within the American Indian community could complain in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's or even 70's. If they protested in the 30's or 40's, they would probably be killed on the spot. So that's how I assume it's only been coming out more in the press in the past few decades.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Did you realize some people are offended by the game of football, and by boxing. Should they have the right to sue the NFL to outlaw football because it offends them?
Quote:
On second thought, where do I get in line to sue the Cowboys? I could make some cash of my own. It's about damn time someone sues the cowboys for using a slang term for cattle herder. Millions could be offended by that!
Again, the term "cowboy" or a sport isn't a racial slur. It's not the same thing! How can people not see that?!?! Jeez, if I had a nickel each time someone tried using the "are bears offended by Chicago naming them for their football team" or "are the Rockie mountains offended..." said something like this I could retire! "Redskins" is a racial slur! Can you not see how skin color has divided this world for the past 2,000 years?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
All I can see is how you, and people like you, allow it to.
I've stated numerous times that if I were Dan Snyder I would be damn tempted to change the name to the Whiteskins, or Whities, or Honkies. Wouldn't bother me in the least, and I'm white.
I do have a sneaky suspicion though that if Snyder were to cut the native americans in on, say, 10% of the revenue of the washington football team, well, then the native americans would hush up.
Here's the bottom line: They are not hurt by the use of "redskins" in a teams name. If it offends them so badly, why are they looking for money out of it? Why not sue simply for the name, i.e. "change the name"? Why? Cash is cool no matter what color your skin is, THAT is why they are suing. For money.
In my opinion there's not one of them that care what name is used - but they see a cash settlement coming if they can convince people they are offended.
Here's a deal: We rid all sports teams of any and all native american nicknames/team names. In return, the native americans are not allowed to operate tax free on "their" lands. Deal? No way in hell the native americans would accept that - hell no - they'll put tax free way before nicknames/team names.
Sorry, native americans are free to live anywhere they want - they don't have to live on the reservations.
They are NOT exempt from being offended. Heck, as a white, christian, male, employed american citizen I'm offended every day and no one gives a crap about it.
Call the damn team the Whiteskins! I'll buy shirts.
So much damn sensitivity about stupid crap - unbelievable!!!
What's next? The cleveland Indians? Then the Atlanta Braves? Then the chicago Blackhawks? Then the Redwings (they have red in their name).
And after all the lawsuits, will the native americans be any better off? Hell no. Other than those few that are in the lawsuit - is the lawsuit to help the native americans? Or is it to pad the pockets of the lawyers and the few named in the lawsuit? Here's a clue - it's about money. It is NOT about being offended. They couldn't give a crap less about the name a team is using - they are looking for a pay day.
That, my friend, is unarguable.
Call the damn team the Honkies. What the hell is a name?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
Harjo and her fellow plaintiffs have been working since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid.
Yeah, sounds like a payday to me. 
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659
Poser
|
|
Poser
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,659 |
I'm still waiting for someone, ANYONE to explain what law has been broken by the Redskins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Harjo and her fellow plaintiffs have been working since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid.
Yeah, sounds like a payday to me.
Sure does. A slow coming one, no doubt, but still a pay day.
What gives Harjo and the rest of the plaintiffs reason to think they can declare the trademarks invalid? Interesting. You brought it up, now it gets me thinking - trademarks invalid means they don't care about the name, they just want the trademark...........hmmmmm, think about that. I think they may want the trademark for themselves, and then make the Washington team PAY to use it. And if that can't happen, they want the washington team to change names.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think it IS a payday issue. Who, or what, gives them the trademark name of Redskins? Here's the answer: no one, and nothing.
Payday.
They couldn't care less about the use of the name - they want money to use the name, or they want the name changed. They aren't offended, they are looking for money.
Again, if I'm Snyder, I say "fine, we are now the Washington Whiteskins/Whities/Honkies. We will honor the native americans by NOT using their name. We will also NOT fatten their wallet."
And I would buy Whiteskins/whities/honkies paraphenalia like crazy. As would many, many others.
I guarantee that if Snyder changed the name, the lawsuit would not be dropped. Not a chance. No way. They want money, and the easiest way to get it is to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
As far as I know, no law has been broken. Nor was there a law forbidding the flying of the confederate flag over the state capital...but that went before a judge as well.
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Judge sides with Redskins, against
American Indians in lawsuit
|
|
![[Linked Image from img.photobucket.com]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v638/Concor1033/NEWDTsig.jpg)