U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The team was founded in 1933. The first documented protest was in 1988 and the first legal action was in 1992. I would have to say leaving something undisturbed for 55 years with little to no action from any organized force is "out of the blue."

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

Beat me to it. But Kevin's use of "equal protection under the law" was a nice touch, I thought.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because a small minority of a minority . . . .

Again, your basis for asserting it's only a "small minority" is . . . ?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This is a team that was established in 1932 and there have always been people who deemed their use of "redskins". Always. If GCers know what was happening with American Indian populations in 1932 and the difficulty faced by populations in the 1930s-2010s we understand why there weren't massive protests and media speak outs until the 1980s-2010s.

And again, I would suggest that understanding the history behind the team name—which was originally the Boston Braves and was connected to the Boston/Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves baseball team—is instructive.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

Exactly.

And Dan Snyder bought the team in 1999. To claim that this is "out of the blue" is laughable. He knew (or at least he should have known) what he was potentially getting into.

Kevin, you're claiming that everyone is suddenly being too politically correct, when in fact, this has been going on for nearly 25 years. But now with social media and a 24 hour news cycle, we're hearing more about it. These groups are getting louder, as they should if they find the team's name offensive. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the legality of the decision regarding the patent, but to claim that a) the objections to the team name are "out of the blue", 2) that people aren't allowed to be offended, and 3) the percentage of people who are offended should determine whether or not the name is changed is ridiculous.

[Kevin]

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy. It doesn't matter how loud they get. They are trying by force of law to force an organization to do something which is going to cost it lots of money.

When Snyder bought the team, he should be been more-less entitled to rely on the fact that the courts had already or would soon already resolve things in his favor. Just about every legal analysis out there says this is going to be resolved in the team's favor yet again.

I can't understand why no one is at least equally up in arms that the Redskins are having to relitigate something which should be res judicata because some tiny sliver of a population was able to curry favor with the right Washington bureaucrats.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Do the Kansas City Chiefs need to change too?

I think this question actually has pros and cons, whereas the Redskins does not. Chiefs are actual people and not necessarily disparaging. It COULD be considered a nod of respect.

Because of sensitivity on this issue, I think it probably should be but it's not black and white like a racial slur is. My opinion of course.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy.

Tell me again what happens when we let the majority determine the rights of the minority?

[DubaiSis]

I think there's probably a reason why the acronym is used far more commonly. Did you know AT&T no longer officially stands for anything? It is no longer an acronym. Using that as a correlation, if Washington wanted to change their name to the Washington Rs and change the logo, hey I'm cool with that.

But on the issue of the NAACP, they must have made a statement addressing this issue at one time or another. If I'm quiet at work this afternoon I'll have to see if I can find something.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended, then their views carry a lot less legitimacy.

That is not how it works.

It is extremely sad that you think you can give people permission to be offended. It is extremely sad that you think you get to weigh the legitimacy of offense. You technically do not even get to do that for fellow white people and you definitely do not get to do that for people other races and ethnicities.

You have been told this before so it is clear you intend to maintain your ignorance.

[DubaiSis]

I choose to believe he's just trolling and not THIS willfully ignorant.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This is definitely not the same as what is being discussed in this thread. If you think it is the same, you are not familiar with the NAACP.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If not even the majority of the minority (in this case a very small sliver) of the whole population are not offended . . . .

Once again, Kevin, what's your source for this? You keep saying it, but you have yet to back it up.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This topic has been discussed numerous times on Greekchat.

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But on the issue of the NAACP, they must have made a statement addressing this issue at one time or another. If I'm quiet at work this afternoon I'll have to see if I can find something.

Yes and the difference is the NAACP is an organization founded by Black Americans, for Black Americans, and remains as such in 2014. Therefore, Black Americans have had discussions and will continue to have discussions about the relevance of the name at the time it was founded and today. There is no need for protest or trademark dispute.

If the Washington Redskins was founded by and for American Indians, either the name would have never been used or issues with the name probably would have been handled many years ago.