U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: “Redskins” is derogatory and offensive

posted at 2:41 pm on January 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

The agency can’t stop the team from using the name but they can make it very, very costly for them to do so.

I’m tempted to cite this as proof of the influence that lefty media, which has seized on this issue as a cause celebre over the past year, has on government, but the truth is that this battle has been waging inside the PTO for decades.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected an application to trademark the name “Redskins Hog Rind,” writing that the term “Redskins” is “a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians.”

The agency cited five definitions from online dictionaries – from The Oxford Dictionary to Yahoo – that labeled the word as offensive or disparaging. In addition the agency pointed to news articles about Native American challenges to the Redskins name, including the policy of the National Congress of American Indians, which officially refers to the team as the “R*dskins” or “R Word”…

Federal law prohibits trademarking any term that may be immoral, scandalous or may disparage another person. To determine what crosses the line, the agency looks at two questions: 1) the term’s likely meaning and use in the product’s context and 2) whether the phrase disparages a specific group of people.

The obligatory statement from Ray Halbritter, the team’s most high-profile Native American critic:

“The USPTO ruling sends a powerful message to Washington team owner Dan Snyder and the NFL that in the name of basic decency and respect they should immediately stop spending millions of dollars to promote the R-word,” said Halbritter. “This is a huge potential precedent-setter rooted in the painfully self-evident truth that the Change the Mascot campaign has been reiterating: The R-word is a dictionary defined slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people. The federal government was right to declare that taxpayers cannot and should not subsidize the promotion of that slur through lucrative patent protections.”

Here’s the text of the letter. Denying a guy a trademark for his pork rinds doesn’t mean that the football team’s trademark is automatically invalid, but it does lend momentum to the claim filed with the PTO last year seeking to have the team’s mark revoked on grounds that it’s offensive. You can imagine the toll that would take on their bottom line. Once the mark’s revoked, all of America will be free to make and sell its own Redskins merchandise without fear of being sued by the club. Great news for ‘Skins fans who are looking for cheap jerseys and sweatshirts, not so great for Dan Snyder. Does the name, or simple pride in not bowing to P.C. forces, mean so much to him that he’d forfeit the team’s merchandising revenue to keep it? (Spoiler: No.)

As I say, though, there’s a history here. For starters, per WaPo, this isn’t the first time a mark’s been denied on grounds that “Redskins” is offensive. It’s happened four times before. The pork rinds case is getting attention because it’s timely, not because it’s novel. The claim filed with the PTO last year to revoke the team’s trademark isn’t the first of its kind either. A similar claim was filed in 1992 — and proved victorious in 1999 when a three-judge panel declared the mark offensive. The ‘Skins appealed and won in federal district court in 2003, partly because the PTO hadn’t fully explained why “Redskins” was disparaging and partly because the plaintiffs had waited too long to challenge a mark that had been granted in the 1960s. That decision was appealed and the appellate court ruled that it was unfair to expect the plaintiffs, one of whom was only one year old when the ‘Skins trademark was granted in 1967, to have filed suit soon thereafter. On remand, the district court ruled again for the team on grounds that the youngest plaintiff had turned 18 several years before the trademark challenge was brought in 1992. If you’re truly offended, the reasoning went, you should have filed a claim as soon as you were legally able to, i.e. when you turned 18. Believe it or not, that’s an issue in the new PTO claim filed last year too. The new plaintiffs are Native Americans aged 18 to 24, and the Redskins have challenged the youngest on grounds that they waited until near the end of their 18th year to file rather than doing so at the very beginning. Hmmmm.

There’s one more X factor:

As the 90-minute hearing before three judges on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board showed, the case against the team is not as simple as declaring that the word “redskins” is a slur and therefore shouldn’t have federal trademark protection. The group of five Native American petitioners has to show that the name “Washington Redskins” was disparaging to a significant population of American Indians back when the team was granted the trademarks from 1967 to 1990.

That raises an interesting question of when, exactly, “Redskins” became offensive. The team will insist that it isn’t offensive and that arguments that it is are chiefly a byproduct of the rise of political correctness over the past 20 years, after the trademarks were granted. The plaintiffs will argue that the term was always disparaging and offensive to Native Americans but was tolerated by the wider culture in less enlightened times. The secondary question is whether “Redskins” can be disparaging in one market context but not in another. If it’s offensive when used to sell pork rinds, why might it not be offensive when used to sell merchandise for a football team? Judging by the time frame of the last PTO lawsuit, we should have answers to these important questions sometime around, oh, 2030 or so. Which means it’s irrelevant, as the team will have long since changed its name by then.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

In the movie “Cool Hand Luke” a prison guard kept telling an imprisoned Paul Newman that “we’re gonna make you get your mind right, boy.”

Of course, “we’re gonna make you get your mind right, boy” is a perfect definition of the main objective of higher education in America and of the media and political follies.

So may I suggest we change the name to “The Washington Foreskins” to acknowledge all the dyckheads in D.C.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 4:08 PM

I find “Washington” offensive and derogatory.

Oh, except for the Seattle area, I kinda like Washington. Oh, you don’t mean that Washington.

hawkeye54 on January 9, 2014 at 4:09 PM

What about The Atlanta Braves? The Cleveland Indians? Have you seen their logo? The Chicago Blackhawks? The Notre Dame Fighting Irish? How about when The USC Trojans play The Oregon State Beavers? This is ridiculous!

birdwatcher on January 9, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Still say they should keep the name, and change the mascot to this.

smellthecoffee on January 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I’d like to propose we change the name to the Washington Whiteskins and see what happens. I’m sure that would change the underlying argument here entirely.

Recon5 on January 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

If they cut the name to the ‘Skins, what would the PTO do? The emblem is an established trademark, like Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben or the Cream of Wheat chef. There is nothing inherently offensive about the Indian Head logo, especially compared to the Cleveland Indians’ cartoon.

OTOH, they could name them the Bureaucrats in honor of the PTO. Go ‘Crats!

flataffect on January 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

I wanna know why no one is complaining about changing the name of “redskin peanuts.”

Speechlesstx on January 9, 2014 at 4:35 PM

If already mentioned, I apologize. I read that “redskins” doesn’t mean the color of the indian’s skin, it’s for the vermillion paint they would paint on their body. First recorded in 17th century in Delaware.

That doesn’t seem so offensive.

tru2tx on January 9, 2014 at 4:37 PM

but was tolerated by the wider culture in less enlightened times.

We’re in the “less enlightened times” right now.

Sterling Holobyte on January 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Never ever listen to liberals. Native Americans doomed themselves. At the current rate, in 20 years or so Native Americans will be view as Elves or Orcs. In other words they never existed.

Never ever listen to liberals.

jdun on January 9, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Still say they should keep the name, and change the mascot to this.

smellthecoffee on January 9, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Sorry. Shouldn’t have tried that from my mobile. This.

smellthecoffee on January 9, 2014 at 4:45 PM

I’d like to propose we change the name to the Washington Whiteskins and see what happens. I’m sure that would change the underlying argument here entirely.

Recon5 on January 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Since most of the idiots who are “offended” by the name ARE white, it probably wouldn’t changed much. They would just have to shift their outrage meters a little, being it would be about whites, most whom are evil, don’t cha know.

Sterling Holobyte on January 9, 2014 at 4:47 PM

PTO is now enforcing PC speech? Gawd help us all.

petefrt on January 9, 2014 at 4:48 PM

OTOH, they could name them the Bureaucrats in honor of the PTO. Go ‘Crats!

flataffect on January 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

But if they become the Bureaucrats, they’ll never run any actual plays, and spend the entire game just arguing with the refs.
Although that may not be MUCH different from this year’s team…..

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 4:48 PM

I’m damned offended by Zesta & Nabisco using the racist term cracker and demand that Patent & Trademark rescind their patent…

OmahaConservative on January 9, 2014 at 3:03 PM

Aaaaaannnnnndd, we have our Winnah!!

ToddPA on January 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Should change it to the Washington Politically Correct Douchebags

I’d buy that shirt.

Spade on January 9, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Perfect.

tru2tx on January 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Somebody should challenge the trademark for the NAACP because the “CP” stands for “colored people.” That seems pretty offensive to me. Where is the left on this offensive term.

RedSoxNation on January 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Name the team after the critics. The Washington Thinskins.

samharker on January 9, 2014 at 4:57 PM

The plaintiffs will argue that the term was always disparaging and offensive to Native Americans but was tolerated by the wider culture in less enlightened times.

- Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Lenape or Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Lenape, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint.

-The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in the late 17th- and 18th-century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition.

For whatever that’s worth.

Flange on January 9, 2014 at 5:02 PM

I’m “offended” that MSNBC advertises that they
employ “womem” to do news programs…

…as a Male in our Society, I like to ogle women.

the Patent Office may think I’m just your average
Chauvanistic Pig…no, actually I’m a MAN baby!!!!

its’ called Human Nature….American Indians have
been referred to for generations as “redskinned”
(as someone pointed out) it was originally for the RED
paint they put on their faces, in battle. (Can someone
please send these Dolts a copy of the movie
Jeremiah Johnson??)

BTW, is the Patent Office going to declare the Disney Movie
Peter Pan to be Offensive??

“What makes the Red Man Red”???

In closing, I hope these Blithering idiots destroy themselves
with this assinine Jackazzery.

meanwhile, I’ll continue to look at members of the Fairer Sex.

Anyone who thinks that’s a bad thing, Too F*king Bad.

ToddPA on January 9, 2014 at 5:05 PM

. . . including the policy of the National Congress of American Indians, which officially refers to the team as the “R*dskins” or “R Word”…

We’re supposed to say R-word now, really?

TarheelBen on January 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM

OTOH, they could name them the Bureaucrats in honor of the PTO. Go ‘Crats!

flataffect on January 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Nawww, if they named them the Washington Bureaucrats, they’d have to raise their pay.

petefrt on January 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Just to get ahead of the curve here, if the team is going to change its name eventually (as suggested in this post), most teams try to adopt a name reflective of the area where the team is located.

So, considering the locus of the team is Washington, D.C., I suggest the name Clueless A-Holes as a suitable replacement.

IndieDogg on January 9, 2014 at 5:17 PM

We’re supposed to say R-word now, really?

TarheelBen on January 9, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Do we have a letter-word for every letter of the alphabet yet?
A-word, B-word, C-word, F-word, N-word, now R-word….
How many have I missed?
What are we going to do when we have 2 verboten words that begin with the same letter?

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 5:21 PM

RedSoxNation on January 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM

It’s covered by the left’s use of the double-standard card.

Sooner or later, I’m hoping that some judge will remind those people who are complaining that there are no Constitutional protections prohibiting someone from being offended.

All this is, is just one more example of the tyranny of the minority for political correctness / political gain.

Athos on January 9, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Noting the existence of six NFL teams with ‘bird’ names, I once again humbly suggest “Blackbirds.”

PersonFromPorlock on January 9, 2014 at 5:28 PM

‘Skins

problem solved

Knott Buyinit on January 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM

We owe the Indians the respect that any decent people give each other, but I happen to find the term “Native American” offensive when used to exclude non-Indians like me. I was born (natus sum) in America, of American parents, who were themselves both children of American citizens, and I owe no allegiance to any other country nor do I qualify my American status with any kind of hyphen. Friend of other nations though I be, I am 100% and exclusively native American.

Tzetzes on January 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

How about Washington Redtapes..?

affenhauer on January 9, 2014 at 3:00 PM

Love it!

Tzetzes on January 9, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Tzetzes on January 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

Exactly!
And, BTW – very few of the people in this country who use the term African-American have ever been to Africa, or have relatives within 3 or 4 generations who ever were.
By their logic (or lack thereof), I should be called European-American instead of white – or I’ll be offended.

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 5:50 PM

This won’t hold up in court. There is plenty of journalistic and scholarly writing about the term that exlains that the term “Redskins” has never been some kind of unqualified racial epithet. Rather, it is a term that throughout US history was embraced by Native Americans, and which in the context of The NFL, is associated with positive attributes.

Also, i think the name is here to stay at least until Snyder dies or is forced for financial reasons to give up the team. Snyder’s not joking around.

Robert_Paulson on January 9, 2014 at 5:51 PM

You can imagine the toll that would take on their bottom line. Once the mark’s revoked, all of America will be free to make and sell its own Redskins merchandise without fear of being sued by the club.

Heard of common law trademark?

besser tot als rot on January 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM

While I really thought these lawsuits were ridiculous, I am appalled to realize they are being brought in name by young Indians. Maybe it is time to change the team name. When the team was originally named, Redskins represented warriors, fighters, an imposing opponent.

It appears now that an Indian is about as tough and intimidating as a powder puff if they are offended enough by a word like Redskin to bring a lawsuit.

If I were the owner, I would change the name, with a public statement to the effect that as Indians can no longer be viewed as worthy opponents, having lost their fighting spirit, physical prowess, bravery, cunning, intelligence and strength, the team feels it is important to choose a new name in order to have a worthy mascot. It’s almost embarrassing to have a team name associated with the type of persons that would bring this sort of lawsuit on a regular basis.

talkingpoints on January 9, 2014 at 6:04 PM

I find the term Washington derogatory and offensive.

Buttercup on January 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

That’s coming one day.

kunegetikos on January 9, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I think the word “Obama” is offensive. Can we remove him?

RobertMN on January 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Points of order … does anyone know why we still have certain ‘American Indian’ Tribes around these days?
It is because in their time they were bad-ass killing mutherphuckers and they didn’t take any Shiite from the ‘pilgrims’. Everyone forgets that some of the badest-ass SOB’s on the planet were American Indians. Read some history for heaven’s sake … what they did to captives of other tribes makes our most morbid thought of torture a JOKE.
Their error was that they had ancient hatreds of one another and could not cooperate against ‘the pilgrims’.
But the most frightening thing you could experience (and basically when you witnessed this event you bent over and KISSED YOUR ASS GOOD BY) … when a group of Comanche, Navaho, Ute or Apache Indians came riding in your direction. YOU WERE PHUCKED.
The tribes we know to this day are because they were exemplary and effective at LAND COMBAT.
To this day, when Special Forces folks go into VERY dangerous situations it is called “Indian Country”. GET IT?

Missilengr on January 9, 2014 at 6:19 PM

The R-word?! Really?! Are you flipping KIDDING me?!

John the Libertarian on January 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM

And yet the Chicago Blackhawks go by the PC crowd unmolested.

ajacksonian on January 9, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Let Me C….. the GubRmint Stooges stole the Injun’s land….. killed their people…. and relegated them to worthless reservations….. but gawd hep ya if ya use da term REDSKIN

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 6:44 PM

And yet the Chicago Blackhawks go by the PC crowd unmolested.

ajacksonian on January 9, 2014 at 6:40 PM

The Blues molested the crap out of them last meeting. :)

Murphy9 on January 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Just wonder’n….. next time I go to an Injun Casino …. Is it kosher to play RED on the Roulette wheel?

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Boy am I gonna make a fuss next time I go to a soul food, fried chicken place and they have “Crackers” on the table.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM

I’m so sick of this garbage. Do people honestly have nothing better to do than sit around and pretend to be offended over something as silly as a team name? Ugh.

changer1701 on January 9, 2014 at 7:01 PM

This year they were the three-and-thirteen-skins.

A mascot name controversy is the only was they can get any attention.

Galtian on January 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM

I’m so sick of this garbage. Do people honestly have nothing better to do than sit around and pretend to be offended over something as silly as a team name? Ugh.

changer1701 on January 9, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Yep. It’s privileged white people in first world countries that sit around in their prolific leisure and fix problems that don’t need fixin’.

Murphy9 on January 9, 2014 at 7:09 PM

Does this mean I can’t get redskin potatoes anymore?

felixalbatros on January 9, 2014 at 7:21 PM

And of course, the Obama administration has no knowledge or influence in this matter.

locomotivebreath1901 on January 9, 2014 at 7:24 PM

We owe the Indians the respect that any decent people give each other, but I happen to find the term “Native American” offensive when used to exclude non-Indians like me. I was born (natus sum) in America, of American parents, who were themselves both children of American citizens, and I owe no allegiance to any other country nor do I qualify my American status with any kind of hyphen. Friend of other nations though I be, I am 100% and exclusively native American.

Tzetzes on January 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

I have a good friend that is American Indian (not Elizabeth Warren Indian, actual Indian). She loves to mess with the P.C. crowd. If asked (and people never guess correctly)”are you a Native American?” she will quickly respond: “Why yes, yes I am. Where are you from?”
The confused looks that follow always crack me up.

JusDreamin on January 9, 2014 at 7:28 PM

You can imagine the toll that would take on their bottom line. Once the mark’s revoked, all of America will be free to make and sell its own Redskins merchandise without fear of being sued by the club.

But that’s not true, is it? Federal registration of a trademark is a way of strengthening a claim, not establishing one. There’s no requirement that you register a trademark with anyone; you just have to use it and defend it.

Is there something about revocation that otherwise invalidates a trademark claim in court?

Axe on January 9, 2014 at 7:38 PM

This year they were the three-and-thirteen-skins.

Galtian on January 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Maybe that’s the real reason they’re more offended now – the team just aint representin’ – they’re an embarrassment to the name….

dentarthurdent on January 9, 2014 at 7:59 PM

“The USPTO ruling sends a powerful message to Washington team owner Dan Snyder and the NFL that in the name of basic decency and respect they should immediately stop spending millions of dollars to promote the R-word,” said Halbritter. “This is a huge potential precedent-setter rooted in the painfully self-evident truth that the Change the Mascot campaign has been reiterating: The R-word is a dictionary defined slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people. The federal government was right to declare that taxpayers cannot and should not subsidize the promotion of that slur through lucrative patent protections.”

[Let] the red man get ahead, man” — part of Joseph Lowery’s 2009 Inaugural Benediction Prayer for the Indonesian America-hater and his army of turds.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2014 at 8:06 PM

Merely the minutiae that distracts from real issues. An Obama specialty.

That we have a GD inveterate liar as a president: now that’s a real issue.

At least I am hoping Michelle is still in Hawaii.

Sherman1864 on January 9, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Will the outrage spill over into renaming the state of Oklahoma (or in Choctaw circles, “red people”)?

anuts on January 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

Lol!! …The f8ck!n “R-Word”!?!?

I wish George Carlin was still alive to adequately describe what class of p*$$y you really are if you say that. Or the “N” word, for that matter.

Professional Victims can suck it. This has past the point of ridiculous.

a5minmajor on January 9, 2014 at 8:23 PM

US Patent and Trademark Office –

Winning The Future!!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 9, 2014 at 8:39 PM

Ray Halbritter

Oh man, he’s involved in this? Must be money in it then. That guy doesn’t do anything that doesn’t end with a bunch of our cash funneled into his pocket by means of the government.

Locals here in Syracuse kiss his rear in unimaginable ways, too. If he asked that Syracuse rename their team again from Orange (was Orangemen) to the Purple Bunghole Donkeys, Boeheim would be the first to drool in front of TV cameras over what a good idea that would be. Miner and RINO Mahoney would be racing each other for second. Maffei would be 4th, but distant… too much weight on him now.

Gingotts on January 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM

…who gives a shit?

KOOLAID2 on January 9, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Another Obama agency telling the private sector what’s wrong & right. DemocRats, the party of tolerance.

RdLake on January 9, 2014 at 10:09 PM

I find the word “Democrat” offensive, as it calls to mind people who support slavery.

malclave on January 9, 2014 at 10:27 PM

They should just change their mascot to demons or devils. Then, they can still be the Redskins! Problem solved! Oh wait, then demons and devils will be offended. Sigh…

Ettanin on January 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM

Oh geez. Next stop will be outlawing red skin potatoes.

Oink on January 9, 2014 at 11:21 PM

If they denied the trademark, that means we can all make Redskins Hog Rinds!! Instead of one little niche market, they can be everywhere now! Yay!!

Ronnie on January 10, 2014 at 12:07 AM

I’m surprised that no one is picking up on the fact that the Cleveland Indians changed their official team logo to a blocky “C” yesterday. Sure, Chief Wahoo will still be on their ball caps and on their uniforms, but he is starting to be totally downplayed as a logo.

Myron Falwell on January 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM

Yet you can still buy Cheese Nips. Go figure.

Ronnie on January 10, 2014 at 12:12 AM

Just my two Indian Head pennies worth.

Rename the team the Washington Sue and leave the logo alone, under the theory that the PTO isn’t bright enough to figure out a homonym or a double entendre.

Are the Thinskins also pretending to be offended by this classic American Express commercial also?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8do9Y1rwQeA

MrKleenexMuscles on January 10, 2014 at 1:20 AM

It’s so joyous to see that there’s world peace, everyone has food, jobs, a roof over their heads, good health, economic stability, roads and trains running efficiently, etc, etc, etc.

kim roy on January 10, 2014 at 2:50 AM

> The team will insist that it isn’t offensive and that arguments
> that it is are chiefly a byproduct of the rise of
> political correctness over the past 20 years, after the
> trademarks were granted.

Let’s just call it “evolving standards of decency”.

Of course, conservatives have never been a part of that in the past; remember when they were defending racial segregation back in the 1950s?

mlindroo on January 10, 2014 at 4:12 AM

I find the term Washington derogatory and offensive.
Buttercup on January 9, 2014 at 2:47 PM

The only thing that gives Washington DC some modicum of “spirit and pride” is The Redskins

If that name ever leaves, any replacement will be PC’d and distasteful to everyone except for urine-chapped liberals (who are never satisfied)

The ‘Washington Humpbots’ will never win a game, but they mindlessly screw everyone!

BigSven on January 10, 2014 at 7:21 AM

My home state is Oklahoma. Oklahoma is a Choctaw term meaning “red people.”

Sure hope no one has anything or wants anything trademarked with the name Oklahoma in it.

questionmark on January 10, 2014 at 7:35 AM

So if someone wanted a trademark for Redskins Potato Chips made from red skinned potatoes they couldn’t get it?

What about those red skin potatoes, anyway? Why aren’t they being condemned for their name and, you know, having a red skin?

ajacksonian on January 10, 2014 at 7:40 AM

Of course, conservatives have never been a part of that in the past; remember when they were defending racial segregation back in the 1950s?
mlindroo on January 10, 2014 at 4:12 AM

As I recall those were Democrats who were quite liberal in the economic positions.

tommyboy on January 10, 2014 at 7:46 AM

If they want to be so petty as to this ridiculous cause, couldn’t they say that from this day forward nothing could be named a Redskin instead of trying to reinvent a franchise that’s been around since 1932 for crying out loud?

scalleywag on January 9, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Because the interest isn’t in actually doing something, its in preening unearned moral superiority, and to get that they have to publicly be SEEN ‘doing something’.

Arssanguinus on January 10, 2014 at 7:47 AM

They should change the name to “Corruptocrats”, design a mascot to resemble Uncle Sam-turned-vampire, charge $4000 per ticket, and purposely lose every game.

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2014 at 7:53 AM

1. ‘Offensive’ & ‘Derogatory’ are subjective terms, the source of which are different for different people.

2. When athletic teams consider mascots to represent the attributes and charateristics, or even just to represent in name and icon, of their team they do not set their priorities as 1) find something offenseive, 2) pick something weak, unpleasant, or something people can make fun of. They seek a mascot / name that represents bravery, strength, determination, fierceness, etc. The Washington Redskins did not choose the logo and name to make fun of native Americans but to honor them and make their symbol of a brave, honorable, fierce, and of a determined people their own symbol.

3. Most of the time the person / persons complaining and ‘waging the war’ on team mascot names are people that have no connection with the name/icon….like whites telling everyone Indians are/should be offended by a team called the ‘Redskins’. This is because the disease called ‘Political Correctness’ has so many people thinking we have to apologize for everything and everything can be seen as offenseive. To those people who have embraced this disease I say…”Shut out already!”

4. As a Native American, I am not offended by any team that immortalizes Native Americans by choosing a mascot / name that references American Indians. Atlanta BRAVES, Washington REDSKINS, Florida State Seminoles, Cleveland Indians…it’s all good. It’s even a COMPLIMENT, NOT offensive or derogatory!

easyt65 on January 10, 2014 at 8:08 AM

Of course, conservatives have never been a part of that in the past; remember when they were defending racial segregation back in the 1950s?

mlindroo on January 10, 2014 at 4:12 AM

No I don’t. Please enlighten me with some historical data.

Buttercup on January 10, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I’m Scottish, though my forebears arrived on this continent mid-1700′s.

Still, the soul-crushing indignity of a basketball team named the Celtics is simply unendurable. Plus they mispronounce it.

And if you want to argue that Celtics are not some sort of protected-class minority, then I’ll argue that we ought not really be declaring Boston an all-white town, should we? I thought they were all enlightened liberals up there.

TexasDan on January 10, 2014 at 9:49 AM

I’m usually not a fan of the Danny, but on this I’ll side with him. SUE, SUE, SUE!
This is an abuse of power. The Washington Redskins has been a trademark of this team for over half a century and SUDDENLY it’s now “offensive.”

The PTO folks who made this decision must be mental midgets who obtained their law degrees from the trash.

Either that or Obama donors.

EdmundBurke247 on January 10, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Next up should be doing the same to any product advertising itself as “crackers”. If we’re to be consistent under law. Am I right, Nabisco, am I right?

Saltyron on January 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Here’s the remedy,sure to make everyone satisfied. Change the name of the team to Natives. Keep the artwork of the Native American on the helmet, etc. Do this, however, with the understanding that for those of us born in this country (therefore natives) any and every hyphenated ethnic identifier (African American, Irish American, Mexican American, etc.) are completely and utterly offensive to us and must never be written spoken or in any fashion alluded to. Either your an American or you’re not. If you’re not, assimilate and become one of us. If that is distasteful to you, return to the country of your (or your ancestor’s) origin.

There will no longer be a need for affirmative action, BET, or any other ethnic, or cultural organization, law, plan, whatever, because we are all the same – Americans.

There, now isn’t that easy?

Know It All on January 10, 2014 at 10:27 AM

You’ve got the SF 49ers.

You could have the Washington 47%ers

JetBlast on January 10, 2014 at 10:33 AM

Atomic Fireballs offend the Japanese people.

Yep. Racist war candy!

Sherman1864 on January 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM

Perfect example of the gummint we have. Sue the effing slobs.

ultracon on January 10, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Shouldn’t we also ban red skinned potatoes? That would surely please those Idaho farmers with their cracker skinned spuds.

Annar on January 10, 2014 at 11:39 AM

The “PC” crowd is trying to pull a Capone on their National Football Team.

If you cannot force the owners/franchise to do it then via Political Correctness (sic) pull a Capone via an obscure rule of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Remember, Al Capone was not imprisoned for murder, gambling, bootlegging, or other morally unacceptable behavior, the IRS did him in.

MSGTAS on January 10, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Just to get ahead of the curve here, if the team is going to change its name eventually (as suggested in this post), most teams try to adopt a name reflective of the area where the team is located.
So, considering the locus of the team is Washington, D.C., I suggest the name Clueless A-Holes as a suitable replacement.

IndieDogg on January 9, 2014 at 5:17 PM

As a current resident of the DC sespool area who is trying to get the hell outta here, if they want to rename the team to be more reflective of the area, considering they currently play in Prince Georges County, MD, I would like to suggest the following potential replacements for Redskins:

Washington Single Welfare Mommas
Washington Crack Babies
Washington Drive By Shooters
Washington my baby daddy
Washington Marion Barry’s (the *itch set me up)
Washington Crack Dealers
Washington Low Information Voters
Washington Crimescenes

RandallinHerndon on January 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM

I think the objection is to “Redskins Hog Rinds” rather than “Redskins”. I suggest that the objection is that it offends the Durock swine breed rather than the American Indian.

lhuffman34 on January 10, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I’d like to propose we change the name to the Washington Whiteskins and see what happens. I’m sure that would change the underlying argument here entirely.

Recon5 on January 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Stick it to the PC crowd: Washington Dead, Slave-owning Honky Muthafukkahs…

affenhauer on January 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Let’s just call it “evolving standards of decency”.

mlindroo on January 10, 2014 at 4:12 AM

So we’re renaming the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ?

No? Do they get a pass for some reason?

Care to specify what that reason might be?

Oh, for the record “It’s ok when liberals do it” will not be accepted as a rational answer, but will instead be fuel for extensive mockery. Just a quick warning before you answer that question.

gekkobear on January 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM

but will instead be fuel for extensive mockery. Just a quick warning before you answer that question.

gekkobear on January 10, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Do you think they care if conservatives mock them? They would only care if other liberals mocked them and that isn’t going to happen.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 10, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Why not the Pinkskins?

DarkCurrent on January 10, 2014 at 2:53 PM

So if the Washington Redskins will no longer be allowed to use their logo does that mean there will be an “under the table/black market” on Redskin apparel and items that will no longer be trade marked?

The_Basseteer on January 10, 2014 at 4:51 PM

I’m surprised these people haven’t thrown a fit over Andrew Jackson, the architect of the trail of tears being featured on the 20 dollar bill yet.

TonyR on January 10, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I suppose Red Man chewing tobacco is keeping a pretty low profile these days.

Arnold Yabenson on January 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Its really getting tough these days to try and not pound the dog shidt outta someone espousing this PC crap. I’m thinking, if more of them got their a$$es beat when they pop off with such ignorance, they’d stop and think twice before opening their pie holes and effluviating.

44Magnum on January 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2