Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK

[simplyeric]

I want to know:
Was it a trademark referencing 'whore'? And if so, what's the rest if it?

Or was it a PATENT referencing 'whore'...?
In which case, what was the patent for?!

Maybe it was just a simple improvement on whore technology.

Anyway on a serious note: let's say whoever holds a whore-based trademark suddenly asks to have their trademark enforced. Can the PTO at that time decide that they cannot/will not enforce? Or would they have to notify the trademark holder ahead of time?

I think the PTO ruled as it did based on an action by an outside group (the young Native Americans). So it's not like the PTO is selectively enforcing anything. They did not 'select'. They were asked to review something and did.

Would they rule similarly if asked to review 'whore' and 'nigger' trademarks?

(Who would have standing in a whore-based trademark dispute? As VERY distinct from African Americans addressing 'nigger' or 'negro').

 

[SumnerH]

btw, i went to the us patent and trademark office website and i found:
  197 trademarks that contain "negro"
  8 that contain "n**gger"
  33 for "whitey"
  119 for "whore"
 
go have fun on their website and search for the most offensive words you can find.
 
this seems like a pretty transparent case of selective & politicized enforcement. 

Have they been challenged in court? Until someone's bothered enough to bring a suit they aren't just going to be magically tossed.

 

[mascho]

Have they been challenged in court? Until someone's bothered enough to bring a suit they aren't just going to be magically tossed.

Because if they were just magically tossed, that would be.....

.....selective and politicized enforcement.

/Dramatic Hamster

 

[Hoplite]

I tried the search myself, there are zero active trademarks that contain the term "nigger" and I found lots of "tighty whitey" trademarks and Spanish trademarks containing the word negro.

 

[dbn]

A few random thoughts roused by the discussion in this thread.
 
It's been said that a majority of Americans think the name should not be changed. I think that this statistic has some relevance to the discussion and is worth introducing, but does not, in the end, affect the ethicality of the issue. I think I posted eons ago in this thread about how other minorities, such as African Americans and Asian Americans have - not at all easily - been integrated into our main-stream culture, while Native Americans have been marginalized and forgotten. Thus, it is not surprising that most Americans don't think twice about the team name "Redskins", while at the same time would be shocked at a name such as "Brownskins". 
 
Of course Congress has more important things that they should be addressing.  However, that issue reminds me of stuff we often discuss here. It's like signing someone to a vet minimum contract when well below the cap. Sure, it isn't the most important move the team can do to improve, but as long as it isn't keeping them from doing other, more important signings, it is an overall good thing. If Congress punted on immigration reform in order to say something about the Washington football team's name, then sure, bad call. I don't think that was the case.
 
I love sports. I'm almost embarrassed by how much time I dedicate to the Red Sox, the Patriots, reading SoSH, etc. I let myself get feverishly caught up in my fandom. Heck, I was watching a special about Larry Bird today and got all nostalgic, proud, happy, etc. However, it's just sports. A game. Fun. Caring so much makes it more fun. The key word is that I "let" myself get feverishly caught up in my fandom. No sport, no team name, is more important than human dignity. It may seem like a little thing to most people, but little racist things can go a long way when societies are in acceptance of them.
 
I'm up late unable to sleep, a little tipsy, and waiting for the sleeping pill to kick in, so sorry for rambling; hope this post makes sense. 

 

[Devizier]

Good post, dbn.

 

[Couperin47]

Amidst all this revived controversy, I'm surprised the inverse situation isn't getting more play: Washington has a team with a patently offensive name and a logo which is reasonably respectful, if not associated with that name; meanwhile Cleveland has a team with a name that is at least neutral and a logo which is patently offensive.

 

[Reverend]

Amidst all this revived controversy, I'm surprised the inverse situation isn't getting more play: Washington has a team with a patently offensive name and a logo which is reasonably respectful, if not associated with that name; meanwhile Cleveland has a team with a name that is at least neutral and a logo which is patently offensive.

 
I think many people who are for name change in Washington are for logo change in Cleveland. I think the additional pressure comes from the fact that nobody--for example, sports journalists in Seattle--ever face the decision as to whether or not type out the logo to discuss baseball in Cleveland.

 

[bankshot1]

I believe the Indians, without saying so, have started to de-emphasize, if not eliminate, Chief Wahoo as team's primary logo.

 

[Couperin47]

 
I think many people who are for name change in Washington are for logo change in Cleveland. I think the additional pressure comes from the fact that nobody--for example, sports journalists in Seattle--ever face the decision as to whether or not type out the logo to discuss baseball in Cleveland.

 
Probably true, but you would think that somebody among all the old, mostly white men, at MLB headquarters would have the decency to be embarrassed these days....

 

[Reverend]

 
Probably true, but you would think that somebody among all the old, mostly white men, at MLB headquarters would have the decency to be embarrassed these days....

 
Hopefully. But that may start by shaming them with conversations like these that are happening all over the country. Also, as bankshot and others have mentioned, there's movement to phase the logo out.
 
A more interesting question may well be how these guys can be so timid and uncreative as to not be able to find something more compelling to phase into than a "C",

 

[Couperin47]

Hey even when you have only the best intentions, time and evolving sensibilities can leave you in really uncomfortable positions: How many times a day do you think the leadership at the NAACP and the UNCF rack their brains trying to find a graceful way to rebrand ?

 

[bankshot1]

 
Hopefully. But that may start by shaming them with conversations like these that are happening all over the country. Also, as bankshot and others have mentioned, there's movement to phase the logo out.
 
A more interesting question may well be how these guys can be so timid and uncreative as to not be able to find something more compelling to phase into than a "C",

Its transitional and safe, until something more marketable and appropriate, PC safe, can be settled on. Assuming the "Indian" franchise name is not going to be changed, what Indian-themed logos would be appropriate for use? The Braves still have the tomahawk, the Chiefs an arrow, (the Redskins used to have an arrow logo in the '60s),

 

[dcmissle]

Hey even when you have only the best intentions, time and evolving sensibilities can leave you in really uncomfortable positions: How many times a day do you think the leadership at the NAACP and the UNCF rack their brains trying to find a graceful way to rebrand ?

None.

The name has important historic significance.

 

[Couperin47]

None.

The name has important historic significance.

 
exactly and after a 15 minute lecture you probably can get the average kid to understand and appreciate this. but for every one who gets the lecture there are a hundred why don't and cringe

 

[Blacken]

I doubt that.

 

[Reverend]

I'm pretty sure neither of those organization worry about making people uncomfortable about these issues. In fact, I think it's just the opposite.

 

[jose melendez]

It's sort of embarrassing that no MLB player has ever said, "I'm not wearing that" concerning the Indians logo.  I'd be straight up embarrassed to wear that.

 

[Skeesix]

Well in the Cleveland case it's this weird mirror of the Washington situation.
 
Washington's owner is a giant prick who's going down with the ship. We all know this.
 
Cleveland seems to be trying to do the least and offend the fewest people possible and it kind of comes off as gutless. I mean, as Posnanski has pointed out before, they have a name sticking around the attic with historical significance which would be WAY better than the "Indians." Without double-checking, I think the only reason they stopped being the "Cleveland Spiders" was that indian names started being all the rage and they wanted to cash in. Now at this point it would be a huge cash-in to switch back but for some reason they seem content with just "Phasing out" Chief Wahoo.

 

[jose melendez]

I don't think the name Indians is a terribly big deal.  The Wahoo logo, however, is 30 million times worse than Redskins and Redskins is bad.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

btw, i went to the us patent and trademark office website and i found:
  197 trademarks that contain "negro"
  8 that contain "n**gger"
  33 for "whitey"
  119 for "whore"
 
go have fun on their website and search for the most offensive words you can find.
 
this seems like a pretty transparent case of selective & politicized enforcement. 

 You are an asshole.
 
You think no one was going to check?
 
8 trademarks contain the word n**ger: 3 use "n**ga", one uses "N.*.*.G.A.Z", and 4 use your quoted word. ALL ARE DEAD TRADEMARKS.
 
33 contain "whitey": I'm not going to waste my time describing all of them (including the dead ones), but they range from propane tanks to paints for athletic surfaces to clothing sold by Michael White.
 
But you probably knew that.
 
Have fun.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Well in the Cleveland case it's this weird mirror of the Washington situation.
 
Washington's owner is a giant prick who's going down with the ship. We all know this.
 
Cleveland seems to be trying to do the least and offend the fewest people possible and it kind of comes off as gutless. I mean, as Posnanski has pointed out before, they have a name sticking around the attic with historical significance which would be WAY better than the "Indians." Without double-checking, I think the only reason they stopped being the "Cleveland Spiders" was that indian names started being all the rage and they wanted to cash in. Now at this point it would be a huge cash-in to switch back but for some reason they seem content with just "Phasing out" Chief Wahoo.

 
Spiders was a different franchise, in the National League. 
 
Indians had other names before, including Naps and Bluebirds. Actually, just checked wiki and they also went by Lake Shores, which is pretty cool

 

[JayMags71]

Even without the name controversy, could this commercial be made today?

http://youtu.be/8do9Y1rwQeA

 

[Leather]

That commercial doesn't even make sense.

 

[simplyeric]

That commercial doesn't even make sense.

 
I'm guessing that he's known (his cowboy character) for killing some Indians, and probably there's a scene where he's in a bar and some Indians surround him bent on vengeance, and he probably subsequently kills them all?
So, yknow, replacing hollywood-stereotype vengeful savages with Redskins football players is, yknow, funny.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

 
I'm guessing that he's known (his cowboy character) for killing some Indians, and probably there's a scene where he's in a bar and some Indians surround him bent on vengeance, and he probably subsequently kills them all?
So, yknow, replacing hollywood-stereotype vengeful savages with Redskins football players is, yknow, funny.

I think he means "what does any of this have to do with possessing an American Express card, and how would that help in that situation?"
 
Maybe in the sense that if you build up good credit one day you can own a football team, name it after the worst word you can think of for them, and do the long-con on those Redskins.

 

[PBDWake]

 
I'm guessing that he's known (his cowboy character) for killing some Indians, and probably there's a scene where he's in a bar and some Indians surround him bent on vengeance, and he probably subsequently kills them all?
So, yknow, replacing hollywood-stereotype vengeful savages with Redskins football players is, yknow, funny.

Nope. That'd make some semblance of sense. But it's Tom Landry, he coached the Cowboys.

 

[simplyeric]

Nope. That'd make some semblance of sense. But it's Tom Landry, he coached the Cowboys.

Goddamn I knew that name was familiar.
Fail.

 

[Awesome Fossum]

Look what the Redskins cheerleaders just put on Instagram. Whoever is in charge of PR at Redskins Park could not be worse at his job.
 
Edit: I don't know how to embed that.

 

[Old Fart Tree]

Man, that is tone deaf. 
 
I actually know someone who works in the social media/PR department for Snyder... I have to assume that this was not her idea. I hope.

 

[Leather]

I think he means "what does any of this have to do with possessing an American Express card, and how would that help in that situation?"
 
Maybe in the sense that if you build up good credit one day you can own a football team, name it after the worst word you can think of for them, and do the long-con on those Redskins.

 
Thank you.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Look what the Redskins cheerleaders just put on Instagram. Whoever is in charge of PR at Redskins Park could not be worse at his job.
 
Edit: I don't know how to embed that.

 
I mean, is this in essence Snyder's doubling down via his PR hacks & interns?

 

[Reverend]

 
Thank you.

 
So, to clarify, you really did understand the subtext of the antagonism between the character types there?

 

[Reverend]

 
I mean, is this in essence Snyder's doubling down via his PR hacks & interns?

 
Well, it is a bit odd to point out the celebration of a tradition two years after said celebration...

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Name the movie:
 
GRANDMA: What's all that paint about?
OLD MAN: It's my death face.
GRANDMA: You know, we're sure going to show them redskins something tomorrow! ...No offense meant.
OLD MAN: None taken.

 

[TomTerrific]

 

[Leather]

 
So, to clarify, you really did understand the subtext of the antagonism between the character types there?

 
Sure.  He's the coach of a football team who was intent on dressing up to go to his favorite western theme park for what I presume to be some refreshment, and players from a rival football team who have no respect for the line between his personal and professional life intercepted him there, presumably to cause his night to go badly. Moreover, they wore their uniforms to ensure that everyone knew that the basis of their poor treatment was their respective professional affiliations.
 
I get all that.
 
However, what the fuck can American Express do about it that Visa or Mastercard can't?

 

[Couperin47]

 
Sure.  He's the coach of a football team who was intent on dressing up to go to his favorite western theme park for what I presume to be some refreshment, and players from a rival football team who have no respect for the line between his personal and professional life intercepted him there, presumably to cause his night to go badly. Moreover, they wore their uniforms to ensure that everyone knew that the basis of their poor treatment was their respective professional affiliations.
 
I get all that.
 
However, what the fuck can American Express do about it that Visa or Mastercard can't?
 
 

 
Well, at the time, about all they could do is keep you out of long term debt ( had to pay off the entire balance each month, except for very specific travel related charges which could be spread over 12 months) and provide slightly better airline points, all for a fee of course. All depending on if it was a card accepted at all ( back then their merchant concession tended to be roughly 1% higher than MC or Visa and many simply refused to accept the card, period.)

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
we have a winner

 

[DanoooME]

Its transitional and safe, until something more marketable and appropriate, PC safe, can be settled on. Assuming the "Indian" franchise name is not going to be changed, what Indian-themed logos would be appropriate for use? The Braves still have the tomahawk, the Chiefs an arrow, (the Redskins used to have an arrow logo in the '60s),

 
Would just a headdress work?  Or would that be offensive too?

 

[Reverend]

I really enjoy the recurring irony of people claiming that only a small number of people find it offensive without discussing any of the causal elements of why that might be the case.

 

[bankshot1]

 
Would just a headdress work?  Or would that be offensive too?

 That's what I was thinking too. The caps could be cool.

 

[bankshot1]

And on cue...
 
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24597118/native-american-group-planning-9-billion-lawsuit-against-the-indians
 
$9B seems...uh...a bit ambitious. 

I guess it was only a matter of time before the other moccasin dropped.

 

[finnVT]

There's a quote in there that grabbed me, as someone who fully supports getting rid of offensive names & logos, but generally is ok with historically accurate ones (seminoles, etc):
 
"We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”
 
Part of me agrees with this and finds it weird that we think it's ok to use a marginalized ethnic group alongside animals, etc as what is essentially a caricature, lucky charm, prop, or whatever you want to think of a mascot as being.  There's not really many other groups of people (especially ones that still exist as a population in this country, so excluding, e.g., vikings) for whom we do this.  Why do so many teams have some version of Native Americans as a mascot, and so few have other extant population groups?  If it's because 
 
On the other hand, Celtics would certainly fall into this category, and I don't (nor anyone else, I imagine) have any problem whatsoever with it.  So now I don't know where the line is for me.

 

[pappymojo]

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/06/byrne_redskins_a_tribute_to_popular_chief
 
Such shitty writing.  Okay, so the artist who created the Redskins logo loosely based it on a drawing of a famous Indian, and this is a tribute how?  Besides, no one is complaining about the logo.  People are complaining about the team name but "the Redskins, like every sports nickname, is a tribute." 

 

[Awesome Fossum]

I see the similarity between the old Boston Braves logo and that picture of Tammany, but linking it to the Redskins logo seems like a big stretch.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

There's a quote in there that grabbed me, as someone who fully supports getting rid of offensive names & logos, but generally is ok with historically accurate ones (seminoles, etc):
 
"We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”
 
Part of me agrees with this and finds it weird that we think it's ok to use a marginalized ethnic group alongside animals, etc as what is essentially a caricature, lucky charm, prop, or whatever you want to think of a mascot as being.  There's not really many other groups of people (especially ones that still exist as a population in this country, so excluding, e.g., vikings) for whom we do this.  Why do so many teams have some version of Native Americans as a mascot, and so few have other extant population groups?  If it's because 
 
On the other hand, Celtics would certainly fall into this category, and I don't (nor anyone else, I imagine) have any problem whatsoever with it.  So now I don't know where the line is for me.

 
 
I guess the Celtics logo would be along these lines:
 

 

[GregHarris]

I've always wondered how far this would go.  What about high schools like:
 

 

[moly99]

The trend is that any form of cultural appropriation is wrong.
 
The issue for the team isn't really free speech but money. Sports fandom is weird in that it is all about rooting for laundry. Changing the laundry could cost them lots of customers.
 
I continue to believe that the only way out is to pick an intentionally awful placeholder name for a year or two for the sake of catharsis. (Washington Rainbows? DC Eels?) They can then rebrand a second time and unite the fan base.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

It's not that hard.
 
If you're honoring an ethnic group, there's no problem.
 
If you're using an ethnic slur in identifying that group, that's a problem.
 
If you're using a distasteful ethnic caricature, that's a problem.
 
If the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers were re-named the Western Kentucky Hillbillies and/or this was their logo: 
 

 
That would be a problem.