Washington who?

[bluecoconuts]

@jrry32 @bluecoconuts i didn't feel like quoting the essays you guys wrote so I'll respond to both of you in this. It will be my last post on the matter(not because I'm upset, I just think we've come full circle with this).

Although this might be a little over dramatic I've come up with scenarios that have changed in the last 60 years. Admittedly most of them are silly, but they get the point across.

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1955: Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2015: School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1955: Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.

2015: Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won’t sit still in class, disrupts other students.

1955: Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.

2015: Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Again, these might be a little over the top, but this is what I'm talking about. Change begins change, begins change. It's only going to get worse.

I dunno man, I just don't see it.

I know there are still gun racks allowed in certain states, and some schools that allow students to have them in their car, however with the school shootings it's not shocking to see those laws tighten. That's not about politically correct, that's a response to students getting angry and shooting up schools. While they can go bring guns from an outside area for a shooting, it significantly reduces the risk of a spontaneous "I'm upset and my emotions are out of control and oh here's a gun I have easy access to" scenario.

I don't know what SWAT team would bother rolling out for a simple fight. When kids got into a fight when I was in High School there was an officer stationed at our school who would bring them to principals office and the school handle it. It's been 10 years, but as far as I know it's not any different. My brother just graduated and I've never heard a word about kids getting arrested for fighting, which means either nobody is fighting (unlikely) or they're not being arrested for it.

In terms of paddling, that was because in 1955 people were stupid and didn't do research. The science is there, hitting children to discipline them only increases their chance of aggression, doesn't have any long term positive behavioral changes. I'm not saying that throwing pills at kids is the answer (because it's not) but I know for sure that spanking or paddling them is worse for them better, and that's backed by science, not because PC people didn't like it.

 

[Ramhusker]

Yeah, had to expect this was coming when this train left the station!

New Orleans Saints Fleur de Lis Logo Now Being Called racist. What's next?

 

[Robocop]

So what you're telling me is that only the white man finds it offensive for the Natives?

no just the white left wing propagandists. I hate to bring politics into this but that's what it is pure and simple. left wing elitist whites and a small minority base of native Americans believe in what you believe. I think enough knowledge and examples of that have been proven through citings, statistics and other examples in this thread. so to answer your question directly, yes it is the white man that has a much bigger problem with it than Native Anericans, who by the way coined the term for themselves I believe. black ppl preferred to be called black these days rather than African American so there is definitely a parallel to that with the term redskin. if you have multiple Native American high schools that elected to use that name. so yea it is the white man causing shit more than the actually minorites involved. same as the media focusing on specific white on black crimes rather than black on black or black on white cus that's the sensational story and how you gain political and media attention and advantage. I gave you multiple examples along with others. so in conclusion the majority of this activism is being pushed by the white man who's hope is to trick ppl into believing they stand for the minority which in turn can garner more minority votes in the future

 

[jrry32]

no just the white left wing propagandists. I hate to bring politics into this but that's what it is pure and simple. left wing elitist whites and a small minority base of native Americans believe in what you believe. I think enough knowledge and examples of that have been proven through citings, statistics and other examples in this thread. so to answer your question directly, yes it is the white man that has a much bigger problem with it than Native Anericans, who by the way coined the term for themselves I believe. black ppl preferred to be called black these days rather than African American so there is definitely a parallel to that with the term redskin. if you have multiple Native American high schools that elected to use that name. so yea it is the white man causing crap more than the actually minorites involved. same as the media focusing on specific white on black crimes rather than black on black or black on white cus that's the sensational story and how you gain political and media attention and advantage. I gave you multiple examples along with others. so in conclusion the majority of this activism is being pushed by the white man who's hope is to trick ppl into believing they stand for the minority which in turn can garner more minority votes in the future

Sigh. It's truly disappointing how people become so blinded by their political affiliations that they can only see the world through that lens. It's why things have gone so badly in this country and it's so difficult to change things for the better.

There is no parallel between calling a black person "African American" and calling a Native American "Redskin". In fact, I'll just let the dictionary say all that needs to be said:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin
The use of the term redskin is first recorded in the 18th century, translating (via French) a term in the Illinois language meaning literally ‘person with red skin’. The term originally had a neutral meaning and was used by American Indians themselves, but it eventually acquired an unfavorable connotation. Redskin, like the related terms red man and Red Indian, is now dated or offensive. American Indian, Native American, and (in Canada) First Nations are now the standard umbrella terms for members of the indigenous peoples of North America. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names.

 

[Merlin]

If I owned the Redskins I would change the name simply because it is inevitable and it is better to change it now than to wait until you are forced to do so.

But honestly this country's seemingly endless quest to find offense in everything is something that I am beyond sick of. The whole witch hunt with the confederate flag... I mean does it make effing sense to remove the Dukes of Hazard from TV because the General Lee has a confederate flag on it? There's groups talking about banning old movies because of "rebel affiliation." What's next, abolish the history?

I actually understand where the native americans are coming from but here's the thing I think is overlooked... Teams are named after things that are respected and feared. You could name your team the "crackers" and I could care less man, in fact I'd probably root for them.

I guess what I'm saying here is "live and let live" is what I believe in, and it's not something we're going to see in the future. The future is going to be won by the uptight, the thin skinned, those who are driven to censor just about everything.

Lastly, I realize this kind of subject few are going to sway each other. So not trying to change anyone's opinion here just throwin out my .02 cents.

 

[Prime Time]

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/07/13/ken-stabler-hall-of-fame-nfl-peter-king/2/

By Peter King

Raymond Boyd/Getty Images

Be leaders: Change the name.
When I watched the governor of South Carolina eloquently speak about what a great day it was for the people of the state that the Confederate flag would no longer fly over the state capitol, I thought what a great job the leaders of that state had done in framing the divisive issue. A good percentage of South Carolina citizens felt the Confederate flag was a slap in the face to the African-Americans of the state—and to so many others who found the flag an offensive reminder of segregation. And so Gov. Nikki Haley and a cadre of smart political leaders, in the wake of the race-related murders of nine black churchgoers, finally got rid of the flag.

Then I thought of the Washington team name and wondered: Why is it taking so long for the right thing to happen in football?

Clearly, the name of the team is offensive to a swath of American society, and particularly to many Native Americans. (I stopped using the name “Redskins” 23 months ago because it’s an insult to so many, but I wanted to be clear in this item; thus the one-time use.) And last week the name was in the news again. A federal judge in northern Virginia confirmed the legality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to cancel the team’s trademarks, effectively saying the patent office was correct in saying the team name may be disparaging to Native Americans.

The team can still use the name, and certainly will. “We look forward to winning on appeal after a fair and impartial review of the case,” said club president Bruce Allen. The impact of the ruling won’t be felt now unless, for instance, a slew of counterfeit merchandise not produced by NFL or the team floods the market. Without trademark protection, anyone could now sell team T-shirts or hats without being stopped for trademark infringement. That sets a dangerous precedent for a league and a franchise that are such excellent merchandisers.

The team will continue to fight brushfires like this one. The league, though it’s highly unlikely top officials want to support a cause on the wrong side of history, will for now continue to help Washington owner Dan Snyder fight the brushfires. But to what end? Why waste all this energy when the name is going to change eventually?

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t think the name of a football team carries the societal importance of the Confederate flag. But wrong is wrong, offensive is offensive. And though the percentage of Native Americans who are offended by the team name is possibly not as high as the percentage of African Americans offended by the Confederate flag, what percentage of people offended would be acceptable? Twenty percent? Thirty?

Somebody needs to be a leader in the Washington case, the way the mayor of Charleston and the governor of South Carolina were in the wake of the tragedy there. Club owner Dan Snyder’s not going to be it; Allen certainly is smart enough to be it, but he’s too tied to Snyder, obviously. I doubt Roger Goodell could be the man to do it—now—because the team is so intent on fighting this to the death. It’s a pity. A needless pity.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Yes, I do. I think it'll make people actually think about racism. People that put it as far from their mind as possible. In fact, I've already seen it serve that purpose. I think it'll make people feel better. I think it'll make people feel more welcome. And I think it'll tell a small percentage of the population that times are changing. That we're no longer willing, as a society, to accept racism or the values behind it.
I keep coming back to the same thing... had that terrible tragedy not happened and the flag remained flying... would that mean racism was accepted? Were there ceremonies all the time espousing the justification of flying it over the Capitol Building? I'm thinking not...
I think that, had the tragedy not happened, life would have gone on with about the same amount of racism. And, you know what? In 9 months, racism will be what it was before the flag went down. The lemmings will have moved onto another pet project.

But I'll fight for gluten and Eminem.
I'm OK with Gluten... but I draw the line at Eminem... he offends me very much!

 

[dieterbrock]

"There are only two things I can't stand in this world,
People who are intolerant of other people's cultures,
and the Dutch."

 

[Robocop]

Sigh. It's truly disappointing how people become so blinded by their political affiliations that they can only see the world through that lens. It's why things have gone so badly in this country and it's so difficult to change things for the better.

There is no parallel between calling a black person "African American" and calling a Native American "Redskin". In fact, I'll just let the dictionary say all that needs to be said:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin
The use of the term redskin is first recorded in the 18th century, translating (via French) a term in the Illinois language meaning literally ‘person with red skin’. The term originally had a neutral meaning and was used by American Indians themselves, but it eventually acquired an unfavorable connotation. Redskin, like the related terms red man and Red Indian, is now dated or offensive. American Indian, Native American, and (in Canada) First Nations are now the standard umbrella terms for members of the indigenous peoples of North America. Of course, if it is possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names.

So you're basically telling me all those polls and interviews of actual native American's opinions don't mean shit cus the dictionary tells ppl how they should feel about a certain word pertaining to themselves. you haven't defended your position very well and you didn't have a retort for the fact that multiple Native American schools choose to use the name.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

If I was Snyder I think I would change the name to the Washington Polocks.

 

[beej]

The Washington Nimrods might be good. According to the bible it means fierce warrior. And I think that's what they are going for.

 

[LazyWinker]

I hope they are brave enough to change the name to Pride and adopt the colors of the rainbow. It would be inspirational to the lgbt community and their allies.

 

[RamzFanz]

The feds have every right to decide what can and can't be trademarked because they created the protection. Trademarks are not protected in the Constitution. They're protected by federal statute. They absolutely have Constitutional authority to determine what can and can't be trademarked...because if they didn't, NOTHING could be trademarked.(since they wouldn't have Constitutional authority to enact the statute)

So yes, they do have Constitutional authority to determine whether certain "speech" receives federal trademark protection.

I would disagree. They should trademark anything they receive that is original. They have no place regulating speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A trademark is speech. The Federal Government is directly restricted from abridging it.

 

[jrry32]

I would disagree. They should trademark anything they receive that is original. They have no place regulating speech.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

A trademark is speech. The Federal Government is directly restricted from abridging it.

You're mistaken. The First Amendment forbids the government from suppressing speech. It does not mandate that they offer protection. You're mistaking an affirmative action for an omission.

The government does not have to offer federal protection to a trademark under the First Amendment because it's speech. They just can't make laws suppressing freedom of speech.(although, that's speaking generally)

You're misconstruing the amendment. For trademarks, the government is offering you protection beyond what is given for normal speech. It is offering a cause of action and remedy in federal courts. It does not violate the First Amendment for them to decline to extend that protection to certain words. Because they're not stopping you from using that word. You're just not getting the extra protection.

 

[jrry32]

I keep coming back to the same thing... had that terrible tragedy not happened and the flag remained flying... would that mean racism was accepted? Were there ceremonies all the time espousing the justification of flying it over the Capitol Building? I'm thinking not...
I think that, had the tragedy not happened, life would have gone on with about the same amount of racism. And, you know what? In 9 months, racism will be what it was before the flag went down. The lemmings will have moved onto another pet project.

Yes, it would. And frankly, even if racism is the same, I don't care. People shouldn't have to walk by that flag and see their government flying a symbol of hatred that sickens them.

You talk about lemmings. I went to and graduated from University of South Carolina. I walked past that flag numerous times with black friends that grew up and still live in South Carolina. And I can't tell you how many times they talked about how much the flag disgusted them and how badly they wanted to see it taken down. Every time we walked by it, one of my friends would flip the flag the bird.

I don't care if it happened because of the tragedy. It still happened. For my friends and many others, it meant a lot that the government finally took that flag down. It might have only been a symbolic gesture done for PR purposes but it still told them and many others that the state government was finally willing to put the past in the past.

Do they not deserve that?

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't care whether or not it defeats racism. Yes, the state's action indicates that the state is finally ready to make it clear that sort of overt racism is no longer tolerated. And it was about damn time.

So you're basically telling me all those polls and interviews of actual native American's opinions don't mean crap cus the dictionary tells ppl how they should feel about a certain word pertaining to themselves. you haven't defended your position very well and you didn't have a retort for the fact that multiple Native American schools choose to use the name.

All those polls and interviews? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the evidence people point to is ONE study done over a decade ago with people that self-reported themselves as Native American.

Not only is the study flawed but it's dated. So here's a more recent study:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ative-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143

Multiple Native American schools choose to use that name? Name them. I looked it up and there was one I could find.(Red Mesa) If you know of more, I'm all ears.

Using one school as evidence of anything is misguided.

 

[RamzFanz]

You're mistaken. The First Amendment forbids the government from suppressing speech. It does not mandate that they offer protection. You're mistaking an affirmative action for an omission.

The government does not have to offer federal protection to a trademark under the First Amendment because it's speech. They just can't make laws suppressing freedom of speech.(although, that's speaking generally)

You're misconstruing the amendment. For trademarks, the government is offering you protection beyond what is given for normal speech. It is offering a cause of action and remedy in federal courts. It does not violate the First Amendment for them to decline to extend that protection to certain words. Because they're not stopping you from using that word. You're just not getting the extra protection.

The Federal Government has no place in determining what is a socially acceptable word in any way for any reason. Just because they DO, doesn't mean they actually have that constitutional authority.

What you are saying is that the Government has the right to protect only speech they agree with by providing that speech a special protected status. Clearly that is censorship. So if they don't like what Fox News says they can just drop their trademarks? I mean, you are saying it's based completely on their own preferences.

 

[Robocop]

Yes, it would. And frankly, even if racism is the same, I don't care. People shouldn't have to walk by that flag and see their government flying a symbol of hatred that sickens them.

You talk about lemmings. I went to and graduated from University of South Carolina. I walked past that flag numerous times with black friends that grew up and still live in South Carolina. And I can't tell you how many times they talked about how much the flag disgusted them and how badly they wanted to see it taken down. Every time we walked by it, one of my friends would flip the flag the bird.

I don't care if it happened because of the tragedy. It still happened. For my friends and many others, it meant a lot that the government finally took that flag down. It might have only been a symbolic gesture done for PR purposes but it still told them and many others that the state government was finally willing to put the past in the past.

Do they not deserve that?

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't care whether or not it defeats racism. Yes, the state's action indicates that the state is finally ready to make it clear that sort of overt racism is no longer tolerated. And it was about damn time.



All those polls and interviews? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the evidence people point to is ONE study done over a decade ago with people that self-reported themselves as Native American.

Not only is the study flawed but it's dated. So here's a more recent study:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...ative-americans-say-redskins-offensive-155143

Multiple Native American schools choose to use that name? Name them. I looked it up and there was one I could find.(Red Mesa) If you know of more, I'm all ears.

Using one school as evidence of anything is misguided.

you can go back and read the article i posted and see three schools. but I'm not interested in starting a second debate. done.

 

[jrry32]

The Federal Government has no place in determining what is a socially acceptable word in any way for any reason. Just because they DO, doesn't mean they actually have that constitutional authority.

What you are saying is that the Government has the right to protect only speech they agree with by providing that speech a special protected status. Clearly that is censorship. So if they don't like what Fox News says they can just drop their trademarks? I mean, you are saying it's based completely on their own preferences.

But they do have Constitutional authority...under the Commerce Clause. And the First Amendment does not bar it.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you want to register a word or phrase as a trademark and receive the protection/benefits that flows from that, you have to avail yourself to the parameters of the law.

Sure, if Fox News's trademark violates the law, they can drop it. I'm not saying it's based on their own preferences. I'm saying it's based on the law (a federal statute).

 

[jrry32]

you can go back and read the article i posted and see three schools. but I'm not interested in starting a second debate. done.

I stand corrected. We have three schools. So...what's your response to the recent study that says 67% of Native Americans find the word offensive?

 

[Ramhusker]

Perceptions are a bitch!