The Washington Reagans?
Jun. 19th, 2014 01:37 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Why not the Washington Reagans? You only need to change a few letters and whiten up the mascot some.
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 18, 2014
Eight years after a group of Native Americans filed a lawsuit seeking to repeal the Washington Redskins trademark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has done just that. The team’s name, the ruling says, is “disparaging to Native Americans” and trademarks that “disparage” or engender “contempt or disrepute” are prohibited by federal law.
The ruling doesn’t require the Redskins to change their name, but if it’s upheld after the inevitable appeals, the team may decide to do so anyway since its name will no longer be protected. If anything, the ruling should settle the debate over whether redskin is a slur or an honorific.
-- Adam K. Raymond at New York Magazine
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 06:53 pm (UTC)Exactly.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:14 pm (UTC)"Just because the Redskins have lost their main federal trademark protections doesn't mean they can't still sue over trademark confusion." (www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/18/7-questions-everyones-asking-about-the-redskins-trademark/)
But I'm fine with a name change. I just don't think the team should be named for a partisan figure.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:13 pm (UTC)in giving the right-wingers something back
for having to change the name.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 04:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-21 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 11:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:49 pm (UTC)as Sambo-ish. And I think the Washington Cherokees might be
a nice name.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 10:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 01:49 am (UTC)Not once in my life have I ever heard it used in that way. Citation in literature?
"In the only recent poll to ask native people about the subject, 90 percent of respondents did not consider the term offensive, although many question the cultural credentials of the respondents."
Count me among that many.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 11:29 pm (UTC)You'll also see anecdotal evidence about "I know a native American who doesn't mind it!" or "I'm like 1/10th native American and I love that team!"
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 07:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:24 pm (UTC)and go with something like the Washington Wetbacks
just to piss people off.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:11 pm (UTC)Either way they have options.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-19 11:35 pm (UTC)Also, today The Onion's Facebook page shared this rather heavy-handed piece they ran late last year. (http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/)
no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 01:31 am (UTC)I thought the best given name so far was
Chickenhawks, but I think you probably
get the blue ribbon.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 01:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 02:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 02:31 am (UTC)had no problem with the word, and that is all
that matters.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 02:45 am (UTC)That is, if the "disparaging" standard is upheld, at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to toss it on First Amendment grounds.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-21 10:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 07:19 pm (UTC)