The Washington Reagans?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

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

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's still very much up for debate in a lot of areas, and not just from the Redskins team.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

What areas?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Native American groups, for example (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/).

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"The term is used affectionately by some natives, similar to the way the N-word is used by some African-Americans."

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.