U.S. Patent Office Cancels Redskins' Trademark Registrations

nddons

nddons

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
13,304
Location
Waukesha County, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Stan
Six of them, including the Redskinettes, according to SI.com.

What a great use of government resources. :mad:

This PC **** is out of control. Discuss.
 
Why post this in Hangar Talk? You know where this conversation will end up. :)
 
You're next Snuff!

260px-red-man.png
 
I think the over/under on this thread getting moved to the SZ just went from hours to minutes.
 
JOhnH said:
Muslims are homophobic racists!
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true pansy ass Liberal.

I can say that now. I took an online quiz and it turns out I am a moderate whatever that is.

Stupid liberals.
 
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
Click to expand...


Ewe.. Didn't know that.

Wonder if they can keep the name but change their logo to a bag of pork rinds.
 
New Logo announced...
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 10379343_908121052547094_1405475868_n.jpg
    10379343_908121052547094_1405475868_n.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 319
Chip Sylverne said:
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Interesting - I did not know all that (and, for that matter, I know not whether it is true); but I'd ask you to consider one possibility: many words have changed over the years, in meaning and in tone, and it is perhaps dangerous to presume that only the negative connotation can be considered.

As for me, at the ripe young age of fifty-four, I've never met a single person who had any pejorative thing to say about any of the various Nations or their members, and I've known a lot (and represent more than a few), nor have I ever heard in conversation the use of "Redskin" as a negative or offensive expression (except, of course, for: (1) the instant conversation and controversy, in which a miniscule few are seeking to create for themselves a sense of power and victimhood, and (2) in reference to the actual football team, which in my dim recollections was a rival of the local club back when Dallas had a professional football team associated with the city).

It is a dangerous path we start down, when each and every expression (event of speech) can and will be censured under color of law if it is deemed by (essentially) anyone as "offensive." Is it the role of government to make this call and, if so, how can that decision not impinge upon the rights of free speech which are an essential cornerstone of our liberty? "Freedom of Speech" absolutely, positively, includes the right of a speaker to say stupid and offensive things, and to bear the unfortunate consequences of so doing.

It is with grave concern for our nation that I observe this occurrence. This conversation is not a "political" thing at all - assuming (solely for the sake of argument) that the term is "offensive" (and I could never argue that, as to any particular person, it is not, for how can I possibly know what is or is not a source of concern for another person?), no government should ever presume to decide which "offensive" speech merits protection, and which does not.

I pray for the republic and her people.
 
Back when my father and his law partner owned the Washington USFL franchise, I suggested the "Washington Shysters" for the team.

Perhaps Dan should think about how he'd feel if the team was called the Washington Kikes.
 
Trademark law passed in 1871, Washington Redskins came into being in 1932 yet it took til 1992 for folks to be upset :dunno:

Where in the Constitution is the right to not be offended?

Will the Green Bay Packers have to change their name? Cleveland Indians? Atlanta Braves?
 
bartmc said:
I don't see you in the Spin Zone. You would fit in well. Come on in.
Click to expand...

As a pilot who I respect immensely once said on another board (paraphrase):

we come together on this site holding each other with the highest regard as we're all pilots and brothers and sisters. Thus our opinion of each other can go in only one direction once we start discussing politics.
Click to expand...

Wise words those are and I agree completely, thus you won't find me in the spin zone.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Might want to read this.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...hington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Um... no.

The term has actually been use in English since at least 1682, when William Penn first met and wrote about the Lenape Indians. One of the branches of the tribe's Turkey clan is named Murkarmhukse, which means "Red Face." It referred to their ceremonial painted faces, not skin color.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
Um... no.

The term has actually has been use in English since at least 1682, when William Penn first met and wrote about the Lenape Indians. One of the branches of the tribe's Turkey clan is names Murkarmhukse, which means "Red Face."

-Rich
Click to expand...

Don't ruin his reality Rich. They like the power to be able to take things from folks.
 
MY understanding is this is the 3rd time this has happened and it has been overturned the last two times.

Not that really means anything, just that it is not as new and shocking as I thought when I first heard it. Sounds like they have gone through this before.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
Where do you think the term comes from?

After the Dakota War of 1862, Indians were banished from the territories. Any bounty hunter could turn in the scalp and skin of a Indian to the state, proving the kill, for $200. The scalps and skins were call Red-skins.

Personally I don't care what Snyder does, it's his team. But that image changed my perception of the "proud heritage" behind the name. Yes, the idea of skinning humans for money I find offensive.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

You sure it doesn't have anything to do with, you know, the red tint to a native american's skin instead?

This is what I like to call a "Zebra." You see a horse right in front of you, you're in an area where horses run rampant, but you just can't bring yourself to believe it is a horse, so instead, you find the least plausible explanation possible and determine that it is, in fact, a zebra.

Edit: By the way, I recognize that Native Americans do not have red skin just as much as I recognize that Asians do not have yellow skin. But throughout history, Native Americans have always been depicted thusly:
cartoon_north_american_indian_CoolClips_cart0206.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is one of my favorite restaurants.

huhot-mongolian-grill-logo.jpg


They have lots of cutesy mongol cartoons and themes all around. The Mongolians basically killed, pillaged, and raped their way to power and glory on a scale that made the Nazis looks downright tame. This is pretty much like having a nazi themed restaurant with swastikas and holocaust jokes on the walls, except it isn't because none of the things the Mongolians did are really current or "real" to our western culture.

The food there is absolutely delicious and I don't care, but my point is just about everything is offensive somehow if you go digging. I really think some people go around digging because they like to have something to complain about. At the end of the day, it only matters if you want it to.
 
I find it amazing that the people that like to call themselves "native American" are not indigenous to the American continent at all. Remember the migration of northern asians across the land bridge that joined Alaska and Siberia? My ancestors migrated to the new world before the USA became a country so does that make me a "native American"?

It has been said before, where in the constitution is it required to make anyone happy? You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you are happy, please share with us as to what makes you happy. If you are not happy, you do not have the constitutional right to be made happy.

P.S. On 20 June 2014 my wife will stand in front of a federal judge and swear oath of alligiance to the United States of America to become a naturalized citizen. She has fulfilled the requirements to become an American citizen. I am damned proud of her and any illegal immigrant or democrat that thinks it is their right to become an instant citizen just because they are here can go to jail, go to hell and GO HOME.!!!! If you do not like what I have said, read paragragh #2.
 
SCCutler said:
It is a dangerous path we start down, when each and every expression (event of speech) can and will be censured under color of law if it is deemed by (essentially) anyone as "offensive." Is it the role of government to make this call and, if so, how can that decision not impinge upon the rights of free speech which are an essential cornerstone of our liberty? "Freedom of Speech" absolutely, positively, includes the right of a speaker to say stupid and offensive things, and to bear the unfortunate consequences of so doing.

It is with grave concern for our nation that I observe this occurrence. This conversation is not a "political" thing at all - assuming (solely for the sake of argument) that the term is "offensive" (and I could never argue that, as to any particular person, it is not, for how can I possibly know what is or is not a source of concern for another person?), no government should ever presume to decide which "offensive" speech merits protection, and which does not.

I pray for the republic and her people.
Click to expand...

This is really the long and short of it. There should be no LEGAL intervention of the government in this matter, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Whether society puts pressure on is another matter. If society wanted to send a message that would change things, all they would have to do is not turn the TV to a Redskins game. When the rating results came in, 'the market' would cure the issue. If the owner of the team sees no return on investment, the owner will change the issue that is blocking their return.

America has the roles of 'Market' and 'Government' reversed using Government to control people and market to control government. The Government of the US was intended by the founders to act similar to what we could now call a National Union of, by and for the people as leverage against The Market whose only duty is to monetary profit. What we have now is a market controlled government against the people.
 
Last edited:
SCCutler said:
As for me, at the ripe young age of fifty-four, I've never met a single person who had any pejorative thing to say about any of the various Nations or their members,
Click to expand...


I have. You haven't been to the Dakotas much. It's usually triggered by frustration with crime, drugs, alcohol, and various resulting bad behavior near reservations. Which has its roots in poverty and a lack if self-worth. "Redskin" is not the term usually used, that part is correct.

As far as your commentary about the bad idea of making politically incorrect things illegal to say, the whole point of the First Amendment would be for naught if it weren't there to protect speech that's unpopular.

Apparently some guy was arrested for "disturbing the peace" here in Colorado a while back with the only evidence presented that he said the F-bomb loudly in a crowd and some zealous cop heard it.

His lawyer wrote a six page dissertation on why the F-bomb was protected speech and won his case. The dissertation has been quoted successfully by numerous trial lawyers since then in CO and none have lost a 1st Amendment only case, since then.

Which is why every cop in CO has been taught carefully to state that "other people showed fear" in arrest reports for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" now, even if they arrested for someone shouting obscenities, since the only way that charge can stand now under Colorado law is by someone feeling scared/threatened by said "crusty" speech. That's our State's litmus test on those.

It'll cost you a lot of money to exonerate yourself, if it's your word against the cop that you "scared" someone. And with everyone scared of their own shadows these days and acting like teenage girls, expect continued abuse by law enforcement when they're too lazy to look up a real statute you're violating.

If one had the time and money and had simply had a verbal disagreement that ended up in Court, I can't imagine anything more fun than saying, "I most certainly was not acting disorderly, Your Honor. I was fully rational and behaving in a very orderly fashion when I told the other gentleman to 'F off'." :)

Anyway apparently amongst local attorneys it's known as the "F Motion". I'd love to read it.
 
I thought the Trademark office was there to protect trademarks and check for exclusivity of a trademark you are registering.

Now it appears to be there to take away trademarks it doesn't like.
 
It can't remove trademarks PERIOD.
It can only deny registration.

Trademark rights arise from use in commerce. The Redskins could sue you today for trademark infringement even if the trademark had never been registered. They just lose some additional protections that registration brings.
 
EppyGA said:
Don't ruin his reality Rich. They like the power to be able to take things from folks.
Click to expand...

I don't know where they come up with this crap sometimes, especially when the actual history is well-documented. I mean, don't they teach about the Penn Treaty in history class anymore? I think I was in third grade when we learned about it...

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Um... no.

The term has actually been use in English since at least 1682, when William Penn first met and wrote about the Lenape Indians. One of the branches of the tribe's Turkey clan is named Murkarmhukse, which means "Red Face." It referred to their ceremonial painted faces, not skin color.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Umm, yes.

In 1863, the U.S. Congress declared all treaties with the Dakota null and void and expelled the Dakota people from Minnesota. Bounties were set as rewards for killing any Indians who remained in the state.* An issue of The Daily Republican, a newspaper from Winona, Minnesota, dated September 24, 1863 stated:*
The state reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory.* This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth.

That meant that white settlers were paid for killing Indians.

There are images of the newspaper published on the web should you care to find them.

No one is suggesting there is a single etymology for the term. What I am trying to point out are the facts behind why some people are deeply offended. It's not as simple as some would suggest. I would suspect that anyone whose great- great grandfather was turned in for a $200 bounty due to the color of his skin would agree. And as far as I know, many of those people are among those making the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top