The Swamp

The San Francisco Chronicle will no longer use the term "Redskins" in describing the Washington NFL team.

Also, a week and a half ago, Bob Costas wrote a very clear concise explanation in the L.A. Times of why he feels the way he does, on this issue.

The Washington Post notes that Costas has been avoiding the term for years.

Costas vs Jonah Goldberg? Unfair fight. Goldberg is a complete waste of ink/electrons; an embarrassment who gives conservatism a bad name.

ETA: Since we're on the topic, my two cents. The greatest ill of the defense of the Redskins name is not racism or injustice or offensiveness or insensitivity. It is the willful ignorance and stupidity. The determination to be ignorant/stupid. I can't say this disturbs me, because there is more and more of this all around.

(The deficit of this characteristic in the swamp is a big fucking deal about the greatness of this place, imo.)

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity, as Dr. King phrased it.

WASHINGTON GRIDLOCK

sancarlos wrote: The Washington Post notes that Costas has been avoiding the term for years.

The article included Costas' lengthy response to the personal attacks he's been receiving in the comments sections that follow postings of his position. Three or four postings down came this:

Costas is a homo.

The part of me that still thinks like a 12 year old thinks this is funny. The adult in me does not.

Maybe the fans in Washington can negotiate a settlement with the powers that be - change the Redskins name to something less offensive like the Washington Aboriginals (can't think of a good name right now) and change the Wizards back into the Bullets.

Knowing Dan Snyder, if he was offered cash, he'd change the name to the Washington FedExers or the Couriers.

I'd just call them the Particular Redskins

brian wrote:This to me seems the most elegant and fitting solution.

That is a great solution - Red Cloud was a bad MFer

Holy shit....

Yeah, that's much worse than I expected.

sancarlos wrote:The San Francisco Chronicle will no longer use the term "Redskins" in describing the Washington NFL team.

Also, a week and a half ago, Bob Costas wrote a very clear concise explanation in the L.A. Times of why he feels the way he does, on this issue.

The Washington Post notes that Costas has been avoiding the term for years.

What are they going to call the Redskins then? They could take an approach similar to Roger Bennett on the Men in Blazers podcast. He thinks talking about Everton's success will curse them, so he now refers to the team as "Nigel."

The Sybian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:The San Francisco Chronicle will no longer use the term "Redskins" in describing the Washington NFL team.

Also, a week and a half ago, Bob Costas wrote a very clear concise explanation in the L.A. Times of why he feels the way he does, on this issue.

The Washington Post notes that Costas has been avoiding the term for years.

What are they going to call the Redskins then? They could take an approach similar to Roger Bennett on the Men in Blazers podcast. He thinks talking about Everton's success will curse them, so he now refers to the team as "Nigel."

Nigel might work, but there are already a few papers who decided years ago not to use the Indian names. They refer to Washington's football team as "Washington," and Cleveland's baseball team as "Cleveland."

The Onion brought it previously too: Washington Redskins Change Their Name To The D.C. Redskins

(Was this already posted?)

Article on the consequences of Dan Snyder's request to clear some trees (to improve his view of the Potomac) from land managed by the National Park Service.

I remember hearing about this at some point, but didn't know the full details of who ended up getting shit upon as a result of the whole ordeal. That NPS Ranger should be a fucking national hero.

Trailer for "The Jay Gruden Era":

rass wrote:Trailer for "The Jay Gruden Era":

If I lived in the DC area and saw that video, I know I would be pumped to spend $50 to park at FEDEX field on gameday to watch Riggins, Theismann and Green play.

DC spokesman Tony Wyllie wrote:With all the important issues Congress has to deal with, such as a war in Afghanistan to deficits to health care, don’t they have more important issues to worry about than a football team’s name? And given the fact that the name of Oklahoma means ‘Red People’ in Choctaw, this request is a little ironic.

Team response to a letter to be sent to Goodell from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

Well holy shit. I learned something new today.

And Wiki states:

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase "okla humma," literally meaning red people. Choctaw Chief Allen Wright suggested the name in 1866 during treaty negotiations with the federal government regarding the use of Indian Territory, in which he envisioned an all-Indian state controlled by the United States Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Equivalent to the English word Indian, okla humma was a phrase in the Choctaw language used to describe the Native American race as a whole. Oklahoma later became the de facto name for Oklahoma Territory, and it was officially approved in 1890, two years after the area was opened to white settlers.

So I guess when you name it yourself it's cool then? This just added a new layer.

Also on Wiki for Tom Cole:

Although he hasn't achieved much during his legislative career, his biggest piece of legislation, according to various pundits, is his attempt to change the Washington Redskins name to something "less offensive". If they do not comply, Cole says he will take fight to take away the NFL's tax breaks. Many Republicans, among others, were outraged by this attack on a football team, claiming that Cole should instead be focusing on making the lives of those in his district better.

Oh, people who are able to edit Wikipedia...

The name probably would have been changed ages ago if the people actually offended by "Redskins" were aboriginals instead of politically correct White assholes going out of their way to show how liberal they are and acting offended by something that could not possibly affect them any less than it does now.

Congress? It's none of congress' business what an NFL team calls itself or what any business calls itself. Once again, look at me look at me look at me PC libby White idiots.

Scottie wrote:The name probably would have been changed ages ago if the people actually offended by "Redskins" were aboriginals instead of politically correct White assholes going out of their way to show how liberal they are and acting offended by something that could not possibly affect them any less than it does now.

Congress? It's none of congress' business what an NFL team calls itself or what any business calls itself. Once again, look at me look at me look at me PC libby White idiots.

It's funny, I had to explain White Guilt to a black coworker the other day. She was asking me why white people avoid talking about the differences between white and black people. She laughed at the concept, saying that she is from the South and that shit is just out in the open.

The NFL needs to become a business, and not a ridiculous non-profit entity or whatever the hell they are. Tax the Redskins!

But the Oklahoma thing is a pretty sick burn. Learn something new!

Hopefully this will lead to another Congressional PED hearing, because those weren't insanely stupid.

The Sybian wrote:It's funny, I had to explain White Guilt to a black coworker the other day. She was asking me why white people avoid talking about the differences between white and black people. She laughed at the concept, saying that she is from the South and that shit is just out in the open.

Aboriginals are more than capable of fighting their own battles. Just look at the "Idle No More" business that swept Canada last year; it was massive. If they want to protest, make no mistake, they are better at it than anyone.

What these stupid ass White PC NeoComms do NOT understand, nor even identify, is that Aboriginals hate it when someone else uses Aboriginals for their own cause; they absolutely despise this. Abo's see this as being treated like children incapable of standing up for themselves. They also see it as a usurpation of their own issues, all of which are far more relevant to them than the name of a football team. "We know what is better for you than you do." Oh, really? Does any group, any race, anywhere in the world ever want to be told this? No. And they certainly don't want to be told so by some asshole politician trying to make personal gains.

And when braindead White treehugging enviroloonies showed up at "Idle No More" to support the Indians, they were promptly told to get the fuck out of there and mind their own business.

The Sybian wrote:It's funny, I had to explain White Guilt to a black coworker the other day. She was asking me why white people avoid talking about the differences between white and black people. She laughed at the concept, saying that she is from the South and that shit is just out in the open.

What's out in the open exactly? White guilt? I'm not sure I follow.

Race statements. Ain't much white guilt in the South.

Which probably means nobody says "African Americans", which would be awesome.

Well with the south not being very liberal -- especially in the rural areas -- there's no sympathy or imposed sympathy either way. I'm tracking.

So this may be the first domino:

Appeal Board Rules Against Redskins, Cancels Trademark

If I'm reading right, the team can still enforce their trademark rights during the appeal, but if the appeal fails, they won't have any recourse to stop infringements, essentially requiring them to choose a new name.

Johnny Carwash wrote:So this may be the first domino:

Appeal Board Rules Against Redskins, Cancels Trademark

If I'm reading right, the team can still enforce their trademark rights during the appeal, but if the appeal fails, they won't have any recourse to stop infringements, essentially requiring them to choose a new name.

What's really great about that report is that it essentially morphs the argument from "is the term Redskin offensive?" to "is the term Redskin disparaging?"

That just cuts out a major leg of the Snyder camps bullshit approach. Intent doesn't matter in the latter, it's not about that anymore.

Johnny Carwash wrote:... but if the appeal fails, they won't have any recourse to stop infringements, essentially requiring them to choose a new name.

I'm not sure if that is right. Losing their registration means that they cannot take advantage of the most protective provisions of the federal trademark law (known as the Lanham Act). But trademark rights can also be enforced under state and federal common law, and those trademarks do not depend on registration.

I think the team could still bring an infringement lawsuit against someone else using their logos. They would still have to prove that they own "trademark" rights in the term "Redskins" as applied to professional sports teams, but that would not really be that hard. Everyone still associates "Washington Redskins" with the specific NFL team based in Washington.

But there may be some exception in common law trademark law that denies protection to disparaging trademarks. If so, then the loss of registration could really fuck them.

Steve of phpBB wrote:But there may be some exception in common law trademark law that denies protection to disparaging trademarks. If so, then the loss of registration could really fuck them.

Well, then find that out for us. That's why we pay you Swamp lawyers the big bucks!

That 'Red Clouds' option Brian previously linked needs to happen.

I am uncomfortable with this topic. Not because I don't have an opinion I feel strongly about, but because of the ramifications of resorting to Governmental interference to solve the issue. Using the US Patent Office to circumvent what Daniel Snyder will not do makes me uncomfortable. I feel it crosses a line we really should not cross, though I recognize we have entered the PC Police era of our culture. And, to me, the PC Police are apologetic white people who are trying to right the wrongs and perceived wrongs to other cultures and races regardless of whether those who were wronged agree with them in any meaningful number. Another reason it makes me uncomfortable is because, as a white educated male, I find it very difficult to defend the use of the name "Redskins", and that's not what I'm defending. Rather, I'm defending the principle of how we best bring about change like this, again, to me.

First. I do not like the name Redskins, never have. If I owned the team, I would change it. Regardless of the intent when the name was originally implemented, the connotation today is very negative, and I would change it.

Second, though Daniel Snyder is not a person to admire, I do believe he has the right to keep the name if he so chooses. Again, I dislike using Government to force a change like this. I would much more appreciate if the market dictated the change, which I think it could do. Players in the draft, current players with expiring contracts and potential Free Agents could say they would not play there. Ticket holders could stop buying tickets. Fans could refuse to buy apparel. Those are the ways I would prefer Dan Snyder being led to a change, since he seems intent to not make a nickname change.

Third, having said that, there are quite a few predominantly Native American schools today that use the Redskins name for their school nickname. Some of them have worried out loud that forcing Washington to change could have ramifications on their use of the name. Furthermore, polling indicates the Native American population as a whole disapproves of the Redskins name at about 10%, most are ambivalent. So, it is not a major issue to the whole of Native American peoples. To say they can call themselves that if they want seems disingenuous to me. My initial reaction is I see no predominantly black schools using the "N" word as a nickname, though they use it in everyday language to at least some extent. We have certainly come to the conclusion that the "N" word is disparaging, have we not?

Fourth, there are many schools of all kinds that use terms like: Braves, Warriors, Indians, Irish, Vikings, Seminoles, Sioux, etc. that don't seem to be disparaging to me, though there are still those PC Police, like the NCAA, that would remove many of those names too, which I would disagree with.

I know there are many here who will disagree with my opinion on this, and I'm fine with that, at least until the Government tells me I can't have these opinions, because they are disparaging.

The US Government isn't telling him he has to give up the name.

Just saying he can't get certain TM protections.

Sportsdoc, I almost completely agree with your post, very well said. I'd be curious to see how the USPTO came to address the TMs. If someone in the agency took it upon themselves, it is completely wrong and inappropriate, and I would have to agree with you that the government completely overstepped. OTOH, if a challenge was brought through the proper methods, the USPTO would have to treat it like any other challenge of a TM. So if the attention given to this debate in the press has any bearing on the decision, I have a problem with it. I also believe there is a huge difference between Redskins and Braves, Indians, Seminoles or any other team name.

Steve, I really wish I read your post before ordering 10,000 Washington Redskins shirts to sell.

The Sybian wrote:Steve, I really wish I read your post before ordering 10,000 Washington Redskins shirts to sell.

I bet they'll take them back.

Sportsdoc, I too agree. I hate and am filled with revulsion at each and every government enforcement of politically correct ethics in the private sphere. Especially in a situation like this, where I see use of the word Redskin as the moral and ethical equivalent of the word nigger. IMO redskins stands alone, apart from the other Native American logos and mascots

But, I find myself in the position of the Bob Knight rape victim. The government is gonna do more and more of this fucking nonsense. Might as well enjoy it when it aligns with my views, particularly my enjoyment at seeing a fucking waste of life like Snyder squirm (much like Sterling w/the clippers.)

Plus, the more energy the government spends on this nonsense, maybe the less harm they inflict in other areas. See, I'm not that cynical.

The battle to suspend disbelief regarding real-world issues in order for me to enjoy the actual games on the fields and courts continues. It get difficult all the time, but I am up for the challenge.

First, if you go to a tribe and say, "yo, you guys OK if we use your regionally appropriate name for our sportsgameteam... we promise no shitty mascots and no guy painted in red riding in a horse and shooting a flaming arrow into the ground or any of that shit..." And they say, "sure, just don't be assholes... we're watching." I think that's pretty OK. I mean, that would be a nice way to handle it, but I'm pretty OK if they don't ask and just use the name, as long as they aren't assholes about it. (Mostly, don't do caricatures, and be REALLY careful with pulling shit like they do down at FSU... that's some borderline shit.) In other words, I think most reasonable people agree that Braves, Blackhawks, Hurons, Chippewas, etc are acceptable (with the asshole caveats.)

But, secondly, while I don't disagree fully with the sentiment that "Government" is over-reaching here, I do have a problem with the general idea that "the market" will work this all out. So... As long as the majority is cool with something, we just leave it alone? That's not what you're saying, but that's effectively what you're saying.

What incentive or rationale do players have to bail on contract offers in this instance? That makes no sense... And don't bring up the NBA and Sterling, that is not even a close comparison. Why would a fan base that has already fully expressed its overwhelming support for an owner's position--an owner, btw, that is universally HATED in this town--back away and suddenly become enlightened on this topic?

What really muddies the waters is that there is a real reticence in the Native American "community" to put forth anyone as leading their cause. So an already marginalized group (understatement alert) is further hampered by any real cohesive stance or voice. That said, the few that have stepped forward have been pretty clear that they would prefer the name to change.

(And, I don't want to get own a message board argument wormhole, but I'm pretty sure that 10 percent figure is EXTREMELY suspect. I don't have time right now to go look, but I'm pretty sure that figure was a lot more about where this name ranks on their list of shit to give a shit about. And it's also from awhile back, if memory serves, so I'd really like to see something more recent and that is a lot less fuzzy in how it was addressed... )

This is not a Native American community cause.

This is a cause of the community of people and sports fans who are not idiot assholes.

The Sybian wrote:Sportsdoc, I almost completely agree with your post, very well said. I'd be curious to see how the USPTO came to address the TMs. If someone in the agency took it upon themselves, it is completely wrong and inappropriate, and I would have to agree with you that the government completely overstepped. OTOH, if a challenge was brought through the proper methods, the USPTO would have to treat it like any other challenge of a TM. So if the attention given to this debate in the press has any bearing on the decision, I have a problem with it. I also believe there is a huge difference between Redskins and Braves, Indians, Seminoles or any other team name.

Steve, I really wish I read your post before ordering 10,000 Washington Redskins shirts to sell.

It was a petition to cancel the trademark registrations, filed by private parties. It was decided by the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board, the administrative agency that governs trademarks. The Redskins have a right to appeal to federal court.

And I don't know if this can really be called governmental interference. "Governmental interference" comes into play when a trademark owner sues to stop an alleged infringement. So this is the opposite of governmental interference - it is the government telling Snyder that the government *won't* interfere with someone else who wants to use the name as a trademark.

I like the "whattup Redskin!" logic. If you can't walk up to a member of the group and use the term in a friendly greeting way, its not appropriate for a team name.