Redskins Win In Appeals Court

Basically the court said they took too long to act on the indignation caused, and therefore they don't have the standing to bring the lawsuit before the court. A legal loophole that allows the court to dismiss it without actually deciding on the merits of the case. or something like that

Basically the court said they took too long to act on the indignation caused, and therefore they don't have the standing to bring the lawsuit before the court. A legal loophole that allows the court to dismiss it without actually deciding on the merits of the case. or something like that

Thanks Mister! Me and Charlie, my brain's only hamster, sure do thank you. : )


Thanks CRR.

How bout , Washington Indians..?


Even that would get some leftist folks pissed. I graduated from Eastern Mich University back in 1993 as an Eagle, but from 1988-1989 I was a Huron. Back in 1988, a Chippewa woman filed a lawsuit against EMU for the name and logo being offensive. Instead of fighting it the EMU Pres and BOD caved in like a bunch of wimps. The whole irony of the story is that the Central Mich Univ mascot is the Chippewa and after they dropped the arrow from their team logo the Chippewas were happy to have them keep their name. After the EMU BOD dropped the name the two chiefs of the only 2 remaining Huron descendent tribes came to plead the BOD to reverse the decision. Much to there chagrin, they were ignored and treated horribly by the EMU BOD. The only thing that saves the Redskins name and logo is the immense amount of $$$$$$$ the team generates for the local economy. $$$$$$$$$ beats out PC just about every time.

Basically the court said they took too long to act on the indignation caused, and therefore they don't have the standing to bring the lawsuit before the court. A legal loophole that allows the court to dismiss it without actually deciding on the merits of the case. or something like that


Funny how the court looked at the weakest of technocalities to save the Skins. $$$$$$$$$ does talk indeed!!!!!!

The same George Preston Marshall who also didnt allow blacks on the Redskins until the government forced him in 1962?

Yes, but the team isn't named the Washington Ni***rs or Negros or Black people, it's named Redskins. Your statement is somewhat irrelevant.

I know not all Indians care about the name but I can understand the other point of view of the Indians that do.


Native Americans don't like the word "Indian" either, if you are going to go that way. They would argue that they are NOT FROM India, but rather were natives to this country long before the white men even started showing up. In fact, most Native Americans derive from the Inuits & groups of eskimo vagabonds & nomads that traveled south looking for warmer climates & better hunting grounds. So, calling them Indians is JUST AS offensive.

Now, that being said, there are few NAs that are actually offended by NA logos, symbols, team names, & mascots for the simple fact that they KNOW that once these NA remembrances are wiped out, so, too, will they be from our history books. What we remember now is so little as a society, there are people all over this country that aren't even aware of their current existence or the fact that they live on Reservations or even what a Tee Pee is. What is taught in schools today about the Native Americans is sad to say the least.

What the white man did to these people is absolutely horrific & we don't exactly set apart a day to celebrate their existence in our world. We have a whole month to celebrate our black brothers & sisters & NOT ONE DAY for NAs. If you say Thanksgiving...that is a joke. Thanksgiving Day was basically the white men saying to the NAs, "Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly". It was a way for us to trick them into giving or selling their lands.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not as if the logos or mascots or team names make these people look foolish. As if the logos are of NAs drinking whiskey & selling cigars. The mascots don't run around in each event & act as though they are being slaughtered (although, that would be more historically accurate). Most of these logos & names are respectful & often times portray them as fierce warriors who would not go down without a fight & were willing to die for their causes.

If they start actually removing these names & logos, to me it will be the final step in removing them altogether from our history. Eventually, the argument will arise (if it hasn't already) that the people who dress up as NAs for the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade are offensive & we should stop portraying them altogether because it is "disrespectful."

For the most part, these lawsuits are not even headed up by NAs but white people believing they are doing the right thing by trying to remove offensive logos & team names, when in reality they are trying to further destroy a culture that has been increasingly lost in our world today. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think that it's pretty funny that the very term "Indians" itself is a misnomer that we can thank European colonists for. I, being an Indian indian, could go on this crusade to stop the term Indian from being misused to label Native Americans. But is it really worth it? What is that going to achieve?

It's not about what divides us but what unites everyone that these minority advocacy groups should be focusing in on. Ultimately, it should be about moving forward and gaining sympathy for your cause.

Yes, but the team isn't named the Washington Ni***rs or Negros or Black people, it's named Redskins. Your statement is somewhat irrelevant.

Yeah maybe it is. Im just saying using a racist as a reason why the team name isnt racist is a bad example imo. I know he was racist over a different group of people but the less of GPM in this thread the better.

if anyone is interested.


The Demise and Removal of the Washington Redskins Logo Petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/wr3s6651/petition.html)

48 signatures?! LOL.

FWIW, Internet petitions don't mean squat -- especially ones that don't collect addresses, and only have partial names.

48 signatures?! LOL.

FWIW, Internet petitions don't mean squat -- especially ones that don't collect addresses, and only have partial names.

48 sigs on an internet petition should be legal proof of the NON-issue. Seriously!