American Indians look to high court

[RedskinRat]

Native American equivalent to the N-word?


How is it the equivalent to the 'N' word?

More PC bollocks from the LA Times. Worst paper ever.

[Hog1]

I wonder what Bill Plaschke's credentials on the subject are?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Angry

So why is it that Florida State can have a Seminole?

Why can a chewing tobacco company use this?



Did every other team ask if it was ok to use the likeness of types of people before they made their logos?

Did any of the teams that were named after animals petition PETA to make sure that it was OK to use animal likeness in Logos? The answer is no because it is absurd to do so.

If any Native American wants to name their casino the "Pale Face Palace" It would not bother me one bit. The truth is that they are just logos and nicknames that were created to provide an identity and instill a minute amount of fear into the opposition while providing pride for the teams followers. In no way is it degrading a people.

I have a 100% Native American Aunt who is from Michigan and married into our family decades ago. My grandmother is 50% Cherokee. Both of them are Redskin fans. This fight has no merrit in my mind.

In the state of Florida, the head of the Seminole tribe went to bat for the Florida Seminole team. According to her they were not offended but honored by the........reverence, and respect attached by the Seminole faithful.
Makes you wonder just WHO was offended if the NA's were not?
ACLU?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Native American equivalent to the N-word?


How is it the equivalent to the 'N' word?

More PC bollocks from the LA Times. Worst paper ever.

It isn't. The N word is universally regarded as demeaning. Redskins is not in any way considered as such (except maybe to football sensibilities at times). There could be some people who don't like the term. But you can find some people to not like anything.

Saving a choking baby? You can find some people who don't like it.
Capitalism? Some don't like it.
Smootsmack? Njall doesn't like him.

Just because a few don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Now if they could prove a culturally significant group of unignorable size thought it was offensive then maybe I could understand.

[jgalecpa]

This case probably will never get heard.

First, what they are doing is appealing to the USSCT for a 'writ of certiorari'.

The Supreme Ct gets THOUSANDS of these a year, from nearly everyone who lost at the Appellate level.

The supreme court hears maybe 20 - 50 a year, and are hearing fewer and fewer cases every year.

They generally only take cases where (a) there have been similar cases resulting in different outcomes among different courts of appeals (e.g the 4th circuit says something is ok but the 9th says it's fine), or (b) he matter is of great national import.

This is certainly not the former and seems not to be the latter. At its heart it is a trademark case.

If it does hear the appeal, it is only on the question of did the appeals court make a mistake in handling the appeal?

It will not rehear the case all over ('de novo').

I bet you will hear that 'cert was denied' meaning they won't even hear the case.

That has the effect of letting the appeals ct decision stand, and in effect even strengthening the decision.

J-dawg

[Coff]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It isn't. The N word is universally regarded as demeaning. Redskins is not in any way considered as such (except maybe to football sensibilities at times). There could be some people who don't like the term. But you can find some people to not like anything.

Saving a choking baby? You can find some people who don't like it.
Capitalism? Some don't like it.
Smootsmack? Njall doesn't like him.

Just because a few don't like it doesn't make it wrong. Now if they could prove a culturally significant group of unignorable size thought it was offensive then maybe I could understand.

So the offensive level of a term is dependent upon the number of people who are offended by it? That's interesting. So therefore a derogatory term would no longer be derogatory following an effective genocide of those people? Worth considering when we refer to the "few" who are offended by the term Redskins.

Let's stop being foolish. Redskins is an unfortunate nickname. As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change, but lets not try to justify our selfishness by denying the derogatory nature of the moniker.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Coff

So the offensive level of a term is dependent upon the number of people who are offended by it? That's interesting. So therefore a derogatory term would no longer be derogatory following an effective genocide of those people? Worth considering when we refer to the "few" who are offended by the term Redskins.

Let's stop being foolish. Redskins is an unfortunate nickname. As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change, but lets not try to justify our selfishness by denying the derogatory nature of the moniker.

So if one person finds something "offensive" then it is so? I think that's more interesting. In fact I find your screen name offensive. Please change it.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Coff

So the offensive level of a term is dependent upon the number of people who are offended by it? That's interesting. So therefore a derogatory term would no longer be derogatory following an effective genocide of those people? Worth considering when we refer to the "few" who are offended by the term Redskins.

Let's stop being foolish. Redskins is an unfortunate nickname. As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change, but lets not try to justify our selfishness by denying the derogatory nature of the moniker.

Who exactly are you speaking for?

[Zerohero]

We used to have to go to the Super Bowl to get all this fuss, miss those days.

[53Fan]

Some people get out of bed in the morning just looking for a reason to be offended. I wonder if the people complaining about being offended have ever offended anyone? Wanting to change the name of my favorite football team every few years after the court has ruled against it kind of offends me. You can find something offensive in a lot of things if that's what you're looking for.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Coff

So the offensive level of a term is dependent upon the number of people who are offended by it?

You can't merrily cater to everyone, at some point people are going to have to grow a spine or get thicker skin.

Originally Posted by Coff

That's interesting. So therefore a derogatory term would no longer be derogatory following an effective genocide of those people?

Cool! I'm on board. In honor of your idea we'll call it the 'For Coff Redskins' Project. Deal?

Redskins is NOT a racial slur. Never was. No Professional team has been named a derogatory term because you're trying to sell stuff and present an inspiring image. How would that make any sense?

[Coff]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So if one person finds something "offensive" then it is so? I think that's more interesting. In fact I find your screen name offensive. Please change it.

If you carefully review the logic of my statement, you'll find that is exactly what I'm NOT saying. You're reversing the syllogism, which is a fallible argument.

[jsarno]

Unfortunately, we do live in a society that if one is offended we have to listen. Look at a joke at work for instance, everyone could laugh at it, but if 1 person finds it offensive, then all of sudden, it is.
I just have a feeling that even if we win this battle, eventually we will lose cause we as a society are getting more and more "touchy".
I personally feel this is a DUMB battle. The name should not offend anyone in my opinion, but it does cause some people just like to complain. They are miserable and they want others to be miserable. Fact is, by taking the name away, you are hurting MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of fans, while making a select few happy. Also, even though the Cowboys fans will laugh, most of them will be upset that they no longer have the "Cowboys vs Indians" rivalry.
In summation, you are hurting more than you're helping by getting rid of the name.

I would LOVE to pose the idea that the people trying to get the named abolished have to pay each and every redskins fan fair market value for all their redskins apparel and memorbilia. I bet this lawsuit would quickly disappear if they had to do that.

[Coff]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Who exactly are you speaking for?

Lifetime fans of the team, as in "As lifetime fans of the team, we don't want to see a name change." Maybe I'm being presumptuous, but I just assumed that no die hard fans ever want to see a name change. The bigger point I'm making is that to approach this topic from an objective standpoint rather than as Redskins fans may give us a different outlook, but that's not going to happen if people are more concerned with defending the team's nickname than discovering the true meaning of the word. Whether or not the term is offensive is hardly an argument. Redskin fans and many other people may not think it is, but lexicographers are pretty much in agreement. From Webster's to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term is labelled "offensive." I haven't been able to locate the definition through the OED, the be all and end all of English language dictionaries, but according to Wikipedia (admittedly not a credible source), the OED also considers the word offensive.

Look, I'm just being honest with myself; I can accept the opinion of objective experts who consider the term offensive while at the same time defend the team in keeping the name.