NFL Obama Says Redskins Should Change Their Name

[Exe Gesis]

 

[Exe Gesis]

Golden state warriors. Atlanta braves same difference. Won't affect.like NY giants and sf giants

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re appeals and previous reversals...... the times they are a-changing

 

[Chadwiko]

Golden state warriors. Atlanta braves same difference. Won't affect.like NY giants and sf giants

Golden State Warriors are not a rival to the Washington Wizards. So that's irrelevant.

As I've said repeatedly, Dan Snyder is a lot of things, but he's not a stupid businessman. He trademarked Washington Warriors for a reason, and has held onto the trademark for the past 10 years for when this day comes.

 

[Exe Gesis]

It could be holding the trademark as an option to decide on with other name proposals. Holding warriors in the meantime. Could be he wants to start an arena team or own one of the NFL minor league teams that's coming. Wouldn't call Atlanta baseball team a rival of a Washington football team in market and merchandising. Similarly Chicago blackhawks logo never caused market confusion and rivalry with redskins logo.

 

[Chadwiko]

I think you're getting confused here GG...

I'm saying that the Washington Nationals Baseball team have a rivalry with their division opponents the Atlanta Braves Baseball team.

A lot of the sports fans in Washington DC do not like the Atlanta Braves.

So renaming the biggest team in Washington DC professional sports to the name of one of Washington DC professional sports biggest rivals is not going to happen.

 

[Exe Gesis]

I think you're getting confused here GG...

I'm saying that the Washington Nationals Baseball team have a rivalry with their division opponents the Atlanta Braves Baseball team.

A lot of the sports fans in Washington DC do not like the Atlanta Braves.

So renaming the biggest team in Washington DC professional sports to the name of one of Washington DC professional sports biggest rivals is not going to happen.

OK fair point.

 

[Broken]

Coming soon?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Politicians commence process of pressuring other owners on Washington name

Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2014, 4:56 PM EDT

To date, the political aspect of the challenge to the name of the Washington NFL franchise has focused on applying pressure to owner Daniel Snyder specifically and the rest of the NFL generally.

Now, an effort apparently has begun to pressure individual owners not named Daniel Snyder.

Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) has sent a letter to Vikings owner Zygi Wilf urging him “to not remain silent on this matter any longer.”

“NFL franchises split the sales of their licensed merchandise equally,” McCollum writes. “As you well know, when a shirt, cap, or jersey bearing the Washington team name is sold, the Minnesota Vikings share in the profit from that sale. After yesterday’s decision, NFL owners must now ask themselves if they want to continue to profit from a name so hurtful to our Native American brothers and sisters that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deemed it ineligible for federal protection. By taking a stand to change the mascot, you can send a very clear message to Native Americans and all Americans that your organization no longer wishes to benefit from the commercialization of that hateful slur.”

Assuming that McCollum’s contention regarding shared merchandising revenue is accurate (we’ll ask the league whether it is), she has a decent point. If all owners profit from the use of the name, all owners are complicit in its ongoing use in the face of mounting public, political, and legal opposition.

Other owners primarily if not exclusively have remained silent on the issue, neither expressing support or condemnation. On the former, their silence is arguably deafening. Still, the needle won’t move until one or more of them choose to speak out.

The chances of that happening are roughly equivalent to the chances of Snyder changing the name without the NFL and other owners privately nudging him to do so.

 

[BomberWatson]

Politicians commence process of pressuring other owners on Washington name

Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2014, 4:56 PM EDT

To date, the political aspect of the challenge to the name of the Washington NFL franchise has focused on applying pressure to owner Daniel Snyder specifically and the rest of the NFL generally.

Now, an effort apparently has begun to pressure individual owners not named Daniel Snyder.

Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) has sent a letter to Vikings owner Zygi Wilf urging him “to not remain silent on this matter any longer.”

“NFL franchises split the sales of their licensed merchandise equally,” McCollum writes. “As you well know, when a shirt, cap, or jersey bearing the Washington team name is sold, the Minnesota Vikings share in the profit from that sale. After yesterday’s decision, NFL owners must now ask themselves if they want to continue to profit from a name so hurtful to our Native American brothers and sisters that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deemed it ineligible for federal protection. By taking a stand to change the mascot, you can send a very clear message to Native Americans and all Americans that your organization no longer wishes to benefit from the commercialization of that hateful slur.”

Assuming that McCollum’s contention regarding shared merchandising revenue is accurate (we’ll ask the league whether it is), she has a decent point. If all owners profit from the use of the name, all owners are complicit in its ongoing use in the face of mounting public, political, and legal opposition.

Other owners primarily if not exclusively have remained silent on the issue, neither expressing support or condemnation. On the former, their silence is arguably deafening. Still, the needle won’t move until one or more of them choose to speak out.

The chances of that happening are roughly equivalent to the chances of Snyder changing the name without the NFL and other owners privately nudging him to do so.

Paul Lukas of UniWatch confirmed yesterday that this is in fact the case (outside of the Cowboys, who have their own separate merchandising arrangement). He argued that the loss of the trademarks could mean lost profits for all teams (outside of Dallas), not just the Redskins.

 

[Toadvine]

Coming soon?

Crackers would be a fair comparison.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Crackers would be a fair comparison.

And the Cracker should be a white trash trailer park type (mullet, buck-teeth)

 

[ChockNurris]

 

[Exe Gesis]

Senator McCain reiterates that he would “probably” change Washington name
Posted by Mike Florio on June 26, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT

AP
Arizona Senator John McCain didn’t lend his John Hancock to the 50-Senator letter to the NFL urging a change of the name of the Washington franchise. But McCain, a Republican, believes that a change of the name is “probably” in order.

McCain reiterated on Thursday views he previously expressed on The Dan Patrick Show. Speaking at the Associated Press Sports Editors conference, McCain said that enough Native Americans regard the name as offensive to justify a meaningful dialogue and, ultimately, a name change.

“We have many local tribes in my state of Arizona, and they come to me and tell me its offensive,” McCain said, via USA Today. “So if its offensive, then why don’t we take that into consideration? One of the most darkest chapters in American history is our relations with the Native Americans. When an advanced civilization collides with a less advanced one, really terrible things happen. And it’s probably the worst chapter in American history, as we went west and became the nation that we are, we really did some terrible things. And many of our Native Americans are very sensitive because of our history.

“So my view, if I were the owner of the team, I’d call them together and have a dialogue with them and I would probably change the name.”

McCain nevertheless doesn’t endorse the recent stripping of the name’s trademark protection by the federal government.

“I kind of thought the patent office was supposed to be involved in patents,” McCain said of the office known as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “But I do believe if the Native American community views this as offensive, then it’s offensive.”

Some supporters of the name will argue that most or all Native Americans must be offended before the name can be regarded as offensive. Of course, if that were the case, the defense of the name would likely shift to another crutch that overlooks two basic realities: (1) the word is clearly offensive when disconnected from a sports team; and (2) there’s no way an expansion franchise in the NFL or any other pro sport could adopt that name today.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Golden State Warriors are not a rival to the Washington Wizards. So that's irrelevant.

As I've said repeatedly, Dan Snyder is a lot of things, but he's not a stupid businessman. He trademarked Washington Warriors for a reason, and has held onto the trademark for the past 10 years for when this day comes.

Warriors are so 1st century
2,000 years behind the times Dan is.

 

[Chadwiko]

The United States Patent office did not receive a single public complaint before stripping the Redskins trademark.

More evidence that this is driven by white guilt/media politicians and attention whores, and that the ordinary person does not give a s**t.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Attention whores?
Mustn't....Troll....RGMe

 

[Chadwiko]

So it definitely seems the Kansas City Chiefs are next..

[The plaintiff in the Redskins Patent case] also wants fans to reconsider their actions, and think about whether it really shows honor to Native Americans for non-Native fans to paint their faces when cheering on the Redskins or Kansas City Chiefs.

"You can love Native Americans and not have anything against them, but yet your fans will do very bizarre rituals in these games that are very stereotypical of Native American people", Blackhorse said, via Grand Canyon News. "The headdress, the war paint, that's what I have a problem with."

Whether fans who wear head dresses and war paint intend to offend or not, the reality is that many Native Americans find images of non-Native fans in traditional Native garb offensive.

So those who are for the Redskins name changing, are you also for the KC Chiefs name to change given the Native American plaintiff against the Redskins has also said she finds the Chiefs moniker/mascot/costumes offensive, too?

Genuine question too, btw. I'm not being fecetious.

 

[Starburns_]

So those who are for the Redskins name changing, are you also for the KC Chiefs name to change given the Native American plaintiff against the Redskins has also said she finds the Chiefs moniker/mascot/costumes offensive, too?

Nope, both the name and logo can have broader uses, plaintiff is being overly sensitive. The biggest issue with the Redskins is that you cannot realistically argue that it can be anything else. The Chiefs can easily keep everything the same, tone down any extra native American stuff they may use, and then it becomes a fan issue if they keep dressing up.

 

[Chadwiko]

Nope, both the name and logo can have broader uses, plaintiff is being overly sensitive. The biggest issue with the Redskins is that you cannot realistically argue that it can be anything else. The Chiefs can easily keep everything the same, tone down any extra native American stuff they may use, and then it becomes a fan issue if they keep dressing up.

But that's not the issue as it's being presented by the Native American's who are offended.

The issue is, in their eyes, the misappropriation of their culture, including but not limited to names like Redskins, Chiefs, and the imagery associated with these titles.

I think if you're against the Redskins, then realistically the Chiefs are next.

 

[Starburns_]

But that's not the issue as it's being presented by the Native American's who are offended.

The issue is, in their eyes, the misappropriation of their culture, including but not limited to names like Redskins, Chiefs, and the imagery associated with these titles.

I think if you're against the Redskins, then realistically the Chiefs are next.

I'm against the Redskins name for the racist connotations it carries, not the other reasons, Chiefs don't have those same connotations.

As much as the term chief and the arrowhead symbol were derived from native American culture, you can't at the same time pretend that they are exclusive to that culture. If they stop making specific references to native Americans, there's no argument anymore.

Those complaining can do so all they want, the only reason this Redskins issue is getting so much attention is because of the racial aspect, not the cultural one.

 

[Chadwiko]

I'm against the Redskins name for the racist connotations it carries, not the other reasons, Chiefs don't have those same connotations.

I understand, I do.

But the issue at hand, at the most basic level, is "Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans, and therefore it should be changed".

Now wealso see that the Chiefs name and the use of Native American imagery is also offensive to Native Americans, but somehow "we" have decided that this is okay and can be ignored?

Why do we, as "white people" (generalisation, but go with me here) get to pick and choose what offensive names/imagery we'll allow Native Americans to care about?

I guess i'm just a bit frustrated by the hypocrisy on the issue from some observers.

 

[Starburns_]

I understand, I do.

But the issue at hand, at the most basic level, is "Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans, and therefore it should be changed".

Now wealso see that the Chiefs name and the use of Native American imagery is also offensive to Native Americans, but somehow "we" have decided that this is okay and can be ignored?

Why do we, as "white people" (generalisation, but go with me here) get to pick and choose what offensive names/imagery we'll allow Native Americans to care about?

I guess i'm just a bit frustrated by the hypocrisy on the issue from some observers.

Fair point on the bolded. I guess it's the fine line between offensive and insensitive, one can easily be construed as derogatory, the other merely as appropriation. The line has to be drawn somewhere or else we end up with the Vikings nickname being deemed offensive, drawing it at derogatory is probably the best place to do so.

As I said, the Chiefs don't have to change anything about the name or logo, if the pressure got that bad, they could publicly commit to removing any specific references to native Americans in any promotions they do, and be in the clear. The Redskins don't have that option.

 

[dart]

So those who are for the Redskins name changing, are you also for the KC Chiefs name to change given the Native American plaintiff against the Redskins has also said she finds the Chiefs moniker/mascot/costumes offensive, too?.

fans dressing up in the headdress, costumes and warpaint I see mentioned in that quote, but I didn't see them say the name.

is there more?

 

[Exe Gesis]

The native Americans weren't complaining about the name chiefs. They were complaining about white fans dressing up as native Americans. Corporatizing and misusing the culture. Like a team named after Italians and all the fans dressing up as Mario's with apron and twirling pizzas around.