Redskins Win In Appeals Court

I just read the decision and for those in the know, this is the David Sentelle D.C. Federal Appeals Court. There's nothing in it but a lot of kick the can down the road legaleze. The case was filed in 1992. The original court threw it out. The appeals court disagreed and told them to try again and they did. Now the appeals court approves of their decision. But the decision has nothing whatever to do with the moral acceptability of the word "Redskins". It's all about obscure questions of who has standing, laches, the attitude of Ed Williams in 1967. It's all bullshit, in other words. The court has no interest in chiming in about wether the word "Redskins" has any value at all. In fact, the whole opinion seems to me an elaborate attempt to avoid the very same. If I were to sum it up, I would do it this way: "The word Redskins may very well be offensive but that's not the Goddam business of this Court. Now we'll give you ten pages of nonsense so we don't have say it in such a vulgar way."

Again all these points are moot because that is not how the team's name ever was meant. And today again it represents the name Redskin in a good way like all other sports teams try to represent their towns and logos.



Like I said in an earlier post what was ok back in the 30's,40's or 50's isn't ok now.Wether like it or not the team name depicts native American skin color and no other name does that.Like it or not it makes for interesting discussion.So I guess my question to you is....pick a slur and ethnic slur and use it in a good way and tell me what happens?

They will always be the Redskins to me, regardless.

I lived in Atlanta in the 90's at the height of the Braves era of (alleged) dominance and I could see the Tomahawk Chop as somewhat offensive to Native Americans, mocking their war cries for a meaningless rallying cry. I know FSU does it, but they have also gone out of their way to embrace the Seminole tribe and have been very careful to their sensibilities. That being said, outside of the name and logo I've never felt the Redskins did anything to 'exploit' the Native American/Indian connection. An argument could be made about some of the Hail to the Redskins lyrics but it would be a stretch. I've never seen the correlation and being a minority I've not drawn the parallel to if they were called something derogatory to my race or any others.

Same applies to the N word. who really cares... get over it

There's a LOT of history tied to this word.. Without derailing the thread, it's comparing apples to oranges. Redskin was never universally used as a derogatory term used to oppress a race of people. Not the same thing.

Washington Rednecks....will that make it any better?

Good, keep the name that they've had for almost 90 years ..... It's not a name thats racially inclined! people take things way too seriously

On the other sided of the coin.........

Fighting Whites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites)

Fighting the use of Native American stereotypes : Fightin Whites (http://www.cafepress.com/fightinwhite/107)

Which I am reposting as well since the last time we did this........

I did not anticipate - nor did I intend - for this thead to go in the direction that it did.

May I suggest to everyone here that they go and look up the legal term "Doctrine of Laches" to understand what the court ruling was and why the court made the ruling on the narrowest of terms possible?

In addition to any adrenaline-driven emotion regarding this matter, there is an interesting legal/social set of issues here which might start an interesting dialog on the matter.

I did not anticipate - nor did I intend - for this thead to go in the direction that it did.

May I suggest to everyone here that they go and look up the legal term "Doctrine of Laches" to understand what the court ruling was and why the court made the ruling on the narrowest of terms possible?

In addition to any adrenaline-driven emotion regarding this matter, there is an interesting legal/social set of issues here which might start an interesting dialog on the matter.

Okay. I did what you said and I still don't get it. I think it's because I need a few more hamsters in my brainwheel.

LACHES, DOCTRINE OF - Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another.

Laches is similar to 'statute of limitations' except is equitable rather than statutory and is a common affirmative defense raised in civil actions.

Laches is derived from the French 'lecher' and is nearly synonymous with negligence.

In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial.

But laches may be excused from ignorance of the party's rights; from the obscurity of the transaction; by the pendency of a suit, and; where the party labors under a legal disability, as insanity, infancy and the like.