Redskins Trademark cancelled

While I am not supporting Amanda Blackhorse, there's a hidden difference in your argument. Time-wise real Vikings are gone, 49ers are gone, Paul Revere-type patriots are gone. They are historical. But Native Americans continue and would like to be appreciated for who they are now, not frozen in amber in images from the past.

If we talk the root of the issue, maybe the reason they are more often remembered for their past is not because a football team is named the redskins but because the image of the current day native American is poverty, substance abuse, low-quality education, and casinos (and the problems that comes with.) In other words: it's a depressing thought especially when you factor in their path that took them from then to now.

If the current day native American had a better image, maybe they could join us in celebrating the redskins the way we do.

There's a lot of ways to try to fix that. I fail to see how changing the name is any of them.

Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin)

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin)

Free (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin)

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.

If we talk the root of the issue, maybe the reason they are more often remembered for their past is not because a football team is named the redskins but because the image of the current day native American is poverty, substance abuse, low-quality education, and casinos (and the problems that comes with.) In other words: it's a depressing thought especially when you factor in their path that took them from then to now.

If the current day native American had a better image, maybe they could join us in celebrating the redskins the way we do.

There's a lot of ways to try to fix that. I fail to see how changing the name is any of them.

Those comments were not about the name change. They were about perceptions of the logo.

Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin)

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin)

Free (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin)

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.

There are lots of things considered official.

The dictionaries all define it as such, but where are there references to how that got there? I looked at the links and maybe I'm crazy, but didn't see any.

Looks like Dan will continue to fight this. Interesting development here.

Redskins tap Tribbett to help in fight over nickname - Decision Virginia (http://blogs.nbc12.com/decisionvirginia/2014/06/redskins-tap-tribbett-to-help-in-fight-over-nickname.html)

Makes me want to .........hug Dan's neck

Oxford (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/redskin)

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redskin)

Free (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/redskin)

I'm not using these to suggest these are the end all/be all to the discussion. But when I hear that we're headed down a slippery slope by changing the word Redskins, I disagree with its colloquial connection to solely a professional sports team. The fact that it has been associated with a sports team for so long doesn't nullify a negative connotation in most modern day dictionaries. The word Viking or Patriot lacks similar negative association in the very same publications.

I understand the complaints that dictionaries are biased or the new definition isn't the same as it was in the 80s. But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries. Whatever your complaint is about the definitions (and I know there are plenty), I don't see how anyone can honestly think the anti-name crowd is grasping at straws or pulling offense out of thin air. You can disagree 100%, but I think it's a bit unfair to say the fight against this particular word makes no literal sense.

My bigger problem with these dictionaries, and I know it's my bias showing, is that the term's primary use, in my belief, is the representation of an NFL Sports team. If you walk on any reservation in the fall and say did you see the Redskins last weekend, I would wager that most would not think you were speaking of the group of people you are talking to, but a football team.

If you walk into lower Philly (as a white guy) and say, on any day, did you see those n***** last week, an ambulance would be your likely ride home.

the term, in a vacuum of real world expression, may be perceived as a pejorative term, but in the US in 2014, I believe the primary use of the word is not.

Those comments were not about the name change. They were about perceptions of the logo.

I see even less reason to change the logo. It was designed by native americans, made the logo at their request.

The perceptions about it... well, that's not my problem. There is a story behind it. It's up to the individual to be interested enough to find out what it is.

School board votes to keep name Wellpinit Redskins | Spokane/E. WA - KXLY.com (http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/school-board-votes-to-keep-wellpinit-redskins/26580298)

“To me it's a proud name and any school that uses Redskins as their mascot makes me feel proud,” Wellpinit resident Celia Stearns said.

“We decided last night that we weren't going to change it. Talking to a lot of community members, the majority of the community don't want it changed,” Williams said, adding there is too much pride in being a mighty Redskin that he wouldn't want to be one to take that away.

“I think it would be more demeaning to them if we made them change it, in fact I wouldn't want to be on the board if we tried to make them change the name Redskins."

As Thom and Kevin point out.......is ALL this just another example of the Great White Father doing whats best for the lowly incompetent Indian who cannot manage their own lives?

So the Amanda Blackhorse challenge is calling a Native American Redskin to their face. There should be a similar challenge to call Native Americans like the Wellpinit residents Racists or at least ignorant to their faces.

There's also another quote in the article acknowledging that Redskin may have been used as a pejorative in the "Wild Wild West days", but is not used today.

I've seen that argument in other articles about NA school districts who vehemently support the use of Redskin as their team name. They say the word in any other context other than the name of a sports team is obsolete. Kind of how most dictionaries define the word 'Yankee' as "sometimes offensive", but it's been largely redefined to mean the baseball team in NYC. It's kind of corny to use the word Yankee as an insult today, but at one point in time it wasn't.

http://whistleblower-newswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/image0076.jpg

But the point stands that the word itself is disparaging, as defined by today's dictionaries.

The point may stand but is a weak point.

In the real world...not on paper or the internet...how is the term being used today in a generally disparaging way? How was it ever used in a generally disparaging why?

A discussion on whether to change a name or ban a term because it is offensive ought to start with the aggrieved party
A) actually being reasonably offended
B) able to show said examples of said offense

This seems like it should be simple enough. Instead the supporters of a name-change just say its offensive and move forward with their agenda. As far as I can tell its eerily similar to a Big Lie...tell everyone long enough that it's offensive and everyone will soon be offended by it.