Redskins Trademark cancelled

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.

Most dictionaries don't define it as a racial slur, but they all pretty much acknowledge it as being offensive or derogatory. Some also acknowledge that the word was only used as an insult a long time ago:

an old-fashioned informal name, now considered taboo, for a Native American

Yankee has a similar definition:

1. derogatory often a native or inhabitant of the US; American


Redskin, like Yankee, has largely been redefined to mean the name of a professional sports team. Before the recent media avalanche, a vast majority of the population associated the word with the football team more than anything else.

And did the dictionaries JUST start to define Redskin as being offensive? If not, why the sudden movement to change a brand name that's been in existence for 80 years?

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.

I would say that the flaw in your argument is that present day soldiers consider themselves patriots, just like the patriots of the Paul Revere days, and could also be appreciated for who they are now in terms of looks and uniform. So why represent the Paul Revere Patriot and not the "Desert Storm" Patriot?

In terms of the Redskins logo, again, it was not whitey who created the logo - it was a Native American artist. Obviously, the artist understood the concepts of many NFL logos, which goes back to my previous point. The logos represent history and was meant to honor the Native American's history much like the Native Americans do when their tribes get together for ceremonies and dances (I have a Native American friend who's family attends these Indian tribal dances every year.)

I would say that the flaw in your argument is that present day soldiers consider themselves patriots, just like the patriots of the Paul Revere days, and could also be appreciated for who they are now in terms of looks and uniform. So why represent the Paul Revere Patriot and not the "Desert Storm" Patriot?

In terms of the Redskins logo, again, it was not whitey who created the logo - it was a Native American artist. Obviously, the artist understood the concepts of many NFL logos, which goes back to my previous point. The logos represent history and was meant to honor the Native American's history much like the Native Americans do when their tribes get together for ceremonies and dances (I have a Native American friend who's family attends these Indian tribal dances every year.)

1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.

2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.

3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.

Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.

The Washington [Redacted]

Just saw that the Seattle Times will no longer use the word, Redskin, even when writing about the Wellpinit Redskins.

Wow, telling the Native American residents of Wellpinit that they're ignorant racists is pretty harsh. Does it get any more pompous and arrogant than that?

I was starting to warm to Redtails or Red Clouds, but now I'd like Danny to stick it to these clowns and slap the sweet-looking, classic Redskin 'R' on the helmets. Tell everyone the name is now associated with redskin potatoes and be done with it. Force these a-holes to start using the name again.

Team names are, by and large, stupid and don't honor or dignify anything. Who do the Giants, Jets, Panthers, Seahawks and Cardinals honor? The PELICANS? Having a team name associated with a potato is just as dumb as being associated with a type of plane, but nobody gives it a second thought.

I just want to keep calling them Redskins. Doesn't matter to me what the background of the name is. Does anyone think of the Indian Meat Packing company when Green Bay plays? Does 49er fans care any more about gold miners that anyone else? It's a BRAND NAME, people, and a strong one at that.


The yellow helmets with the 'R' look cool and no, logos don't need to match names. They usually don't actually.

What could anyone do about it? Absolutely nothing!

1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.

2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.

3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.

Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.


I wonder if Danny would compromise on the logo in order to maintain the Redskins name? Maybe update the side of the helmet, eliminate the old "buffalo nickle" indian head. I would be for that.

1) I have no problem with New England representing modern day patriots. But in their logos, they don't. They represent patriots who are dead, unlike Indians who have a continued existence.

But Patriots have never died out. Patriots still exist, they just don't dress in colonial garb anymore. Patriots are simply soldiers who fight for the country they represent.

2) To say, "it was not whitey who created the logo," is a little disingenuous. Yes, a native artist did the rendering, and this is a point that I don't think Amanda Blackhorse has considered. But it was created for a white owner of a football team, so "whitey" was involved.

So there would be no issue if the owner back then was a different race?


3) I have participated in the ceremonies of which you speak. You are right that they honor history and heritage. But it is also true that real, living people in the present seek real, living experiences of the present through those dances. They are not just museum pieces but a living, ongoing source of spirituality. Our logo, however, represents a dead past and that's all.

I'm not sure what you mean by seeking real, living experiences of the present through those dances. What does that mean?

All what is past is dead. The question is, where is the offense in representing what was in the past? Secondly, if Blackhorse wishes for the logo to better represent present day Indians, have a Native American create another logo.


Again, I am not personally arguing against the logo. But I can understand the arguments of the people who have a problem with it.

I'm just trying to understand the logic behind what they argue. What I'm finding is, there isn't much logic.

Here we go

Plaintiff in Redskins patent case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/)

Here we go

Plaintiff in Redskins patent case urges Chiefs to change their name | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/26/plaintiff-in-redskins-patent-case-urges-chiefs-to-change-their-name/)

Is Florio going to post 5 articles a day now criticizing the entire Chiefs organization from head to toe?

Is Florio going to post 5 articles a day now criticizing the entire Chiefs organization from head to toe?


Probably not, he clearly only has a boner for anything anti-Redskins. "Chiefs" isn't a slur so apparently that's ok (slur or not shouldn't matter).