Redskins Trademark cancelled

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Maybe with some but not all of them ,I've heard the argument about the name Redskin ,not saying I agree with it but there is an argument out there .As for the other names I haven't heard the argument against them (yet),the term Brave nor is Chief is not demeaning and as for the chant (that can be stopped very easily) so what is the real argument ?


P.S

Washington Redskins racist? Native American views on NFL team name | The MMQB with Peter King

the Florida State Seminoles and Central Michigan Chippewas use Native American mascots with the approval and input of the tribes

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

That's why this issue is so complicated. There are about 500 recognized tribes and there is little consensus among them. Most of the Native Americans who are offended by the word Redskin are also offended by the use of any Native American imagery or words being used as team names or mascots.

Those other teams will be going down soon after the Redskins change their name.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I agree but what I am asking is what is the argument ,the argument is the the term "Redskin " is racist " ok lets say it is ,ok now what is the argument for Chief and Brave or Seminoles ,it can't be the same argument and I'll throw it to JR how do you change the argument from Redskin to Brave or Chief both are used differently ?

The argument is anything Indian related is going to be on the chopping block, the Skins are just the lowest hanging fruit.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

For that last line, there are plenty of Seminole tribes. And most dont accept Florida State using it as a mascot. A single Seminole tribe in Florida gave the OK to the NCAA for use of the nickname, after a deal was made between that single tribe and Florida State. Florida State gets their approval to continue using the name, and kids from that single Seminole tribe that graduate HS get a scholarship to attend Florida State.

What is referred to as Seminole Nation, which is located in Oklahoma, has called for the name to change. They are against it. Susan Harjo went on to call that single Seminole tribe in Florida "A bunch of sellouts".

Central Michigan has also got the approval of a single Chippewa tribe, not from all Chippewa's.

As for why the other names are considered that, all you have to do is click the link supplied by SirLK26 just a few posts before yours.

A lot of Indians cant stand that Chiefs is used (some of which dont have a problem with a football team call the redskins). A Chief in their society is not something you just call yourself. It is an earned position and only a very select few are allowed to call themselves. A lot of Indians believe that Chiefs as a mascot is demeaning and racist to Indians as well as their culture.

Ok , please understand I'm not trying to make this hard but the word Chief is used by many different cultures ,what makes the NA think they control the way the word is used .We have people who have come from Africa at work and are called Chief ,he is a real Chief and takes the fact that we address him as such as a sign of respect .What if you are a Chief Petty Officer ,I'm not making lite of this but I'm trying to understand where it will end ?Not liking it used is one thing but they are not derogatory ,the word Seminole is not derogatory in anyway .

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The argument is anything Indian related is going to be on the chopping block, the Skins are just the lowest hanging fruit.

I understand but if the NA intention is to say that every use of anything Indian or NA related is a racist slur they will lose .

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok , please understand I'm not trying to make this hard but the word Chief is used by many different cultures ,what makes the NA think they control the way the word is used .We have people who have come from Africa at work and are called Chief ,he is a real Chief and takes the fact that we address him as such as a sign of respect .What if you are a Chief Petty Officer ,I'm not making lite of this but I'm trying to understand where it will end ?Not liking it used is one thing but they are not derogatory ,the word Seminole is not derogatory in anyway .

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Im also not sure why you are trying to convince me of this. Im not the one lobbying Congress and had successfully lobbied the NCAA in the past about it. If Indians arent against these names, then why did the NCAA ban the use if Indian mascots at their request? Why is Stanford no longer called the Indians but are now called the Cardinals? Why did Florida State be required to get the consent of a Seminole Indian tribe and then have to go through a hearing with the NCAA to keep the name?

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

[SmootSmack]

This thread's got a little of 24 hours left before we shut it down. Time for training camp, let's talk actual football!!

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

ok , who ?

Consider yourself educated on this, giantone:

Amanda Blackhorse : I personally believe that all use of Native-themed mascots and team names are inappropriate.

National Congress of American Indians:The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964.

John Two-Hawks: How 'Indian' mascots oppress

Nevermind most NAs, and most other Americans, don't consider the name "Redskins" offensive.

So if you think the people protesting the name are right, guess the KC Chiefs, Florida Seminoles, and everybody else is next.

Using the logic, well the press thinks it's offensive now: 10 Frightening Ways We Discriminate Against Fat People, Sizism. Didn't intend the name NY Giants to be discriminatory? Too bad.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Amanda Blackhorse : I personally believe that all use of Native-themed mascots and team names are inappropriate.

National Congress of American Indians:The report NCAI has released today provides the history of an overwhelming movement to end the era of harmful “Indian” mascots – including the fact that Native peoples have fought these mascots since 1963 and no professional sports team has established a new ‘Indian’ mascot since 1964.

John Two-Hawks: How 'Indian' mascots oppress


So if you think the people protesting the name are right, guess the KC Chiefs, Florida Seminoles, and everybody else is next.
.

Thank you for the information and just to educate you ,I have never agreed with any of this ,ever .

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Thank you for the information and just to educate you ,I have never agreed with any of this ,ever .

Knowing that you learned something that's common knowledge, isn't educational. OTOH, our agreement on this ought to be a slam dunk argument, for anyone reading these boards, lol.

[SirLK26]

^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

Im also not sure why you are trying to convince me of this. Im not the one lobbying Congress and had successfully lobbied the NCAA in the past about it. If Indians arent against these names, then why did the NCAA ban the use if Indian mascots at their request? Why is Stanford no longer called the Indians but are now called the Cardinals? Why did Florida State be required to get the consent of a Seminole Indian tribe and then have to go through a hearing with the NCAA to keep the name?

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

Stanford is not the Cardinals (as in the bird). They are the Cardinal for the color of red they use.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Something tells me that Kansas City, with a stadium called arrowhead and its use of Indian imagery, is not named after a Chief Petty Officer. I could be wrong, but something tells me that I am not.

Yeah. I've heard some Chief fans say that their name doesn't have to refer to Native Americans, but when you have a tomahawk symbol on your helmet and a stadium called "Arrowhead", that usually points to Native American imagery.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

Also, if you call an actual Indian Chief a Chief, Im sure they will take it as a sign of respect. But there is no Indian Chief associated with the Kansas City Chiefs.

LOL! Absolutely not! Several Native Americans have went on record saying that calling them "chief" is a sure fire way of starting a fight.

Originally Posted by Skinzman

The Indians against the use of Redskins are against any and all Indian imagery used as mascots or any other for profit situation for that matter and call them all demeaning and racist. You have to ask them why, not me.

I still believe it all comes down to money. Offer a piece of the pie to the Native Americans who are coming out against these names and imagery, and you'll probably have a much different story. Just like the guy who's suing the Cleveland Indians for $2 billion. He's not asking for the betterment of "racial equality"...he's asking to become an instant multi-billinonare.

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by irish

Stanford is not the Cardinals (as in the bird). They are the Cardinal for the color of red they use.

I dont really care what its named after, its no longer Indians, which was my point. Although I do believe Stanford made that decision prior to the NCAA demanding it, but the name change was still done at the request of Indians.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

LOL! Absolutely not! Several Native Americans have went on record saying that calling them "chief" is a sure fire way of starting a fight.

I think you misread what I typed. I did not say to call any Indian a Chief. I said to call an Indian Chief a Chief. An Indian that is already recognized as a Chief and has earned the position of a Chief.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

^Is this a WP first? I don't recall HailGreen and Giantone actually agreeing on anything ever... until now.

I called CNN but they sent me to FOX .