Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 02, 2014

When Washington comes to play Minnesota at the University of Minnesota for an NFL game Nov. 2, the university has asked Washington to use throwback jerseys without the team name or logo, not have any team apparel or paraphernalia sold on the premises and for the team's name not to be used by the PA announcer or on the scoreboards. "The Vikings have a great working relationship with the tribal nations of Minnesota, and they're very understanding of how this team name and logo impacts our community," said Katrice Albert, the college's vice president in the office of equity and diversity.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

savethename.org

#1 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-09-02 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

The REDSKINS should ignore the university's request. I am part native American and I am not offended by the Redskins name at all. The whole campaign to get rid of the Redskins name was not initiated by Native Americans but from Liberals that want to get into other people's business. Let this issue rest.

#2 | Posted by roberth106 at 2014-09-02 10:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

I bet the school takes the money.

#3 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-09-02 10:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

From the article:

"On Thursday, the tribe released a statement saying that it and other Minnesota tribes oppose the Redskins' name "and other sports-related logos, mascots and names which degrade a race of people.""

Given that "redskin" is undoubtedly a racial slur and people who the university have a relationship with have made it an issue, I don't see any problem with this request. The Redskins can always say "no" on the wearing throwback jerseys and other requests that require their cooperation.

Just because people who are 1/32nd native american and only have to be native american as an amusing cocktail party anecdote aren't offended doesn't mean the word isn't a slur and others lose their right to be offended by it.

#4 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The whole campaign to get rid of the Redskins name was not initiated by Native Americans but from Liberals ...

This is false. Susan Harjo and other Native Americans have been actively fighting the name since the '60s, and in 1992 she was one of seven Native Americans who filed a suit to cancel the trademark. The case was Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc.

The Lanham Act forbids the registration of trademarks that are racially disparaging. The term "redskins" has been a disparaging slur going back centuries. Under U.S. law the team should not be able to get the protection of a registered trademark for a slur.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ask the folks down around Prior Lake how they feel about Native Americans and one might get a different reaction. Locals I've met there are no fans of the Indians and their casino. They did build one heap good golf course, tho...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2014-09-02 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

in 1992 she was one of seven Native
Americans who filed a suit to cancel
the trademark. The case was Harjo et
al v. Pro Football, Inc.
#5 | POSTED BY RCADE

She and the seven other lost that suit, an important point you omitted for some reason.

#7 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

She and the seven other lost that suit, an important point you omitted for some reason.

#7 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The outcome of the trial is irrelevant to the issue as to whether or not they took offense to the name, which is what was being addressed.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

She and the seven other lost that suit, an important point you omitted for some reason.

I omitted it because it had zero relevance to how this fight began and who began it.

They did lose, but only because they lacked standing because they waited too long to file suit. The younger Native Americans who filed the more recent suit won:

www.washingtonpost.com

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

"University of Minnesota Not Thrilled to Host Slurskins"

You have totally convinced me, RCade! I recently had two unopened cans of those redskin Spanish peanuts that I love and threw them out to display my abhorrence for the disgusting non-PC slur it cast on the three or four of those "Native-Americans" objecting so much. I'm now working on a friend to get rid of his Kansas City Chiefs jersey too as I'm aware of how you hate that word too. I have even started calling Obama the Commander-in-Blank and referring to Navy C----fs as E-7's and above. I have hated the Florida State Seminoles and called them the FSU criminals for years so all I have to be PC there is just maintain.
Maybe you can help me out with something here. I consider myself a Native-American since I was, after all, born here. How can I distinguish myself and all the other citizens from those who belong to an Indian tribe? Actually, they aren't Indians at all either. Can we do something about that.
Actually, I'm surprised to see Minnesotastan adhering to so much PC what with all their non-PC and intolerant Muslim populations anyway. Keep workin' on 'em thogh. I'm sure you'll bring them all around to your way of thinkin' like you did me.

#10 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-02 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#10 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-02 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Dude, its hard to tell what you're even upset about.

The term "redskin" when applied to american indians started out as a slur. Why would you even bother pretending its some PC creation or that we're talking about peanuts?

If you think the name should stay then fine but I don't get why people get so crazy over this. Its a slur. If you have to pretend its not a slur in order to defend your position then you don't have one.

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If you think the name should stay then fine but I don't get why people get so crazy over this. Its a slur. If you have to pretend its not a slur in order to defend your position then you don't have one."

Lighten up, Sully, it's all in fun. It doesn't upset me, I just think this whole thing upsetting others is stupid. If that's all they have to worry about, they have nothing to worry about. It's just PC gone amok to me. If a such a small group is so offended by the name of a football team, that has existed for decades, THEY are the ones "who get so crazy" over this.

#12 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-02 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's just PC gone amok to me.

Trademark law bans the registration of slurs. Why should the Slurskins be allowed to get around that law?

#13 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 04:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

"If a such a small group is so offended by the name of a football team, that has existed for decades, THEY are the ones "who get so crazy" over this."

I can understand why people are annoyed by this. Every other group of people is "protected" from having a slur that is used against them used as a business name. If you were part of the group that isn't protected, you might not take it up as a cause but you would understand why its annoying. Why should everyone else deserve a certain level of respect except for one group of people?

Its like hate crime laws. As a white man, I know that hate crime laws would never be applied in a situation where I was the target of an attack motivated by racial animosity. And I know that if I were to get into a fight with someone who isn't white for issues that are not racial, I could be charged with a hate crime very easily. Am I going to march over it? No. Do I think its total BS? Of course. So I wouldn't poo-poo anyone who does take it up as a cause because I know the laws are crap due to uneven enforcement.

#14 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-02 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Trademark law bans the registration of slurs."

A slur to some is a badge of pride to others. I know some people proud to be called redneck, hillbilly or even -----. Actually, I'd bet "Slurskins" would offend many more people than "Redskins." No matter, it's a tempest in a teapot and will go away soon. If it gets changed it won't bother me either. Almost ANY national problem is more important that this stupidity.

#15 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-02 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14 | POSTED BY SULLY

You think it's BS??? Wow, Sully, we can end up here in total agreement. Lemme extend my hand across cyberspace for a firm handshake.

#16 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-09-02 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

A slur to some is a badge of pride to others.

That doesn't mean it stops being a slur.

Almost ANY national problem is more important that this stupidity.

You sound like a Republican who is incapable of caring about an issue until it personally affects him or a member of his family, like judges who don't care about equality for women until they have a daughter.

The issue means a great deal to many Native Americans. They've been fighting it for over 40 years.

Actually, I'd bet "Slurskins" would offend many more people than "Redskins."

Then I guess you're a lousy gambler.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do people have against Erik the Red's kinsmen?

#18 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-09-02 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

The younger
Native Americans who filed the more
recent suit won:
#9 | POSTED BY RCADE

They did? The courts have adjudicated it to finality and the Washington Redskins lost? The fact is the more recent petitioners won at the same level Ms. Harjo did back in 1992, at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and they will probably lose at the same place Ms. Harjo did as well.

#19 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

and they will probably lose at the same place Ms. Harjo did as well.
#19 | POSTED BY TXLIBERTARIAN

What makes you think so?

#20 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-09-02 06:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

What makes you think so?
#20 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

If I understand correctly, They must show that the trademarks were considered racially disparaging at the time they were issued, not whether they are considered that today.

Here's a fairly short article on the matter

www.forbes.com

#21 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

They did?

Don't be pedantic. The link explains what I meant by "won."

... they will probably lose at the same place Ms. Harjo did as well.

And your reason for believing this is? They can't lose for the reason Harjo did, because the plaintiffs were selected specifically to avoid the problem that caused Harjo to fail. Legal experts say they have a pretty strong case.

#22 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

And your reason for believing this is?
#22| POSTED BY RCADE

See post 21.

#23 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think that lawyer's logic is pretty questionable, given what other legal experts have said about the case. There isn't any wiggle room in the Lanham Act's prohibition against disparagement in registered trademarks.

The plaintiffs will have no trouble establishing that the "Redskins" mark was racially disparaging in the 1960s, 1940s or any other time period in our history.

#24 | Posted by rcade at 2014-09-02 07:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

The plaintiffs will have no trouble
establishing that the "Redskins" mark
was racially disparaging in the 1960s,
1940s or any other time period in our
history.
#24| POSTED BY RCADE

If that were the case why were they ever issued?

#25 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-09-02 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

This PC garbage has got to stop.

The problem with the left is it knows no bounds - never satisfied.

You clowns are the biggest thin-skinned pansies the world has ever seen and you fixate on the most trivial ----- as if it's critically important.

Everything that lefties disagree with they deem to be a 'slur' and they've proven time and again that they will attempt to aggressively stamp out anything they disagree with.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-09-03 08:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

"You clowns are the biggest thin-skinned pansies the world has ever seen and you fixate on the most trivial ----- as if it's critically important."

One the one side, you have people who are upset that a government sanctions monopoloy includes a franchise that has a racial slur as its name and that racial slur applies to their group.

On the other side, you have people who are upset that a football team's name might have to change.

And the first group is acting more like think-skinned pansies than the second?

Give me a friggin break.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2014-09-03 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm heading to Yakima, Washington next week. When I go to the Yakima Nation Casino on the Yakima reservation, I plan on conducting a social experiment by referring to everyone there as a Redskin. If the term is an innocuous as some on this thread suggest, what could possibly go wrong?

#28 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-09-03 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

an innocuous = as innocuous

#29 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-09-03 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder if Oklahoma needs to change it's name- In the Choctaw language it means "Home of the Red Man". BTW, American Indians are not a single race. They include at least three distinct racial groups, probily more. They vary as much as Europeans, maybe more.

#30 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-09-03 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort