Comments

  1. Sam The Man says

    Can someone please explain how the word redskin is racist? You apply a racist meaning to the word. My redskin potatoes are NOT racist is any way.

  2. Jere says

    Sam, the team is applying a racist meaning to the word. Take a look at their logo. The name clearly does not refer to a potato. If the name was Blackskins with a logo depicting an African-American or Yellowskins with a logo depicting an Asian person, the name would have been gone decades ago.

  3. Rick says

    It’s embarrassing that Harry Reid is on the floor of Congress talking about the Redskins when how many DC residents don’t have representation in Congress? How much press has a football teams name gotten versus the amount of press DC statehood gets? That is what is embarrassing.

  4. crispy says

    “It seems wrong that they can revoke a trademark of such long standing.”

    So they give them something, and now they’re taking it back. I know there’s a name for people who do that, but I’m drawing a blank.

  5. anon says

    The ruling means the team logo is license-free now. Anyone can use it on t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. without having to pay the team or the NFL. Now, this is a major profit center for the NFL, so the team probably will change their logo, but they aren’t banned from using it.

  6. I wont grow up says

    When the federal government decides, at the behest of the PC crowd, to strip a privately held company of it’s copyright protections, that is over reaching. If we remove every logo or name from every product that offended someone we’d be left without many products.

  7. says

    Here is hoping they appeal and it gets overturned by a federal court like has happened in the past before. Who knew that there is a legal standard of political correctness.

  8. Zlick says

    I don’t know about the prior case, or about the Trademark rules, per se, but I’m assuming – based on the ruling – you can’t trademark the name “Dallas Faggots” because there’s likely a rule that slurs cannot be trademarked. I can’t imagine so much evidence would be presented that “redkins” was a slur if that weren’t a disqualifying factor.

  9. CK says

    To add in some history. The other case was only overturned on a technicality. The court did not even get to the merits of the case because they ruled that the plantiffs had forgone the necessary amount of time to file an appeal and therefore, couldn’t. This time around, the plantiffs are individuals who just turned 18 and therefore, could not have sued earlier. This case will be ruled on the merits and more than likely the name with get changed.

  10. ratbastard says

    This is the Obama administration pandering to a small group of extremist. It affords them an opportunity to placate the loony fat left of the Democratic party. It’s retarded. And yes, I know some are ‘offended’ by the word retarded. Republican often have to do similar silly things to placate the small but vocal loony far right.

    There’s nothing wrong or insulting about the name, Indian mascot/logo (every real ‘native american’ I’ve met call themselves Indians and don’t have a problem with it), anymore than a leprecuen caricature used by the Celtics and Notre Dame is insulting to Irish (or the word paddy wagon). The team would not name themselves after somebody or thing they don’t resepect.People need to grow the frig up.

  11. Enchantra says

    I think a whole lot of people are in for some disappointment. Define “disparaging” , you can’t because it changes from person to person. Some of you get your panties in a knot when someone says “homosexual” rather than “gay” or “bisexual”… I don’t. If redskin is inherently disparaging, then you have to prove that it has been used commonly in that fashion, and it simply hasn’t. By any measure, inoffensive use of “redskin” far out numbers and disparaging use.

  12. olympiasepiriot says

    @ RatBastard, the reason you hear”indian” is because the various aboriginal nations didn’t have a collective, unified description for themselves. ‘They’ were and are Wampanog, or Lakota, or Penobscot, or Ute, or Diné, or Lenape, or, well, you get the idea.

    @ All U people saying it’s ‘pandering’ to take away the trademark of a slur…it’s a slur. It has never been a complement, nor even neutral.

    I think thry should name it for their founders and call it the Honkys.

  13. Hun says

    Incredible how as soon as we’re talking about transgender people, Native American or any other minority that tells you “this word is offensive to me, please don’t use it”, you get half the commenters here coming on like people at Breitbart. “PC Police! They should get over themselves! It’s only offensive if you mean it!”

    Just like there are black homophobes, there are gay racists (and transphobes, and male chauvinists…). Apparently minorities love nothing more than oppress other minorities and tell them *their* struggle is worthless.

  14. mdnc says

    Hail to the Foreskins! Hail Victory! Hail to the Foreskins! Fight for old DC! A great new name for the team and they could add little turtlenecks to their uniforms! It’s perfect!

Leave A Reply