Redskins "racial slur"?

[Big RR]

An appeal could take a while Jim, but if they pursue the district court route again it will now go to the northern District of Virginia, affectionately dubbed the "rocket docket", so it might take less time than you think. And the decision of the courts is far from guaranteed, so I'd bet the Redskins owners and NFL are considering a lot of contingency planning and looking at what they can do to avoid catastrophic financial loss. A gradual phasing out of the mark would be a lot easier to endure than the economic shock that would be suffered if they were forced to suddenly discontinue use (common law rights or not, I doubt they'd continue to use the mark without federal registration). As with most cases, when the emotional response is over, the economics will control, and I'd bet they are seriously considering phasing out the mark and changing the team name.

[Sue U]

Let's suggest some new names:

The Washington Monuments (another trademark issue?)

The Washington Gridlocks

The Washington Deceivers (SWIDT?)

The Capital Punishers

The We Paid $35 Mil For RG III And Still Ended Up Last

[Guinevere]

An appeal could take a while Jim, but if they pursue the district court route again it will now go to the northern District of Virginia, affectionately dubbed the "rocket docket", so it might take less time than you think. And the decision of the courts is far from guaranteed, so I'd bet the Redskins owners and NFL are considering a lot of contingency planning and looking at what they can do to avoid catastrophic financial loss. A gradual phasing out of the mark would be a lot easier to endure than the economic shock that would be suffered if they were forced to suddenly discontinue use (common law rights or not, I doubt they'd continue to use the mark without federal registration). As with most cases, when the emotional response is over, the economics will control, and I'd bet they are seriously considering phasing out the mark and changing the team name.

12 months (avg), start to finish (and that means trial, not disposition on motions), in the rocket docket.

And yes, I do think change is a-coming, even if some like LJ want to keep their head buried in the sand.

[TPFKA@W]

I would think the negative publicity alone would convince them to call the team something else.

[Lord Jim]

If they put a winning team on the field this year, (my, what a refreshing change that would be) they'll weather this manufactured storm...

You can talk about the "negative publicity" but despite all this "negative publicity" another poll recently came out showing 80% nationwide, (higher among Redskins fans of course) still don't want the name changed....(apparently general public opinion remains stubbornly stuck on common sense, despite the best efforts of the outrage manufacturers and their allies in the liberal mainstream media...)

I don't have a lot of faith in Dan Snyder, but that should help put some iron in his spine...

[BoSoxGal]

How about the Washington Lobbyists? They're the ones running the country, after all . . .

[Big RR]

I guess they could call the team the Washington 'Skins or ___Skins if they wanted to get creative, and people who wanted to could still use Redskins. They could even keep the same helmet (unless that logo was included in the TM suit (I don't think it was)).

But IMHO eventually the team's owners will tire of fighting a no-win battle and change the name.

[RayThom]

At this point the Redskin name absolutely needs to change so it might as well be sooner than later. This issue will NEVER go away -- before, during, or after the season.

The Washington "Redhawks" would be the best quick-fix. It appears to be the best way to retain vestiges of the old trademark without causing total chaos among the mind numbed, die hard, quasi-racists, owner and fans.



A change is gonna come.

[Lord Jim]

But IMHO eventually the team's owners will tire of fighting a no-win battle and change the name.

Sadly, I think there's at least a 50-50 chance that Snyder will buckle...

If Jack Kent Cooke were still the owner of the team, we wouldn't even be having this conversation....

Mr. Cooke put an end to this 20 years ago when this "controversy" was first manufactured...

"Over my dead body" was Mr. Cooke's response when it was suggested that the Redskins change their team name...

Unfortunately, Mr. Cooke's body is now long dead, and the fate of The Redskins is now in the hands of a nouveau riche tech nerd...

On the other hand, Snyder grew up in the Washington suburbs, and has been a Redskins fan all his life, and perhaps among all his other failings with the franchise, (and they are many; time does not permit me to list them all) he would prefer not to be remembered as the team owner who folded like a cheap lawn chair over the team's name, and flushed 80 years of tradition down the toilet...

Like I said; 50-50...

[Gob]

If they ever get to the the front of the league they could be renamed the Washington Foreskins?

The red-helmets?

[Joe Guy]

At this point the Washington Deadskins would be more appropriate....

[Lord Jim]

At this point the Washington Deadskins would be more appropriate....

That's something they've been frequently called over the years...

[Joe Guy]

How about renaming them the Washington Savages?

That's a good quality name for a team and it might even be difficult for the I wanna be a victim groups to protest.

[Lord Jim]

I'm gonna move it up from 50-50 to 60-40:

Daniel Marc Snyder (born November 23, 1964) is an American billionaire and the current owner of the Washington Redskins American football team and primary investor in Red Zebra Broadcasting, which is home to the Redskins Radio ESPN.

Snyder was born to a Jewish family[2][3][4] on November 23, 1964,[5] in Maryland,[3][6] the son of Arlette (née Amsellem) and Gerry Snyder.[7] His father was a free-lance writer who wrote for United Press International and National Geographic.[6] He attended Hillandale Elementary School in Silver Spring, Maryland. At age 12, he moved to Henley-on-Thames, a small town near London, where he attended private school.[6] At age 14, he returned to the United States and lived with his grandmother in Queens, New York. A year later, his family moved back to Maryland and he graduated from Charles W. Woodward High School in Rockville, Maryland.[6] His first job was at B. Dalton bookstore in the White Flint Mall.[6]

There's more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Snyder

Snyder is not just a rich punk out to make a buck; he's also emotionally vested in the team and its history...

That's why I make it 60-40 rather than 50-50....

[Lord Jim]

Ya know, I'm not the sort of person who's incapable of seeing things in a different light...

But there has to be a practical reason for it...

I mentioned earlier that I reluctantly saw the logic of renaming "The Bullets" "The Wizards"...

I also came to embrace the removing of The Confederate Battle Flag from the various state flags...

There is nothing inherently offensive about The Confederate Battle Flag per say...(it never flew over a single plantation; and the fact that it's been used as symbol by a bunch of inbred KKK morons doesn't seem impressive to me; they've also tried to claim the Christian Cross...Are we going to start denigrating The Cross because a bunch of Deliverance type mouth-breathers decided to make it a symbol?)

But in terms of the specific issue of The Confederate Battle Flag being placed on various state flags; I became convinced that they should be removed...

Once I learned the history of why it was added; it was not a part of those state flags, going back to the 1800s, to respect those who fought...

It was added to those flags in the mid-1950s, as a symbol of what was known as "massive resistance"...

"Massive resistance" (a term coined by a Virginia Senator Named Harry Flood Byrd) was a phrase used to describe relentless, state sanctioned, state organized, opposition to racial integration...

Based on that history, I could easily see why the Confederate Battle Flag should be removed from state flags...

Even though the symbol was benign, the use of it was malevolent...

Not at all like this situation, where not only is the use of the symbol benign, no one's even trying to allege a malevolent intent..

[RayThom]

http://casinosmack.com/blog/betting-odd ... ange-name/

[BoSoxGal]

Benign??

Kids in Montana call other kids dirty redskin as a grievous insult, it's nothing close to benign.

So long as it's a racial slur anywhere, it's a racial slur everywhere.

I think Washington Red Hawks would be a great name, but the mascot should be a red tail hawk, not just the feathers.

If I recall, there's a great story out there of hawks that used to nest on one of the federal buildings in DC, so there is even a historical connection. RFK, Jr. tells that story.

[Big RR]

Jim--for the life of me, I can't understand the emotional connection to the name of a sports team. I can understand how some might find a name offensive, but I just can't understand why anyone would be strongly opposed to changing the name of a team, especially if it were done to save money (and hopefully that money could be used to field a better team).

I've been a lifelong fan of the Rams, but it never bothered me when they moved from LA to St Louis (of course I didn't live in either city so it didn't inconvenience me or have any actual effect)--they were still the same team (indeed, they became a better team there). Likewise, I wouldn't really care all that much if they chose to change team the name (unless they chose a new name I didn't like), because they would still be the same team with the same history.

I have a lot of friends who were fans of the NY Jets when they were the NY Titans, but changing the name didn't change the team or the history at all. In fact, sometimes a name change is preferable (in the NBA, the New Orleans Jazz made sense, but the Utah Jazz?).

[Lord Jim]

So long as it's a racial slur anywhere, it's a racial slur everywhere.

I think that's really the crux of the dispute, and where we're just going to have to agree to disagree...

It seems to me that there are plenty of words that can be a slur in one context, and not in another. I'll give you an example:

I noticed that lately there have been a series of PSAs running aimed at teenagers designed to discourage them from using the word "gay" as a way to put down someone or something; as in : "that's so gay"...

So, clearly in that context the use of the term is a "slur", as it is intended to be. But there are plenty of contexts where the use of the term is not at all insulting.

It is morally wrong to use words to attempt to inflict pain on others. (As in the example you cited about the kids in Montana) But that is where the "wrong" lies in my view; not inherently in the words themselves. Context matters.

If the Washington Redskins had been named that in order to put down or derogate American Indians, I'd be all for changing the name. But the reality is the exact opposite is the case; as Long Run pointed out earlier, teams with American Indian names were given those names because of positive perceptions about the historical qualities of American Indians (bravery, strength, fearlessness, etc.)

Obviously the kids you refer to in Montana aren't calling each other that because they want the kid they're calling it to believe they think he's brave, strong or fearless....

[Lord Jim]

Jim--for the life of me, I can't understand the emotional connection to the name of a sports team

That's because you're not a Redskins fan...We're an emotional bunch...

I'm also morally opposed to giving in to people who try to bully and browbeat and gin up manufactured outrage to get their way, make money, and throw their weight around. Giving in to them just encourages them.

And btw, in this case it's not just "outside agitators" who are engaged in this; some tribal poobahs have also seen an opportunity to cash in and get some publicity for themselves. Earlier, BSG posted a perfect example.

A group of tribal leaders who sent out fundraising appeals and press releases manufacturing outrage, who then used a portion of the money they raised, (I'd like to see the books on what they're getting paid, and what expenses are being covered by the funds) to run propaganda commercials for the purpose of manufacturing more outrage, and (just by sheer coincidence) raise more money...

This is not the first time that tribal "leaders" have used and exploited their own people; one need look no further than how the profits are distributed in the tribal casino industry to see plenty of evidence of that.

And of course if they're able to get some white liberals to pull out their check books too, by appealing to their sense of self righteousness, so much the better...