TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
As most sports fans know, there is a controversy brewing between the Oneida Indian Nation and the Washington Redskins over their usage of the term "redskin" which the Indian Nation alleges to be a racial slur. The Washington Redskins have been in existence as a football club since 1932, for 81 years. The team had gone on with no major legal conflict with any Indian Nation until 1992.
That year Suzan Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, joined forces with other prominent Native Americans as well as the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis and petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They based their lawsuit on the idea that federal trademark law states that certain trademarks are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable." The legal battle went on for seven years and in 1999 the judges canceled the federal trademarks of the Redskin name "on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute."
Ever since then there has been controversy over the team's name. The controversy has been further ignited by comments made by President Obama and Bob Costas, along with members of Congress sending a letter to the owner of the team , Dan Snyder urging him to change the name. As of now, Snyder has vehemently refused to change the name. Polls seem to back Snyder, with an AP/Gfk poll in May stating that 79 percent of respondents don't want the name changed. In the only poll available of Native Americans on the subject, done by the Annenberg Project in 2004, 91 percent of American Indians thought the name was acceptable.
The problem is this. The Redskins are a corporate entity, with all the constitutional rights that an individual has. It's name is an expression of it's own free speech, and as such I believe this overt political correctness is unduly mendacious in nature. If such name were offensive, I ask, wouldn't you need to systematically sue each sports team who uses an Indian in it's name or as a mascot? Isn't this a bit much? I am a Cherokee Indian on my father's side, and I have no qualms with the name.
This is an Overly Politically Correct America.
That year Suzan Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, joined forces with other prominent Native Americans as well as the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis and petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They based their lawsuit on the idea that federal trademark law states that certain trademarks are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable." The legal battle went on for seven years and in 1999 the judges canceled the federal trademarks of the Redskin name "on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute."
Ever since then there has been controversy over the team's name. The controversy has been further ignited by comments made by President Obama and Bob Costas, along with members of Congress sending a letter to the owner of the team , Dan Snyder urging him to change the name. As of now, Snyder has vehemently refused to change the name. Polls seem to back Snyder, with an AP/Gfk poll in May stating that 79 percent of respondents don't want the name changed. In the only poll available of Native Americans on the subject, done by the Annenberg Project in 2004, 91 percent of American Indians thought the name was acceptable.
The problem is this. The Redskins are a corporate entity, with all the constitutional rights that an individual has. It's name is an expression of it's own free speech, and as such I believe this overt political correctness is unduly mendacious in nature. If such name were offensive, I ask, wouldn't you need to systematically sue each sports team who uses an Indian in it's name or as a mascot? Isn't this a bit much? I am a Cherokee Indian on my father's side, and I have no qualms with the name.
This is an Overly Politically Correct America.
Last edited:
