Weirdly, I totally thought that they had already ditched Chief Wahoo. Maybe I’m thinking of another team that did something similar.
Yeah, you don’t really hear it in Canada at ALL anymore… I feel like “First Nations” is the term that gets used more often.
I feel like your post is missing something (like, an explanation why you think this is “idiocy”). The whole point of anybody being allowed to use it is that it gives it very little worth to the team in question (since they no longer have exclusive rights to it… Well, provided that the appeal fails). And thus, forcing the team to change their offensive racial slur of a name.
Apparently he’s technically no longer the mascot (now it’s some furry monster named “Slider”) but he’s still an official team icon that’s on most of their merchandise, including the official team uniforms and the jersey worn by Slider himself.
My brother was out West a few years ago and the people he spoke to didn’t mind Indian that much but preferred their tribal name rather than a generic term.
I’m trying to recall a time when I might have used the term “Indian” and I’m coming up empty (I’ve been and adult for more than half my life now, ie - olds). It’s always been proper tribe name or Native American. Although, I gather the term Native American is problematic, too. Is there much friction with the use of First Nations/First Peoples in Canada?
The reality is that Aboriginal reserves are still governed by the “Indian Act” so, like I said, it’s correct legal terminology and people seem to be largely used to it.
This is the reality on the news, people generally only use the term “Indian” when it is necessary to describe something under the relevant laws.
But, frankly, every time I have to clarify whether I mean an Aboriginal Canadian or a person from India, I feel really embarrassed for my country.
As far as I can tell, the legally-offensive thing about the name of the Cleveland Indians is that they aren’t actually an Indian organization. I can get why it’s okay for UCLA to appropriate the Trojans, there not being any Trojans any more, but it can’t be valid to just yoink a trademark of an existing thing. Apart from American products lazily marketed as “Bourbon,” “Meunster,” etc., which are actually being challenged now and will ultimately have to rebrand themselves using their own fricking branding rather than stealing European marks.
What’s funny is that the folks who stole these trademarks (Cheddar, etc.) defend their theft by saying that they “put so much work into building their brand.” They could always use the generic term “cheese”, of course, and create their own brand around “dry chalky orange shit from Wisconsin”, just like the Cleveland baseball team owners could rebuild their brand on their tradition of corporate welfare, monopoly, and being a shitty baseball team.
Didn’t you hear? Now Obumber’s actually using Benghazi to distract us from Benghazi! There’s no end to it! No doubt Kim Kardashian’s buttocks are in on the conspiracy, too.
This seems relevant too. I can’t speak for Native Americans (not being one myself), but the logo in this context seems pretty clearly offensive, especially given the comparison.
At the end of the day, it seems like a fairly open-and-shut case. If there’s a bunch of people who are offended by this name / logo / slogan, and those people say, ‘hey, that’s offensive’, the answer is not to say, ‘don’t be offended, I didn’t mean it that way’, but to say, ‘sorry, you’re right to be offended, I’ll change it’. That’s how it works, or should work.
I’m not sure either. Brand recognition? Team Identity? In reality no defense is sufficient if the actual minority it refers to want it gone.
Valid, though I never said so; only you equated people to organizations who represent them. In any case I’d love to see a representative poll of them rather than a rights organization.
Yes. Unfortunately something like 90% of Americans don’t agree with you, so we’ll have to do something other than swearing to get them on board.
TL;DR: it wasn’t always meant as an offensive term when it first came into use in the early 19th Century.
That’s completely beside the point. It’s considered offensive now, especially by the majority of people it refers to. “Negro” was once considered a non-offensive term to refer to brown-skinned people, but it’s hard to imagine anyone defending a team name like “The Baltimore Negroes” if most African-Americans found it offensive.
The law that applies to the Redskins’ trademark is 15 USC 1502, The Lanham Act, Section 2a. Here’s the text of that portion of the Lanham Act:
Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 2(9) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [19 USC §3501(9)]) enters into force with respect to the United States.
(my bolding)
Among other things, this part of trademark law allows the prevention of both new trademarks and the removal of old trademarks if it’s determined a mark is “scandalous to the general public” or one that “would disparage particular groups or individuals”. In other words, you can’t make up x-rated trademarks and you can’t make a trademark that specifically calls your neighbor a jerk. Also, an existing trademark that was once considered acceptable over time may no longer pass social acceptance, and be considered a slur. Companies using those trademarks may lose them.
Racial epithets change through time, and the Redskins need to understand this. What was considered acceptable when they were granted their trademark may not be acceptable to the population described by that epithet now. Whether or not the general public thinks it’s a slur doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether or not the population the term is directed at thinks it is, and if anyone within that population does, why are the Redskins even arguing the point?
The New York Muggers
Detroit Murders
And Chicago Mob
Boston Bigots
Texas Swindlers
And the L.A. Cops
Miami Drugs
New Jersey Dumps
Take on the Denver Smog
Seattle Fads
New Orleans Hoods
Milwaukee Cannibals
San Diego Jarheads
And the Arizona Drought
Head explode when Dallas Oswalds
Meet Washington Bribes
