The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case brought by Native American activists regarding the use of the trademark name Redskins for the Washington-based football team. This case involved a long running dispute over the name that is several decades old. The activists claim:
“[T]he Washington Redskins’ team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.”
The decison, which happened without comments, lets stand the lower court decision that the complaintants let the case go too long before bringing suit. The Washington Redskins have been named as such since 1937 when the name was changed from the Boston Braves, when the team moved south.
According to the Washington Post:
The lawsuit was filed in 1992, when seven activists challenged a Redskins trademark issued in 1967. They won seven years later in a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which said the name could be interpreted as offensive to Native Americans. The case is Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.
Trademark law prohibits registration of a name that “may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”
The team appealed to federal court.
Judges at the district and circuit levels said the activists’ trademark cancellation claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which serves as a defense against claims that should have been made long ago.
The activists argued that disparaging trademarks can be challenged at any time, citing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The decision was written by then-judgeSamuel A. Alito Jr., who now sits on the Supreme Court.
Apparently the rest of the world disagrees with the activists. There will always be someone who doesn’t like a team name or mascot. This seems like a frivolous lawsuit to me, especially when a team name is held in high esteem.
“This seems like a frivolous lawsuit to me, especially when a team name is held in high esteem.”
I don’t know, Wolfie. They may have a case this year because, except for yesterday, they could claim that the name is offensive because it depicts native americans as being inept.
I wonder, though, if removing a trademark would help matters. If that happened, copycats might come out of the woodwork, trying to make money from ID confusion and controversy.
I think that they should just change it, though.
I’d prefer the current Redskins to be called the Landover Snyders. Then DC can get it’s own team and call them the Washington Redskins.
The name is offensive to Native Americans. Now would be a good time to change it.
It’s also offensive that the federal govt doesn’t recognize the eight tribes of Virginia. I would like to see that change, as well.
We know better now, why not do better?
Good for the US Supreme Court!!
Oh, has anyone gone after the Kansas City Chiefs or Atlanta Braves?
A team name/mascot will always offend some…such is life. What if everyone cried like some groups our court system would never get to hear “real” cases.
Very funny, Mando.
Lafayette, Chief or Brave is certainly less offensive than “Redskin”.
But is it offensive to most Native Americans? The ones I know don’t find it offensive.
There were those who wanted Florida State to give up being Seminoles also. Perhaps Seattle should change its name also because it annoys a few. Do we change the name of the potato also?
There was a big stick a decade or so ago because of the name Stonewall Jackson for a high school (and middle school.} There is one here and one over in the Valley.
Where do we stop with this?
Do we just keep caving in to people who might get their noses out of joint until our public language is so generic we don’t even know what we are talking about?
Changing a team name that has been around since 1937? A 72 year old team name needs to be changed because some Native American activists don’t like it? Most Native Americans I have encountered even laugh at you for saying ‘Native American.’ I was told out west that that terms is a white man’s term and got corrected to say Indian, by Indians.
Offensive to whom, Rick? To white people? Check out some school names in the west. You might come away sucking air at some of them.
Rick, maybe so. However, there are far more important things going on in the world than a team name. Give me a break.
On another topic Rick..Where are those signs at the RaceTrak(Raceway for newcomers)? I was there yesterday for gas and I saw 35 loiterers. Any update? Or was that Mando that contacted them.
Moon, I would certainly be SCREAMING if they wanted to change the name of my middle and high schools(Stonewall Jackson). We were just talking about the commeration of the 150th Anniversary of the The First Battle of Manassas the other day, and I’m concerned that the whiny cats will be calling the event an act of racism.
@CindyB
Cindy, can you tell us more about the eight tribes in VA? Why don’t they recognize them?
@Rick Bentley
Some are offended by the terms “anchor baby” and “illegal alien” too. Do you want them filing suits with the Supreme Court too?
If I were a Native American, I think I’d rather be called a Redskin then an Indian. Nothing personal against people from India, but I always thought it was a screwy name for Native Americans to adopt. It was probably fine for the first couple of hundred years when true Indians pretty much stayed in India but not so much anymore.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “You mean Indian like with a Tomahawk or QuickieMart Indian?”
I don’t know about the signs at RaceTrak … it wasn’t me that contacted them … I do see that the loiterers have been in full force lately.
All sorts of tribes have not been granted tribal status. It is a big deal as far as who gets to do what. Not having tribal status prevents one from having a casino for starters. If you are looking for a villan look at the people who generally lobby against casinos and gambling in general. That is where some of the hoops to jump through used to be.
Mando, I sort of agree with you about nomenclature. There always has to be a qualifier.
It was a stupid name that just stuck. Maybe those from Asia should change. However, I am only repeating what has been said to me. I definitely have been corrected. I stopped trying to be PC after that.
FYI – Native American is no longer the preferred term. It’s American Indian.
@Moon-howler MH, do you know why some tribes don’t get status? That IS a big deal!
Perhaps we should have the “Cleveland Crackers”.
How about the Raleigh Round-Eyes, or the Boston Beaners!
So the bottom line is that anything that offends even one person must be changed to appease that person. Yeah, right! I take offense at Obama being called president, so there, now change it! ; )
Moon-howler, that’s an interesting point about the use of the term “Native American.” I contribute financially to a couple of schools in South Dakota and Montana dedicated specifically to educating kids from the Sioux, Crow, and Northern Cheyenne reservations. Both of them have as part of their official names the term “Indian School.” Fancy that!
With regard to the term “Redskins”, I seem to recall that there is an “Indian” high school somewhere out in Arizona or New Mexico which uses or did use that very term for its own athletic teams.
PAP, Congress decides. Moran and Webb have been working on it. It affects many other tribes also. There are 7 attributes but the decision to grant status has been very underhanded and inconsistent. Other tribes have lobbied against another one getting status also. (Washington State has a lot of this going on. Chinooks didn’t used to have Tribal status.)
http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/BIA/OIS/TribalGovernmentServices/TribalDirectory/index.htm
Those who lobby against gambling also are a huge lobby against tribal status. No tribal status, not casino. If you look at the website I left from BIA, you will see no tribes listed under VA.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/TRIB04_20090603-223005/271758/
The use of the name “Seminoles” is currently based on a deal struck between Florida State University and the members of the Seminole Nation in Florida. I believe the tribe has a strong say in how that name is used by the school for publicity and other purposes. I cannot vouch for this part of it, but I think the tribe may also get some financial aid out of the deal. Anyway, there seems to be no problem down there — except that the football team has not been doing as well as expected this year.
Wolverine, it sounds like we might have a few charities in common there. I contribute to a Lakota Indian School run by Catholic Charities. And yes, they do use the name Indian.
Here is another favorite of mine: Southwest Indian Foundation. My brother knows one of the people who has been involved with this organization for years so I also know they are on the up and up and not some store front collecting money from old ladies with a soft spot in their heart.
Check out the stove project. I am bad. I mostly buy Indian jewelry but it is a specific weakness of mine.
http://www.southwestindian.com/service/stove.cfm
I guess my main objection to the activists suing on behalf of ‘Redskins’ is that who are they to decide what is offensive and what is not offensive. The term is not being used offensively and it is over 70 years old as a team name. Give it a rest.
The activists don’t own the name and I am sure they don’t speak for many or even most American Indians. I think Matt is correct and I am most comfortable using that term. I do care what they think but I don’t care if white people think I am being politically correct or not.
Wolverine, that is interesting info about Florida State. They certainly are having an off year, aren’t they? I see Seminoles as a little different. That is THEIR tribal name. And I am sure if there is a way to get some bucks out of it, they will do it.
I was listening to the Sports Junkies a few weeks ago and they brought this up then asked listeners to call in with name recommendations. After a few mundane names this one guy calls in with, what he seriously feels, is the name to end all names. After nearly spitting my coffee out I laughed the entire way to work. What was it?
I give you YOUR Washington RedSKULLS!
I guarantee you that this offends more than just a few. I went to a Multicultural Summit for several years in a row, and team names/mascots often came up in sessions led by American Indians. The point was made that many of them were tired of being marginalized as mascots, no matter the name.
I guess if a group of mostly Caucasian people came up with a name like the Vikings, the 49ers, Fighting Irish, etc., it might have been their business…an example of them embracing heritage. However, I highly doubt that groups of mostly American Indians collectively decided on mascots of the teams in question. Somehow, I doubt American Indians get filled with pride at the sight of Chief Wahoo, or a bunch of dudes with painted faces and headdresses doing the tomahawk chop…
Folks, I have been a fan of Washington football since way back. However, I do not confuse my loyalty to the team with acceptance of their name. “Redskin” is a slur…period. Most people around here are very willing to dismiss the issue as hooey, and I think it is because they are resistant to change, they love the team, or they do not have to personally deal with such a slur because they are not American Indians.
We DO have to ask ourselves…would we be OK with team or mascot names containing common slurs of African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians? Would we say they should just deal with such slurs since they have been used for a long time, and that the offensiveness of these terms simply shouldn’t matter to them because it doesn’t matter to us? I really don’t think I would be thrilled if there were teams called the “Houston Honkies” or the “Radford Rednecks.”
…and, just because some might think that there are more important issues in the world doesn’t mean this one doesn’t deserve our attention. I mean, we could put off addressing it forever by saying that…
The following is an article detailing the American Psychological Association’s stance on this issue. There are many other articles written by American Indian scholars and writers on this issue, as well.
http://www.apa.org/releases/AmIndRes101805.html
This editorial piece addresses situations in which American Indian schools use American Indian mascots:
http://main.nc.us/wncceib/ACTsampson31301.htm
DG, you are dealing with people at those summits who have an agenda. Sorry, I guarantee you that the average American Indian out eeking out an existence on some farm somewhere in the SW, or on the great plains doesn’t object with half the fervor that people who attend summits do.
This is a form of elitism that now takes the form of telling the common man what he should and should not be offended over. I don’t buy it. However, those who object can start calling the team by some other name. That’s their right. Where were these same consciencely raised people from 1937 until 1995? 60 years and no one raises an eyebrow?
How many regular American Indians are outraged that the home football team of Washignton, DC is called the Washington Redskins? There are some who think it is neat and follow the team because of the name.
There are so many other things that tribal people need to worry about other than mascot names. Chronic diseases, substance abuse, employment, education, poverty would be a place to start. Too bad the money used to bring this lawsuit forward can’t be used for supplying electricity to every home on the Navajo reservation.
To those who have not seen some of the tribal people out west, there is no way to describe the poverty. It isn’t poverty most of us have witnessed before. My friend Maxine (yea I am serous–everyone needs a Maxine) told me she didn’t have electricity when I suggested she set up a website online to sell her jewelry. She said it was too expensive to run the lines out to where she lives on the rez. I didn’t press any further. People living without electricity in 2005 was more than I could handle or even wrap my brain around. Talk about an economically depressed area.
Maxine rode in in a caravan from some remote place on the Navajo reservation to sell her handmade jewelry (not high end) at various places in Gallup, NM. The jewerly folks all sold their stuff at a restaurant named Earls. They have tables out front and then then come inside while you are eating, walking past your table so you can see their display. They don’t interact with you unless you beckon them over or initiate the conversation. Talk about nirvana. Looking at Indian jewerly and getting to eat and drink all at the same time. I digress…. Maxine did that a couple days a week. That is one hard way to earn a living. You know if she doesn’t have electricity that heating her house and cooking must be fairly primitive. It must be a real bitch to do jewelry by candle light.
A friend of mine volunteered to teach on a reservation out west right after obtaining his degree. He recalled the experience as being one of the most humbling in his life. He was struck by the poverty, hopelessness, and the degree of alcoholism and drug abuse within the community. (And this guy partied in college, so he was no wide-eyed innocent by any means.) The kids themselves often had very little hope nor aspirations for the future as it wasn’t being modeled to them. I agree that the Native American community has much more to be concerned about than the name of a sports team, and their time and $ would be much better spent focusing on early intervention with children and drug and alcohol abuse counseling within the reservations. Also, organizations like the one my friend volunteered with (I apologize as I don’t recall the name) are doing what they can to help in these ways as well. Maybe that jerk Snyder (don’t like him much, miss Mr. Cooke) could donate some of his boatloads of cash to one of these worthwhile groups instead of using his $ to send his private jet to pick up Tom Cruise to come watch a game with him. Ugh… couldn’t he pick up someone else from Hollywood, maybe Tom Hanks instead?! 😉
IWK, thanks for sharing. Very neat story and really a case of someone putting their money where their mouth is. I would have liked to have done something like that. Oddly enough the place I picked out was the Quileute Reservation in La Push, Washington. This was before Twilight became the hit of the decade. In fact, I just discovered that Forks was the setting of the Twilight Series. Life was too complicated for me to have done that but I did think about it.
Good plan about Mr. Snyder dumping some cash into American Indian early intervention. It is greatly needed. Maybe he needs a few letters suggesting it. Too bad Tom Cruise is such a jerk now. I agree with you that Tom Hanks would have been a better choice.
Here is an older story but an interesting take on the use of Indian names as mascots.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20040922/ai_n11478487/?tag=rel.res3
To those last two posts by Moon-howler and IWK Manassas, I say: “Amen, Amen, and Amen again.” The problems on some of the reservations have long been immense; and their resolution is long overdue. If you have some disposable income to give to charity, find yourself an Indian school or two and start helping. Many of those schools are the only thing which gives the kids a chance to escape some mighty bad misery. Some of these schools now include dormitory facilities, meals, clothing, health care, and education on the premises during the week, usually at no cost to the Indian family involved. Many of the schools depend almost entirely on private donations. Once you get a look at the faces of those kids, you will not be able to resist reaching for your checkbook. We as a nation owe these brothers and sisters of ours much more than we have given them in the past. We owe them an education so they can themselves work to end the misery so often found on some of the Western reservations. Think of helping to provide the education to a teacher who can come back to the reservation and teach.
Gonna just have to agree to disagree. Yes, there are lots of other, more pressing problems within American Indian nations. I even know that you are going to find many American Indians who do not seem to mind or seem to be completely in support of such mascots. However, I do not feel that any of this erases the wrong here. I am going to be bold (and I know not popular) here, and say that years of institutionalized, accepted racism is still racism.
You are free to feel I am a racist, institutionalized or not. However, this racist prefers to apply my outrage to educating children and donating to real wood stoves rather than to perceived notions of political correctness when I can afford to.
While we are at it, do we make all those schools who have Redskins as a mascot give up their names, even though many of the students are American Indians? What do we do about redskin potatoes? How about the Cleveland Browns? Should we fear that is offensive also? Perhaps ‘Chiefs’ might offend those who never arrived at that status.
If we were chosing a name today, just out of the blue, probably ‘redskin’ would not be chosen. However, tradition also speaks and the expression Redskin has acquired respect–probably much more than it had back in 1937.
When I was a child, we would have never mentioned the word ‘black’ when referring to an African American. We would also not have said African or made mention of it. It would have been considered very rude. My point? Things change. Meanings change. The Redskins team has withstood the test of time and it is a tradition.
The courts won’t rule this name out. I seriously doubt if the season ticket holders are going to vote to change the name nor will Snyder.
Wolverine makes a wonderful case for righting wrongs of the past. We do owe the native people of our country a great deal. I believe in giving those things that help them help themselves. Headed for my check book as we speak. Actually they now take paypal online. Ain’t technology grand!
Please understand, MH, I am NOT calling you a racist!!! I think that the tradition of this name and many other mascot names are good examples of racism that are just accepted by people in general.
I know that you have a wonderful heart, and I applaud your efforts to help people. I also think your point about names changing meanings is a good one. The NAACP comes to mind as a name that wouldn’t be given today, but stands due to tradition.
I have to wonder about the intent of the name way back in the day, however. In the case of the NAACP, I think the intent was to honor African-Americans. In the case of the Redskins, I do not think this was the intent. I am not saying that anyone was being malicious about it, but the history of naming teams after native nations, slang for native peoples, or slurs, and then using stereotypical representations in team and fan gear is not a pretty one. It definitely is not our best side…
Even if some American Indian schools adopt such mascots, I don’t think this makes it right. Oh gosh…I have so much more to say, but I’ve got to go to work:) Thanks for the great discussion, guys; I’ll keep pondering this one…
Much has to do with how terms are used. And the NAACP is a good example. We don’t say ‘colored people’ any more but we do say people of color. Strange how changing the position of the words takes on a different tone.
I don’t think anyone would select Redskins as a name nowadays. However, the name has been with the team for 72 years. Obviously it is a title of distinction now. Hail to the Redskins sort of says it all. And it is part of tradition. If anything, it honors American Indians.
We can certainly discuss the appropriate use of names. However, I am opposed to a knee-jerk reaction a name because some ‘activists’ don’t like it. You can probably find an activist who doesn’t like most anything.
I don’t usually like Supreme Court decisions that indicate people didn’t file in an appropriate length of time. Equal pay for women is one of those suits. However, in this case, I think the Supremes made the right decision. I am not even a die hard Redskins fan, for the record.
In attempting to be thoughtful to everyone, we could end up being thoughtful to no one. Tradition should be honored when possible. We cannot function like a whirling dirvish in search of that which is politically correct. To do so removes tradition from us as a people.
I stand with Diversity Gal. Just because a slur is institutionalized, doesn’t make it acceptable. Time to change.
Everything under the sun is probably offensive to someone. With that being said, it’s completely impossible to please everyone all of the time. Let’s be realistic here. The Redskins are not being named today, and should not have to change their name of 70+ years just because of a few activists. I have American Indian friends and they are Redskins fans, and don’t have a problem with the name. Just where does it END?? Again, there’s just far more important issues facing our nation and world today.
If you where to do away with name Redskins you would also, being ended the biggest rivalary in the NFL. Didn’t any of you play Cowboys & Indians growing up? Please, don’t cry to me it was Cowboys & Indians not Redskins.
We as American’s should be able to continue some of our long standing traditions, and this no exception.
What makes something a slur? Perhaps that is what we really need to be discussing. Who gets to decide what a slur is? A few? Many? Do we put it to a vote?
It is the word? Usage? Community standards? And do we make all schools using the Redskins name change their mascot or nickname? Would we extend that to anything Indian? Then what if it is a word that is Indian but generally accepted in English or infused in the population, such as Seattle? How about if the team name is something sacred to American Indians? (Ravens, bears, dolphins)
This all begs the question, where does it stop? Would we have to also change the name of the potato? There are no answers. I pose them to show how one thing leads to another.
The Supreme Court won’t hear the case. That pretty much leaves us with the status quo. The Redskins have withstood the test of time. If there was an objection to the name, it should have been done years and years ago.
Here’s a list of ethnophaulisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_slurs
The name of the football team is included.
An aside:
In 1972 Stanford University banned the use of its longtime American Indian mascot.
Much protesting followed, natch, but the school stood fast.
I don’t think there is a definitive answer here, Cindy. I certainly saw some words on lists that I don’t agree with. That is sort of my point. Who gets to decide which of our words and expressions will be verboten? I think when dealing with the American Indian, it is even harder to come up with the right answer simply because there were so many tribes, so many languages, so many location and regions, so many cultures.
Punchak, actually the school caved from my point of view. Again, a group of activists. Schools are much more vulnerable to demands of political correctness than are professional sports teams. 1970, California, social activism. The perfect storm. Apparently Stanford thought their activist and students more fearful than their alumni.
If the courts refuse to hear the Redskins case, how do you convince the owner to change the name?
Denver Broncos fans are organizing a Tea Party to protest the outcome of Sunday’s game. It’s on the steps of the Capital if anyone wants to attend. They are busing in people from all over the country. And next week after we beat the Cowboys, there will be another Tea Party. If no one shows up, they can just borrow a shot from Sean Hannity and make it look like thousands of people came to both rallies.
Snicker. You just wish that were really true, Justin. 🙄