Use of Native American Imagery in Sports

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

1) NFL could effectively force them.

2) there has been as suggestion that under u.s. Law you cannot trademark racist terms. Losing their trademark would effectively force them to change it.

Both of those would end in lawsuits that would be tied up in the courts for decades.

Would it be worth taxpayer money to support a court battle over the name of a sports franchise? Because if they try stripping the trademark that is exactly what would happen.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

There is something else being forgotten/ignored here.

The Washington Redskins are a private entity and no one other than the owner (or I guess the NFL if they try and force the change) can decide what the name/logo will be. Because the government won't be able to force anything.

Now why would he change the name/logo that has been around 80 years on his dime? Their merchandise sales don't seem to be hurt, neither are their ticket sales. He has no motivation to change the name at all, especially since it will cost him millions of dollars to do so.

Fact of the matter is unless someone else is willing to compensate the owner of the Redskins nothing will change.

They aren't trying to force him to just change the name, they are trying to have the trademark removed, which would effectively reduce the money made from merchandising. Then it would be in his financial interest to change the name.

I don't see it as a complete loss if he had to change the name. Teams are always redesigning their logos to boost merchandise sales. I doubt it would take very long for most fans to come around to a new name.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

If you truly believe every person that goes to a meeting is completely unified in their opinion of a topic and justify it because "why else would they go?" I don't believe there is any point in discussing this further. And I would like to quote you from another thread and say "Just because you say "wrong" doesn't mean that it's actually wrong". Some serious hypocrisy right here .

You're wrong because you were proven wrong by the tribe leaders of Native Americans.

You can dodge the reality of your inability to logically retort to the very obvious and basic evidence against your whole stance all you want, but until you accept that the National Congress of American Indians carries far more weight than a poll which does not poll Native Americans in the majority (or even in any provable number, it could realistically have polled zero Native Americans), then you've got nothing logical left to say.

[corporatejay]

Snyder/ is not going to get in a pissing match with the league. This isn't 1985, there is too much money at stake and the bad publicity wouldn't be worth it for the skins ownership.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Snyder/ is not going to get in a pissing match with the league. This isn't 1985, there is too much money at stake and the bad publicity wouldn't be worth it for the skins ownership.

And the NFL likely won't deem it to be worth changing the name because if they do it would likely be them footing the bill to change everything.

[strombad]

What if they went to the "Skins" instead, and didn't wear jerseys? Just a bunch of half naked men running around?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by strombad

What if they went to the "Skins" instead, and didn't wear jerseys? Just a bunch of half naked men running around?

1) keep redskins and make their logo a potato

2) keep logo and change name to warriors or something similar.


http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net...s_redskins.jpg

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by strombad

You're wrong because you were proven wrong by the tribe leaders of Native Americans.

You can dodge the reality of your inability to logically retort to the very obvious and basic evidence against your whole stance all you want, but until you accept that the National Congress of American Indians carries far more weight than a poll which does not poll Native Americans in the majority (or even in any provable number, it could realistically have polled zero Native Americans), then you've got nothing logical left to say.

You seem hung up on the idea that because one leader brings all the tribal leaders that they all think the same thing, the fact stands that a hive mind like that does not exist no matter how many times you say it does. Is this forum entirely full of flames fans? No, we all have different reasons for congregating here, to assume either of those is silly and wrong. You can't simultaneously assume everyone going to speak with Obama thinks the same thing and denounce polls because "we don't know these people". Wth that same logic we could say that we don't know these tribal leaders either.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by strombad

I have no idea what the first half of your post is trying to say.

Regarding the second half however, pretty basic stuff. The polls are meaningless because they weren't polling Native Americans. The polls literally have zero value. The protests, while not an accurate representation of the population, actually involve Native Americans in the majority. That's a much more reliable poll to me.


Sorry, taking one of two or three pictures showing white people protesting the name while ignoring the hundreds of pictures showing Native Americans protesting the name is cherry picking. Learn the phrase before you use it.

My picture showed a dozen people, yours showed 3. Its quite simple, you cherry picked.

The polls have plenty of value. Racism or the lack there of is a universal issue, it is not limited to Native Americans.

The first part of the post was fairly simple too. But don't worry about it, its apparent you won't understand.

[Texas Blueliner]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

1) keep redskins and make their logo a potato

2) keep logo and change name to warriors or something similar.


http://d1jrw5jterzxwu.cloudfront.net...s_redskins.jpg

Now that is true mockery. Gotta work on the Cleveland Indians logo next. Maybe just leave the feather? I'm sure the players wouldn't mind having that on their jersey.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

You seem hung up on the idea that because one leader brings all the tribal leaders that they all think the same thing, the fact stands that a give mind Ike that does not exist no matter how many times you say it does. Is this forum entirely full of flames fans? No, we all have different reasons for congregating here, to assume either of those is silly and wrong. You can't simultaneously assume everyone going to speak with Obama thinks the same thing and denounce polls because "we don't know these people". Wth that same logic we could say that we don't know these tribal leaders either.

You're saying two things, from what I can tell:

1. You read a poll (of questionable validity with little viable integrity) and you believe it's findings to be true enough that you've based much of your argument on it.

2. You have noted that the National Congress of American Indians, despite going to Washington to lobby against "Redskins", having their leader publicly denounce it, and spending money on media to further educate others on their view by having multiple tribe leaders personally speak out, may NOT have 100% support of their 566 tribe leaders, thus, it is unreliable.

Is that what you're saying? That the NCAI is unreliable because while they have a high enough majority to support decisions like going to Washington and voting in a leader that is outspokenly against Redskin, that there are STILL not enough people?

At worst, by your scenario, 51% of tribe leaders believe Redskins is offensive enough to use time and resources on. Isn't that all that you originally required? 51%?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Texas Blueliner

My picture showed a dozen people, yours showed 3. Its quite simple, you cherry picked.



The polls have plenty of value. Racism or the lack there of is a universal issue, it is not limited to Native Americans.



The first part of the post was fairly simple too. But don't worry about it, its apparent you won't understand.

So any old poll is good enough huh? You're not much into being critical of data? Just whatever is put in front of you is good enough to eat?

To be abundantly clear, my problem is not with polls. Polls are valuable, polls can provide insight, polls can act as a small sliver of popular opinion. My problem is with the main polls being bandied about. They made no effort to poll strictly Native Americans (or Native Americans at all) and thus are useless in an attempt to use them as a proper representation regarding the opinion of those people who actually matter.

I'm capable of understanding just fine, I'd honestly like you to attempt to explain to me just what you were getting at with the first part of your post.

EDIT: is this image better? (You're still using "cherry picking" wrong)


Or this one?
[IMG]http://media.nbcwashington.com/images/640*360/187287673.jpg[/IMG]

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by strombad

So any old poll is good enough huh? You're not much into being critical of data? Just whatever is put in front of you is good enough to eat?

To be abundantly clear, my problem is not with polls. Polls are valuable, polls can provide insight, polls can act as a small sliver of popular opinion. My problem is with the main polls being bandied about. They made no effort to poll strictly Native Americans (or Native Americans at all) and thus are useless in an attempt to use them as a proper representation regarding the opinion of those people who actually matter.

I'm capable of understanding just fine, I'd honestly like you to attempt to explain to me just what you were getting at with the first part of your post.

EDIT: is this image better? (You're still using "cherry picking" wrong)


Or this one?
[IMG]http://media.nbcwashington.com/images/640*360/187287673.jpg[/IMG]

Is there any reason you continue to dismiss the validity of the annenberg institue poll despite it explicitly stating that only respondents who identify themselves as Native were polled? The only critique that has been brought up is "how" Native they are (aka status, membership, or self identifying), not if they are Native. I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some natives want it changed, but there is no statistics at all to back up the statement that a majority want it changed. Nowhere in your article does it state they all want it changed, it just says that they will be attending. I would much rather base my argument off of a quantitative poll which did put an effort forward to select only Natives instead of a meeting where we haven't had a poll taken among the leaders.

[PaperBagger'14]

And would anyone also mind clarifying why some of these very same tribal leaders have schools under their jurisdiction who's sports teams are also named Redskins? Seems like a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[darthma]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

And would anyone also mind clarifying why some of these very same tribal leaders have schools under their jurisdiction who's sports teams are also named Redskins? Seems like a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

It's like the N-word - only African-Americans are allowed to use it amongst themselves. amirite?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by darthma

It's like the N-word - only African-Americans are allowed to use it amongst themselves. amirite?

There is no school in America who's team name is the N******. To use the word affectionately is one thing but to broadcast your school as the Redskins while trying to remove the Redskins name from a non native group is actually racist in itself.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

There is no school in America who's team name is the N******. To use the word affectionately is one thing but to broadcast your school as the Redskins while trying to remove the Redskins name from a non native group is actually racist in itself.

Why are you bothered by what people want to call themselves?

[Tinordi]

Losing an argument on CP?

No problem, just repeat this phrase:

Pot calling the kettle black

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Why are you bothered by what people want to call themselves?

I actually support them in calling their teams the redskins because it adds validity to my argument and makes the tribal leaders look hypocritical.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I would much rather base my argument off of a quantitative poll which did put an effort forward to select only Natives instead of a meeting where we haven't had a poll taken among the leaders.

So, once again:

- NCAI's public position is against the term "Redskins"
- NCAI's president and leadership group (voted in by members) are all publicly opposed to the name "Redskins"
- some of NCAI's members (566 tribe LEADERS across the United States) went to Washington with the express intent of lobbying against the name "Redskins"

- However, because you believe that SOME of the 566 tribe leaders MIGHT not care despite all 566 tribe leaders lobbying in Washington WITHOUT being forced to go, then the whole thing couldn't possibly represent how Native Americans feel better than a poll taken a decade ago where all people had to do was say they identified with "Indian"? (You're right, I didn't give the poll credit, instead of making no effort to poll Native Americans, they just required people identify with "Indian", the minimum amount of effort, I apologise).

A poll that represent 768 people a decade ago vs. NCAI (where every tribe and individual Indian gets a vote); the Cherokee, Oneida, Comanche, and Seminole tribes; all together representing over 1.2 million Native Americans of today... and you're going with the poll.

Sweet bro. Good chat then I guess.