Jurrah basically saying it's gonna be on sponsors to make this happen, losing the trademark won't matter that much.
Quote:
"All owners share the economic benefit of our marks," he said. "To the extent that all owners are not protected as much as we were, it implies that there would be a financial consequence. Certainly, they are impacted. To the degree that it would cause another owner to get into the business of the Redskins, I doubt it. I don't see it being of that consequence economically. I don't see it as having enough economic consequences to create any inertia.
"But that's not to address anything about anybody's opinion, one way or another."
i go back and fourth on this issue becasue when I think of the Redskins, I think aboutt eh football team, not native americans. the logo itself seems to depcit someone who is strong and proud (if you can get that from a logo).
it seems like there will be pressure from many directions for Synder to make this change.
to date, I beleive the NFL/roger Godell has been very quiet about this - but I'd assume that there have been some discreet phone calls made.
It will be interesting to see if the Skins change their name, which team will be next to be pressured into changing its name.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
He touches on a lot of interesting points such as: White people shouldn't be telling them to be offended, or to not be offended and Native named teams and mascots do fuel a feeling of pride for some Native Americans.
The only part where I may not see eye to eye with him is that he states that it is probably a small minority of Native Americans that are offended or even care about the name, but thinks that is reason enough to change it. That's the only part where I am on the fence, as I am not really sure what the threshold is of how many are being offended.
If they change the name, so be it. Probably better just to end the distraction at this point. But it is not nothing either. The reasons for folllowing sports is pretty irrational, but the names and brands are a big part of it. If for whatever reason the Flames lost their name, or the NHL couldn't use the Stanley Cup any more, that would be a big loss to a lot of people. The names and brands are a big part of tradition. Redskins are a pretty long and storied franchise. Brands like Cowboys, Yankees, Super Bowl, Red Sox etc all build a probably irrational emotional tie to why we follow those sports.
1-Walk up to a large Scandanavian, call them a Viking, then check his teeth
2-Walk up to a large Irishman, call him Celtic, then check his teeth
3-Walk up to a large African American, call him N-Word, then check teeth
4-Walk up to a large Aboriginal, call him a Redskin, then check remaining teeth
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
1-Walk up to a large Scandanavian, call them a Viking, then check his teeth
2-Walk up to a large Irishman, call him Celtic, then check his teeth
3-Walk up to a large African American, call him N-Word, then check teeth
4-Walk up to a large Aboriginal, call him a Redskin, then check remaining teeth
Wouldn't work. He'd argue that despite being punches by the Native American he didn't lose any teeth from the punch. Mind you they'd all have been previously knocked out by the African American.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
To me, the issue seems pretty simple. Go up to a Native American and call him a red skin. Would he take offense to it, or would he think you were calling him a proud warrior? My guess, he takes offense to it. It's a racist label, no matter how some people here try to spin it like it isn't. So change the freaking name already.
I think that the sponsors are the key...if the public tells the sponsors of the Washington Professional Football Franchise that they will no longer do business with them due to their endorsement...it will change.
If you can't hit them in their morals...hit them in the wallet
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
The Following User Says Thank You to Fozzie_DeBear For This Useful Post:
The only part where I may not see eye to eye with him is that he states that it is probably a small minority of Native Americans that are offended or even care about the name, but thinks that is reason enough to change it. That's the only part where I am on the fence, as I am not really sure what the threshold is of how many are being offended.
What percentage of a group needs to be offended for something to change or removed? 10% 25% 50%?
If 20% of animal lovers are against the rodeo should the Calgary Stampede be cancelled? If 35% of BC residents don't want a pipeline should it be cancelled?
what percentage of a group needs to be offended for something to change or removed? 10% 25% 50%?
If 20% of animal lovers are against the rodeo should the calgary stampede be cancelled? If 35% of bc residents don't want a pipeline should it be cancelled?
17%
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
What percentage of a group needs to be offended for something to change or removed? 10% 25% 50%?
If 20% of animal lovers are against the rodeo should the Calgary Stampede be cancelled? If 35% of BC residents don't want a pipeline should it be cancelled?
You can't look at the situation like that.
All matters of oppression begin with one side overwhelmingly outnumbering the other. Otherwise it couldn't happen. Slavery wouldn't happen without popular support. But ultimately, you can't put human rights up to a vote. You have to do the right thing.
Now I know you'll say 'how does this name oppress them?' But it is a racist term that came from when the group was oppressed. It's part of the problem. And that is outside of whether you feel they are still being oppressed in other ways.
