The U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment an appeal by a group of Native American activists that claims that the Washington Redskins' team name is "offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype," USA Today reported this morning.
The team started using the Redskins name in 1933; and the trademark was first issued in 1967. The Native American group filed its lawsuit in 1992.
The Supreme Court’s decision lets stand a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the activists waited too long to challenge the trademark.
How much good money did these "activists" glean from their respective tribes for their junket?
ReplyDeleteWere they just plain "activists" or were they "community activists"? The people want to know.
I guess we now know that it is too late to sue the Minnesota Vikings.
Well considering Indians couldn't even vote until 1968 AND were not aloud to have self governance until the mid 1980's, I think 24 years is remarkable considering this challange is taking on a mutlti million dollar corporation representing the Nations Capital.
ReplyDeleteIf this was a "black" issue I guarantee it would be reversed. The Supreme Court got this one wrong. This is institutionalized Racism.
Now what? Do we have to "wait" another 100 years to get an Indian or someone with a brain appointed to the Supreme Court of our native homeland? Taxas.
ReplyDeleteOh, I get it.....so, while we were starving, getting terminatied, getting relocated, having our women sterilized without their knowledge in Indian Health service clinics..having our languages terminated, our children stolen or adopted out to strangers....SOMEHOW we were somehow suppose to remember to say no to the racist mascots and logos. I dont think theres a term limit on racism. African Americans and others dont think theres a term limit either..they are still pushing for reparations from slavery and other hideous US policies.
ReplyDeleteHow bout we wait too long to pay all thec compact dollars everyone counts on to balance their state budgets ...how bout them apples eh?
How in the world is the name of a ball team perjorative of it's namesake?!? Someone please use some logic. The reason the Supreme Court tossed the complaint out is because it ipso facto makes no sense. Just because the plaintiffs said the the name is "offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype..." does not make it so in actuality.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember we are talking about Liberty here. These activists somehow believe that their self-esteem supercedes the Liberty of others, in this case the Washington Redskins, to name themselves. How ridiculous! Or rather, how gullible can anyone be to allow their "feelings" to become so riled as to fall for such poor argument.
There are true offenses that ought to be addressed. And those who waste time and money taking offense at this kind of thing are more interested in taking time and money - and they take plenty of it - than they are about promoting justice.
I challenge American Indian Report to report on the cost of this whole effort. Follow the money; tell us who got paid and how much. Let's see the records.
That "one cannot conceive of a sports team called the Nashville Niggers or the San Francisco Spics" proves the point that the term "Redskin" is not an equivalent slur. That one may say it is, does not make it so. A study of the etymology of the word clearly shows that it IS NOT so. Usage in context and in history, not one's feelings, will determine whether or not a word is perjorative.
ReplyDeleteThe question again, in new terms: In what way does a ball team naming itself "Redskins" constitute a perpetration of a "crime of hatred"? Really? An NFL franchise named itself "Washington Redskins" because of hatred toward Native Americans?
Undoubtedly there are some who take offense at my arguments. Does that mean I am committing a crime? And therefore I have forfeited my liberty to speak my piece? And because it hurts someones self-esteem it's not only a crime but a crime of hatred, to boot?
The only slippery slope here is the one to tyranny by those who think they have a right to curtail anyone's freedom because they are offended over a word, just because they say so.