Washington Redskins name trademark registration canceled - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45147457]Why did "Aboriginal" never catch on in the United States?[/QUOTE] I don't know if it's the cause, but if you ask any American what an Aboriginal is, they'll almost always tell you it's the black natives of Australia and there are none in the Americas.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;45149196]I feel like Chief Wahoo is probably more offensive than the name Redskins, if anything[/QUOTE] Fuck, don't remind me. Everyone loved Chief Wahoo here in Cleveland.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;45147457]Why did "Aboriginal" never catch on in the United States?[/QUOTE] Because it would be incorrect. American Indians weren't the first people to colonize the Americas, there was a group of people before them that would technically be the native "aboriginal" population. When the Indians came over from the land bridge and met the aboriginal population that existed, they massacred them and drove them all the way down to the tip of South America. You can still find a small population of people that descended from those aboriginal peoples down there, but not many and most have since mixed with other ethnicities.

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45150906]Because it would be incorrect. American Indians weren't the first people to colonize the Americas, there was a group of people before them that would technically be the native "aboriginal" population. When the Indians came over from the land bridge and met the aboriginal population that existed, they massacred them and drove them all the way down to the tip of South America. You can still find a small population of people that descended from those aboriginal peoples down there, but not many and most have since mixed with other ethnicities.[/QUOTE] uh do you have a source for this, never heard about it

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145239]This ruling makes sense. You can't trademark racial slurs.[/QUOTE] I may die doing this, but I shall prove you wrong some how...

[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;45150906]Because it would be incorrect. American Indians weren't the first people to colonize the Americas, there was a group of people before them that would technically be the native "aboriginal" population. When the Indians came over from the land bridge and met the aboriginal population that existed, they massacred them and drove them all the way down to the tip of South America. You can still find a small population of people that descended from those aboriginal peoples down there, but not many and most have since mixed with other ethnicities.[/QUOTE] Sounds like someone has been using the peyote

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45145645]"Indians" is an incorrect, supposedly offensive, term as well. Personally, I go with Amerindian.[/QUOTE] or just native americans its not painfully long and it's the most correct [QUOTE=dbk21894;45145281]but it wasnt a racial slur in the context it was used in[/QUOTE] exactly, now if you'll excuse me I gotta start a little league baseball team called the Darkies [QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45147421]I don't see how any white person could ever possibly be offended by that.[/QUOTE] maybe not in our current reality, but if things had unfolded like that don't you think it would be different? [QUOTE=darkrei9n;45147139]Yeah it would be, cause you know, the intent isn't meant to be offensive.[/QUOTE] How is that any sort of justification?

[QUOTE=Shadaez;45151124]uh do you have a source for this, never heard about it[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas[/url] I'm guessing he's talking about the Clovis culture. Apparently that theory has pretty much been disproven thanks to recent DNA testing. [quote]The data indicate that Anzick-1 is from a population directly ancestral to present South American and Central American Native American populations. This rules out hypotheses which posit that invasions subsequent to the Clovis culture overwhelmed or assimilated previous migrants into the Americas.[/quote]

How about we name the team after a species of fish! The Washington Sockeyes or Washington Jackfish. They could use this as the logo for the Sockeyes: [t]http://nativeamericans.phillipmartin.info/na_pnw_salmon_art.gif[/t]

[QUOTE=Shadaez;45151124]uh do you have a source for this, never heard about it[/QUOTE] Probably because you don't read about human history, archaeology and other things. [url]http://cosmosmagazine.com/news/did-australian-aborigines-reach-america-first/[/url] [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm[/url] And you can not be lazy and look up the history of Tierra Del Fuego. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45151183]Sounds like someone has been using the peyote[/QUOTE] I don't remember anyone asking how you got your fix, but thanks for sharing.

Just name their name to redskin potatoes, and change their logo to this. [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BV6eyv2CMAE3cWf.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;45147421]I don't see how any white person could ever possibly be offended by that.[/QUOTE] Yeah because white persons have been the oppressors since, like, the late middle ages at least. Of course you don't get offended because you KNOW you're in a position of power. For minorities, it's just another layer of bullshit and stereotyping they'll "have to live with" because a bunch of white people agreed that what another bunch of white people are doing isn't racist.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45153397]Yeah because white persons have been the oppressors since, like, the late middle ages at least. Of course you don't get offended because you KNOW you're in a position of power. For minorities, it's just another layer of bullshit and stereotyping they'll "have to live with" because a bunch of white people agreed that what another bunch of white people are doing isn't racist.[/QUOTE] I love how attributing the thoughts of white people to their whiteness isn't racist.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45153506]I love how attributing the thoughts of white people to their whiteness isn't racist.[/QUOTE] What does this even mean? I didn't attribute thoughts to whiteness. I attributed thoughts to a factual position of power, which is what white people tend to have in the first world.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45153613]What does this even mean? I didn't attribute thoughts to whiteness. I attributed thoughts to a factual position of power, which is what white people tend to have in the first world.[/QUOTE] He said that he wouldn't be offended if someone had done what you described in your scenario. You then completely discounted his words because he was white and it was impossible for him to think correctly on the subject as a white person. Maybe... just maybe... he actually wouldn't be offended?

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45153397]Yeah because white persons have been the oppressors since, like, the late middle ages at least. Of course you don't get offended because you KNOW you're in a position of power. For minorities, it's just another layer of bullshit and stereotyping they'll "have to live with" because a bunch of white people agreed that what another bunch of white people are doing isn't racist.[/QUOTE] White people have been slaves to you know... Be it in the Arabic Kingdoms of yester-century, or just simply when poorer white people were slaved to white land owners. Examples being but not limited: Russian Empire's serfs, United Kingdom's irish slaves, Danish Empire's norwegian slaves... I mean seriously. Slaves are not limited to one skin color, the only difference is that for some reason white Europeans had been killing each other for so long that it became extremely easy to invade non-technologically advanced civilizations and steam roll them with physical and biological warfare.

[QUOTE=sgman91;45153637]He said that he wouldn't be offended if someone had done what you described in your scenario. You then completely discounted his words because he was white and it was impossible for him to think correctly on the subject as a white person. Maybe... just maybe... he actually wouldn't be offended?[/QUOTE] No, he said he couldn't see how ANY white person would EVER be offended by that. Which is wrong; white people have been feeling offended for shit that's way more petty than that. If he isn't, good on him. He'd be able to overlook casual racism and let the majority make fun of him. But that doesn't mean everyone is or should be ok with that. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45153644]White people have been slaves to you know... Be it in the Arabic Kingdoms of yester-century, or just simply when poorer white people were slaved to white land owners. Examples being but not limited: Russian Empire's serfs, United Kingdom's irish slaves, Danish Empire's norwegian slaves... I mean seriously. Slaves are not limited to one skin color, the only difference is that for some reason white Europeans had been killing each other for so long that it became extremely easy to invade non-technologically advanced civilizations and steam roll them with physical and biological warfare.[/QUOTE] In all of these examples except the white slaves to the Arabic kingdoms, white people have been enslaving white people. It doesn't take away the fact that casual racism against people of colour is still a thing that is happening and is harmful this very day.

And casual racism doesn't exist against caucasians? Everyone has stereotypes and shit for each others, just how the world is man.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;45151348]or just native americans its not painfully long and it's the most correct [/QUOTE] Not entirely. I'm a native American. I was born in the Americas. But I don't have an ounce of blood from any of the people that were here before Columbus.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45153644]White people have been slaves to you know... Be it in the Arabic Kingdoms of yester-century, or just simply when poorer white people were slaved to white land owners. Examples being but not limited: Russian Empire's serfs, United Kingdom's irish slaves, Danish Empire's norwegian slaves... I mean seriously. Slaves are not limited to one skin color, the only difference is that for some reason white Europeans had been killing each other for so long that it became extremely easy to invade non-technologically advanced civilizations and steam roll them with physical and biological warfare.[/QUOTE] why do people even bring this shit up, i don't understand you tell them the historical truth of what white people has done to other colored people and how the minorities were wronged, and why minorities sees things differently than white people, then people bring up "UH UH, OTHER COUNTRIES, BARBARY, ETC." who the fuck cares about what other countries or nation did in this argument? did white people enslave, kill, and disenfranchise native americans? yes did many native americans get offended at the term 'redskins'? yes is it possible for people not to get offended because it isn't directed at them? yes there is no reason to bring up what other countries did, because it's historical truth that white people did bad things to native americans, period. and native americans are within their right to get offended

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;45153835] there is no reason to bring up what other countries did, because it's historical truth that white people did bad things to native americans, period. and native americans are within their right to get offended[/QUOTE] The past is another country. I have no affiliation with any of the people who massacred Amerindians 1492-1900. Hell, I didn't even have family in the US until the 1920s.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45153875]The past is another country. I have no affiliation with any of the people who massacred Amerindians 1492-1900. Hell, I didn't even have family in the US until the 1920s.[/QUOTE] okay, so what does this have to do with anything

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45153875]The past is another country. I have no affiliation with any of the people who massacred Amerindians 1492-1900. Hell, I didn't even have family in the US until the 1920s.[/QUOTE] so then you have absolute zero reason to care about the name of a sports team or about how people are upset by the name. [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45153695]And casual racism doesn't exist against caucasians? Everyone has stereotypes and shit for each others, just how the world is man.[/QUOTE] except it's never actually hurtful in any widespread or meaningful way. when someone calls you 'honky', there isn't centuries of systematic discrimination behind the term. context is important. [QUOTE=sgman91;45153637]He said that he wouldn't be offended if someone had done what you described in your scenario. You then completely discounted his words because he was white and it was impossible for him to think correctly on the subject as a white person. Maybe... just maybe... he actually wouldn't be offended?[/QUOTE] because he is unable to empathize with the situation as effectively as a person who has been on the end of potent racism. it's a matter of experience as a consequence of the circumstances created by one's race; context, unrelated to the genetic code of the person, and instead related to societal conditions.

how about you stay out of sports government ,ok?

[QUOTE=Native Hunter;45153979]how about you stay out of sports government ,ok?[/QUOTE] Good thing the government still regulates trademarking, though!

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;45153835]-snip-[/QUOTE] Dude I was quoting this post: [quote]Yeah because white persons have been the oppressors since, like, the late middle ages at least. Of course you don't get offended because you KNOW you're in a position of power. For minorities, it's just another layer of bullshit and stereotyping they'll "have to live with" because a bunch of white people agreed that what another bunch of white people are doing isn't racist[/quote] Also... Certain native american tribes have done horrible shit to European and African settlers, as well as other tribes(or their own!). One tribe does to another tribe as would one European country do to another. Hell even in the first page I was suggesting changing the team's name. My post was merely replying to the one guy's post.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;45153886]okay, so what does this have to do with anything[/QUOTE] "There is no reason to bring up what other countries did" Have you never heard the phrase, "The past is another country"?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45153781]Not entirely. I'm a native American. I was born in the Americas. But I don't have an ounce of blood from any of the people that were here before Columbus.[/QUOTE] If you really want to stretch the meaning of the word, I guess so. But it is widely accepted that "Indians" are ethnically native to the Americas. the Native Americans were here before anybody else, and that's why we consider them native.

(I really hope this isn't a 'video macro' as this pertains to the content in the thread. Pls no ban.) This video pretty much sums up this argument. [video=youtube;L9VMY8X9rU8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VMY8X9rU8&feature=kp[/video]

As an american indian I find the name incredibly offensive My dad, when he was in high school, was repeatedly called a "god damn redskin" more than he could count. This eventually spread until a ton of people would say this to him and his friends all throughout his time at school. So yes, calling someone a redskin is racist as shit and is very demeaning. This is basically like calling a team the California Darkies or something