Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 273
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Alright, fuck it. What should they be called? I'll go for "Warriors." They wouldn't even have to change the uniforms much.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    1,921
    "Losers" sounds appropriate.
    Did the last unsatisfied fat soccer mom you took to your mom's basement call you a fascist? -irul&ublo
    Don't Taze me bro.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    5,215
    Quote Originally Posted by HansJob View Post
    "Losers" sounds appropriate.
    Ha, good one. But, won't roughly 99% of the population be offended? I'm going by PR standards for the %age.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    funny thing is, changing the name would give them an opportunity to sell a whole boatload of new merchandise!
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mental Vacation!
    Posts
    2,392
    Why is white and black acceptable but red and yellow not? Just kinda odd when you think about it.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SkiTalk.com
    Posts
    3,369
    I think the native americans are more embarrassed to be associated with the word "Washington" than the use of Redskin.
    Click. Point. Chute.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    19,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Flexon Phil View Post
    I think the native americans are more embarrassed to be associated with the word "Washington" than the use of Redskin.
    I know...right??? Are the Injuns up in arms over that name? If the world has to be all PC, I guess I need to sue Keebler for naming stuff "Crackers".
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    Quote Originally Posted by iceman View Post
    My understanding is pretty vague but I believe that they are genetically and historically a different group of people than Indians and that they don't consider themselves to be Indians.
    I still don't think there's one true definition of Indian, but a little googling shows that you are generally correct. They may not use the word Indian to reference themselves (most often referenced generally as "Alaska Natives", which I'd heard, but didn't know that they did not consider themselves to be "Indian"). But digging further, the video was put together/sponsored by NCAI.org, which includes Alaska Natives as part of its general advocacy (and they have a spot on its executive board) so that explains their inclusion, I bet.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    It's both a little clearer and a little more confusing in Canada. Clearer because they officially consider 3 groups, the Inuit, the Metis and First Nations (what we would call Indians or Native Americans) to be the "Aboriginal Peoples of Canada". but more confusing because they have also decided that "Eskimo" is perjorative, but it was the only collective word that described the 3 different Arctic peoples (the Inuit are one of those 3 groups, along with the Yupik and Inupiat), so calling all of them "Inuit" is actually wrong.

    To make it even more confusing, the Metis are considered to be an aboriginal people, but they are essentially the product of cross-breeding of Europeans and Aboriginal peoples, including the Inuit, Yupik and Inupiat peoples. So the Metis are really 4 groups, which is confusing but better than it used to be because they used to subdivide them further into French- and English-speaking Metis, which they've now given up on.

    What you would have if say XXX-er (asian but with a white grandfather) had a kid with a Metis woman is way too complicated to even think about.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada eh
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Labcabin View Post
    Why is white and black acceptable but red and yellow not? Just kinda odd when you think about it.
    interesting point

    is Cleveland getting the same heat for the name or just the logo ? I think the name/term Indian is not offensive or Redskin but unlike Cleveland's logo, Washington's is a proud and dignified representation of the race...IMO

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Shuswap Highlands
    Posts
    4,346
    To the best of my knowledge (somewhat dated 1st Nations referral seminars), the Yupik and Inupiat are wholly contained within Alaska, and Canada only contains Inuit (as these peoples relate to Canada's treaty negotiations). I think there is some overlap between the Inupiat and Inuit peoples in Alaska and NWT that in Canada we call Inuvialuit (a subgroup of the western Inuit).

    I've never been able to sort out the distinction of Métis, and I think the most common means of designation is to be accepted by their respective Métis community as a Métis (and such verification is approved by the Canadian Metis Council).

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Satch View Post
    interesting point

    is Cleveland getting the same heat for the name or just the logo ? I think the name/term Indian is not offensive or Redskin but unlike Cleveland's logo, Washington's is a proud and dignified representation of the race...IMO
    Cleveland gets heat for the logo, but I don't think the name itself causes consternation (similarly, Atlanta). And I think you're right, it's primarily the name in Washington that is the problem.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    49,306
    Quote Originally Posted by BCMountainHound View Post
    To the best of my knowledge (somewhat dated 1st Nations referral seminars), the Yupik and Inupiat are wholly contained within Alaska, and Canada only contains Inuit (as these peoples relate to Canada's treaty negotiations). I think there is some overlap between the Inupiat and Inuit peoples in Alaska and NWT that in Canada we call Inuvialuit (a subgroup of the western Inuit).

    I've never been able to sort out the distinction of Métis, and I think the most common means of designation is to be accepted by their respective Métis community as a Métis (and such verification is approved by the Canadian Metis Council).
    Interesting. I never even heard of the Inuvialuit. Google tells me that you are correct about the Inupiat but that the Yupik also live in Siberia.

    also that there are Metis groups in several northern US states, which I didn't know.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ontario Canada eh
    Posts
    4,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Alright, fuck it. What should they be called? I'll go for "Warriors." They wouldn't even have to change the uniforms much.
    that's a most excellent name but I say don't change the name

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,002
    http://thinkprogress.org/default/201...football-team/

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language.

    The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.

    “We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion.

    “The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans. The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place,” Jesse Witten, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a press release. “We presented a wide variety of evidence – including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups – to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur.”

    “I am extremely happy that the [Board] ruled in our favor,” Blackhorse said in a statement. “It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans. We filed our petition eight years ago and it has been a tough battle ever since. I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed. The team’s name is racist and derogatory. I’ve said it before and I will say it again – if people wouldn’t dare call a Native American a ‘redskin’ because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?”

    The Trial and Appeals Board previously rescinded the team’s trademark protections as part of a case filed in 1992. A federal court later overturned the ruling on appeal due to a technicality that the plaintiffs say has been fixed in this most recent case.

    We will update this post with more information.
    Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands, WA.
    Posts
    1,188
    Should they change it to Rich Casino Owners (who live in trailers with a $60,000 pick ups parked outside)?

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    17,749
    Quote Originally Posted by refried View Post
    Should they change it to Rich Casino Owners (who live in trailers with a $60,000 pick ups parked outside)?


    Redskins are also a type of peanut and Virginia, which is nearby, is big in peanuts...perhaps keep the name and change the logo to a peanut?

    "timberridge is terminally vapid" -- a fortune cookie in Yueyang

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands, WA.
    Posts
    1,188
    can you be a racist if your part indian? I just wish I could get on the casino deal. I could use a new truck.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    in a box on the porch
    Posts
    5,215
    Interesting, does this mean you would be able to use NWA songs without paying royalties? For that matter, any movie that has any racist or derogatory scenes.

    Quote Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd View Post
    http://thinkprogress.org/default/201...football-team/

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language.

    The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.

    “We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion.

    “The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans. The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place,” Jesse Witten, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a press release. “We presented a wide variety of evidence – including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups – to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur.”

    “I am extremely happy that the [Board] ruled in our favor,” Blackhorse said in a statement. “It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans. We filed our petition eight years ago and it has been a tough battle ever since. I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed. The team’s name is racist and derogatory. I’ve said it before and I will say it again – if people wouldn’t dare call a Native American a ‘redskin’ because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?”

    The Trial and Appeals Board previously rescinded the team’s trademark protections as part of a case filed in 1992. A federal court later overturned the ruling on appeal due to a technicality that the plaintiffs say has been fixed in this most recent case.

    We will update this post with more information.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    9,002
    Quote Originally Posted by refried View Post
    can you be a racist if your part indian? I just wish I could get on the casino deal. I could use a new truck.
    Don't most "indians" not refer to themselves as Indians?
    Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    San Juan Islands, WA.
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd View Post
    Don't most "indians" not refer to themselves as Indians?
    I'm mostly Irish how do I know, Being born in Boston and being mostly Irish every other nationality gets canceled out.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    Quote Originally Posted by skiballs View Post
    Interesting, does this mean you would be able to use NWA songs without paying royalties? For that matter, any movie that has any racist or derogatory scenes.
    That's copyright law, not trademark.

    Quote Originally Posted by systemoverblow'd View Post
    Don't most "indians" not refer to themselves as Indians?
    IME, most Indians refer to themselves as Indians. It might not be technically accurate, and the PC police might have created "Native American" in its place, but Indian is still an acceptable term.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    27,308
    Why don't they just change the fucking name? I don't remember much outrage when the Bullets became the Wizards. What difference does it make? The name Redskins is clearly offensive. Just imagine if there was a team called the Niggers. I don't see how Redskins is any less offensive.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in the PRB
    Posts
    32,785
    Quote Originally Posted by The AD View Post
    Why don't they just change the fucking name? I don't remember much outrage when the Bullets became the Wizards. What difference does it make? The name Redskins is clearly offensive. Just imagine if there was a team called the Niggers. I don't see how Redskins is any less offensive.
    Oh, you, with that silly irrefutable logic.
    "fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
    "She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
    "everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •