Vigilance
Explorer
Here's the story:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2006-08-11-redskins-indians_x.htm?csp=25
So basically, I agree with what they're saying. What then? Is agreement with their position a reason to abandon/force the abandoning of the name? It really is offensive, I think the equivalent words for other groups would probably get me banned...
And for the record, my grandmother was Seminole, so I do have a somewhat personal opinion about the word itself. But I'm still not sure what it being offensive means...
Edit: To make clear what the point of this thread is, it isn't to discuss the politcs behind the word, the case or anything else.
My main question is, let's assume the plaintiffs are right about everything- it's offensive, no trademark should be allowed. So what then? I guess if there's no trademark you'd have to call the team something else since you couldnt really make money off it...
Chuck
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/redskins/2006-08-11-redskins-indians_x.htm?csp=25
So basically, I agree with what they're saying. What then? Is agreement with their position a reason to abandon/force the abandoning of the name? It really is offensive, I think the equivalent words for other groups would probably get me banned...
And for the record, my grandmother was Seminole, so I do have a somewhat personal opinion about the word itself. But I'm still not sure what it being offensive means...
Edit: To make clear what the point of this thread is, it isn't to discuss the politcs behind the word, the case or anything else.
My main question is, let's assume the plaintiffs are right about everything- it's offensive, no trademark should be allowed. So what then? I guess if there's no trademark you'd have to call the team something else since you couldnt really make money off it...
Chuck
Last edited: