Redskins: an improper name... now what?

[johnsemlak]

However, the Seminoles, from what I understand, have not had much of a problem with protests. Apparently, the tribe itself doesn't find the use of their name as a team name as offensive.

The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.

 

[johnsemlak]

There are and have been several washington-based professional teams with names other than 'Redskins'. The Senators, Capitols, the Eagles, the Potomics, the Grays, the Pilots (the latter three being old Negro League baseball teams), the Wave, the Slayers (a Rugby League team), the Statesmen, the Olympics, etc.

 

[Vigilance]

Does this mean that the White Sox are going to have to change thier name as well?

To the best of my knowledge White Sox is not a derogatory term to any group of people. I looked around for any racist connotations to the phrase White Sox and couldn't find any.

The issue, as explained in the article, is that US law prohibits business trademarks of racist names.

If you ask members of most tribes about the word redskin, the overwhelming reaction is that it's a racist term.

It's all in the specific term. There's no slippery slope here I'm aware of. It's the difference between calling a team the "Black Sox", which I don't thing anyone would mind and calling one the "Black Faces" with a mascot of a white man in blackface, which everyone would recognize as in poor taste.

Until a few years ago (I believe they halted the practice), the Redskins used to have someone dressed as a tribesman come out shirtless, with a spear, riding a horse down the sidelines before the games. They also used to dress their cheerleaders like squaws.

So the word itself, and the history of the team are the issues here.

I do have some sympathy with the current ownership though, who have removed just about all of that kind of nonsense from the team, really only retaining the chief's head symbol and not even using that very often (most of the time the team uses a stlized "R" with feathers now where the chief's head used to go).

Chuck

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

The university has an arrangement with the actual Seminole tribe, and they approve the use of the name and images.

Thing is about he "agreements" and such, the NCAA doesn't much care to apply a standard uniformly. Whether Florida State has an agreement or not with the tribe doesn't seem to matter a whit. The NCAA has given FSU approval to keep using the name and mascot, and that is why FSU can keep using it. The NCAA has been trying to purge Indian names from use and doesn't seem to be applying the standards uniformly.

Here is the University of North Dakota's President's tersely worded response to the NCAA back in June about the matter. UND's mascot is the Fighting Sioux and the NCAA has told them they must stop using it even though the nearest Sioux tribe gave them written permission, no tribe in the state is offended at the use, and a hundred times more Indian students attend UND vs. FSU.

UND is now suing the NCAA over the issue.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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...

Almost, but not quite.

They can continue operating the team profitably under that name without the protection of trademark, but there will be consequences:

1) Someone else could name a professional football team "The Redskins." OK- given the context of the discussion, that's not too likely.

2) They couldn't defend their team's likenesses in court if someone decided to produce counterfeit merchandise. This is the real problem. Merchandising is where a lot of the owners make real money. A lot of pro sports merchandise has trademarks other than that of the team itself, though. In this case, it would be things like the NFC logo, the NFL logo, and some others. THOSE entities could defend their rights, if they so chose...but not the team.

3) Continued loss of goodwill devalues the intrinsic value in the team should it ever come up for resale. This matters as well- the Redskins and their corporate holdings are among the biggest pile 'o loot in pro sports.

 

[Vigilance]

Yeah, I think the UND case is a different animal altogether.

In fact use of actual tribal names is usually ok with me, not that I speak for everyone or anything. It really depends a lot on how it's handled- as the UND letter notes, things are different when a white guy painted red rides out with a flaming spear.

That sort of "mascot" shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[Mimic]

So the word itself, and the history of the team are the issues here.

Yes, obviously what I said was very tongue in cheek but you do touch on the point I am trying to make. Its just a word, the owners aren't trying to make it racist, as you said they have distanced themselves in almost every way besides the name and logo.

Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as squaws, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole. Which would be pretty much would be stupid since they are trying to show how great the team is. Does it make me a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween?

It's all in the specific term. There's no slippery slope here I'm aware of. It's the difference between calling a team the "Black Sox", which I don't thing anyone would mind and calling one the "Black Faces" with a mascot of a white man in blackface, which everyone would recognize as in poor taste.

I can't say for certain but I am pretty sure that someone would get offended if there was a team called the "Black Sox". And although the name the Red Skins may be in poor taste does that make it racist? What if the current owner was a Native American?

They in no way shape or form are they trying to be racist so even though some may not like it shouldn't they have to tolerate it? Isn't that what tolerate means?

 

[Vigilance]

Almost, but not quite.

They can continue operating the team profitably under that name without the protection of trademark, but there will be consequences:

1) Someone else could name a professional football team "The Redskins." OK- given the context of the discussion, that's not too likely.

2) They couldn't defend their team's likenesses in court if someone decided to produce counterfeit merchandise. This is the real problem. Merchandising is where a lot of the owners make real money. A lot of pro sports merchandise has trademarks other than that of the team itself, though. In this case, it would be things like the NFC logo, the NFL logo, and some others. THOSE entities could defend their rights, if they so chose...but not the team.

3) Continued loss of goodwill devalues the intrinsic value in the team should it ever come up for resale. This matters as well- the Redskins and their corporate holdings are among the biggest pile 'o loot in pro sports.

Right, based on #2, which would allow anyone to make knock-off Jerseys, hats, decals etc I am considering revocation of trademark as something that would force them to change the nickname themselves.

I don't see them continuing with a nickname they couldn't protect and market exclusively and I'm sure the plaintiffs think this as well.

 

[Vigilance]

Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as squaws, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole. Which would be pretty much would be stupid since they are trying to show how great the team is. Does it make me a racist if I dress up as an Indian for Halloween?

So, performing in blackface is ok? Having white men dress up like Chinese with big fake buck teeth and speaking in an exaggerated way "ahhhh yes numba one son"... is ok?

Dressing up like a member of a racial group and then acting in racially stereotypical ways is racism.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Personally I don't see the big deal of having someone dress up as tribesman or having the cheerleaders dress up as squaws, unless it was to deliberately try and humilite Indians on a whole.

Well, the word "squaw" itself has a highly controversial history. Many places around the country with "squaw" in the name have been renamed because of Indian activists pointing out the word's origin and history.