Patent Office Revokes Redskins Trademarks...

[DukePA]

I think that the mascot should be gone. There is one thing to consider when comparing Native American mascots to the Celtics or the Fighting Irish, Native Americans were, and are, oppressed by the majority. Irish descendants are among the white majority of this country. Sure they hard time when they were immigrants, just as other Caucasian groups did, but as time has passed, they have assimilated into the majority culture. I don't believe it's okay to exploit minorities and this is exactly what is happening with the use of Native American mascots. The Redskins and other organizations are raking in the money. If they really care about Native Americans, how about doing something to help the tribes, or at a minimum, treat them with respect and stop exploiting them.

[Very Duke Blue]

I think that the mascot should be gone. There is one thing to consider when comparing Native American mascots to the Celtics or the Fighting Irish, Native Americans were, and are, oppressed by the majority. Irish descendants are among the white majority of this country. Sure they hard time when they were immigrants, just as other Caucasian groups did, but as time has passed, they have assimilated into the majority culture. I don't believe it's okay to exploit minorities and this is exactly what is happening with the use of Native American mascots. The Redskins and other organizations are raking in the money. If they really care about Native Americans, how about doing something to help the tribes, or at a minimum, treat them with respect and stop exploiting them.

"LIKE"

[TillyGalore]

I think that the mascot should be gone. There is one thing to consider when comparing Native American mascots to the Celtics or the Fighting Irish, Native Americans were, and are, oppressed by the majority. Irish descendants are among the white majority of this country. Sure they hard time when they were immigrants, just as other Caucasian groups did, but as time has passed, they have assimilated into the majority culture. I don't believe it's okay to exploit minorities and this is exactly what is happening with the use of Native American mascots. The Redskins and other organizations are raking in the money. If they really care about Native Americans, how about doing something to help the tribes, or at a minimum, treat them with respect and stop exploiting them.

I think okaying the use of one culture's identity, for lack of a better word, as a mascot but not another's is hypocritical. And while the Irish are accepted in society today more so than 100 years ago, we were not able to get jobs a 100 years ago, and the English handling of the potato famine is considered genocide in some circles. Heck, there were laws that Irish could not even own land in Ireland. To swipe it under the rug because we are no longer oppressed is a bit offensive. It's like saying "well, it's not happening today so let's not worry about." And, if you were an Irish Catholic, that was even worse than being just Irish both here and in Ireland. My paternal grandmother did not like my mother because she is Irish and Catholic. But, my grandmother's dead so I guess alls well that ends well.

I don't know if you were referring to my post, but I did not compare Native American mascots to anyones. The point I was trying to make was that Windsor said she does not favor a team name such as "Native Americans," nor would she support team names "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs." I don't find offensive any of those terms offensive, and we do accept Celtic and Fighting Irish as team names because they are not derogatory they are descriptors. Native American, African, Asian, and Arab are all descriptors as well. If "we" as a society are going to allow Celtic and Irish to be used as team names, then I see nothing wrong with using other ethnic/race descriptors like "Native American," "African," "Asian," or "Arab." I NEVER compared using Native American mascots, just the term "Native American" as a team mascot as per Windsor's post.

Some Native American groups are active with the mascots some schools use, like FSU. I refer to Windsor's post above or on the previous page.

[August West]

Here is my sister's perspective on the matter. (For the record, we have Cherokee ancestors and she is very active in the Native American community.)

Dana Shelton Gates- I SO don't get peoples' thinking when they think/claim that it is ok to have a mascot such as Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles and of course, Washington Redskins. Is it an inability to open one's mind and ask "If so many are so upset at the continued exploitation maybe there's a reason." As far as the claims that it is a respectful reverence for Native people, how is it respectful to have a mascot with buck teeth and a stupid smile respectful? If it's ok, then it must be Ok to have mascots that are African American and Asian American. Everybody knows how wrong it to dress in blackface, why can't they see that Native Mascots are the same kind of racism?

Tell me how it was OK one of my friends little brother who had always been told he was Cherokee to be referred to as Indian in the first grade and burst into tears respond "I'm not Indian". As I said, he knew he was Cherokee. All he knew about Indian was the often depicted cartoon character of a stupid indian. And thats just one of the damaging things that happens with continued Native Mascots.

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME! Then there's Thanksgiving. A holiday beloved by many of all races including many Natives. I simply say let's teach the real truth in our schools. Pilgrims were the first welfare recipients. Many Natives view this holiday as a day of mourning. It is a sad reflection on the American education system when so much Native history is swept under the rug. After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!

A small correction, the Cincinnati Reds name has nothing to do with Native Americans. It is a shorter version of Cincinnati Red Stockings or Cincinnati Red Legs which referred to the hosiery they wore with their uniforms. AW.

[Lavabe]

A small correction, the Cincinnati Reds name has nothing to do with Native Americans. It is a shorter version of Cincinnati Red Stockings or Cincinnati Red Legs which referred to the hosiery they wore with their uniforms. AW.

Yes, and they became the Redlegs in the 1950s during the McCarthy hearings. No one wanted to be called REDS then.
Could you imagine what it would be like to have both the Red Stockings and the Red Sox in the majors at the same time?

[bjornolf]

Here is my sister's perspective on the matter. (For the record, we have Cherokee ancestors and she is very active in the Native American community.)

Dana Shelton Gates- I SO don't get peoples' thinking when they think/claim that it is ok to have a mascot such as Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles and of course, Washington Redskins. Is it an inability to open one's mind and ask "If so many are so upset at the continued exploitation maybe there's a reason." As far as the claims that it is a respectful reverence for Native people, how is it respectful to have a mascot with buck teeth and a stupid smile respectful? If it's ok, then it must be Ok to have mascots that are African American and Asian American. Everybody knows how wrong it to dress in blackface, why can't they see that Native Mascots are the same kind of racism?

Tell me how it was OK one of my friends little brother who had always been told he was Cherokee to be referred to as Indian in the first grade and burst into tears respond "I'm not Indian". As I said, he knew he was Cherokee. All he knew about Indian was the often depicted cartoon character of a stupid indian. And thats just one of the damaging things that happens with continued Native Mascots.

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME! Then there's Thanksgiving. A holiday beloved by many of all races including many Natives. I simply say let's teach the real truth in our schools. Pilgrims were the first welfare recipients. Many Natives view this holiday as a day of mourning. It is a sad reflection on the American education system when so much Native history is swept under the rug. After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!

I have to admit my vast confusion by people of Native descent getting so angry about the use of the term "Indian", who then say in all caps things like "YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!". Seriously, I've seen so many Native American elders and activists referring to themselves as Indians or having organizations with Indian in the title in the last few months, it makes my head spin. I have two friends from a reservation in Arizona, and I have asked them this, and they don't get it either. My wife, who is part Cherokee, doesn't get it either. Can you explain it?

[windsor]

Here is my sister's perspective on the matter. (For the record, we have Cherokee ancestors and she is very active in the Native American community.)

Dana Shelton Gates- I SO don't get peoples' thinking when they think/claim that it is ok to have a mascot such as Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles and of course, Washington Redskins. Is it an inability to open one's mind and ask "If so many are so upset at the continued exploitation maybe there's a reason." As far as the claims that it is a respectful reverence for Native people, how is it respectful to have a mascot with buck teeth and a stupid smile respectful? If it's ok, then it must be Ok to have mascots that are African American and Asian American. Everybody knows how wrong it to dress in blackface, why can't they see that Native Mascots are the same kind of racism?

Tell me how it was OK one of my friends little brother who had always been told he was Cherokee to be referred to as Indian in the first grade and burst into tears respond "I'm not Indian". As I said, he knew he was Cherokee. All he knew about Indian was the often depicted cartoon character of a stupid indian. And thats just one of the damaging things that happens with continued Native Mascots.

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME! Then there's Thanksgiving. A holiday beloved by many of all races including many Natives. I simply say let's teach the real truth in our schools. Pilgrims were the first welfare recipients. Many Natives view this holiday as a day of mourning. It is a sad reflection on the American education system when so much Native history is swept under the rug. After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!

I have to admit my vast confusion by people of Native descent getting so angry about the use of the term "Indian", who then say in all caps things like "YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!". Seriously, I've seen so many Native American elders and activists referring to themselves as Indians or having organizations with Indian in the title in the last few months, it makes my head spin. I have two friends from a reservation in Arizona, and I have asked them this, and they don't get it either. My wife, who is part Cherokee, doesn't get it either. Can you explain it?

I think it is a matter of context. Or it is like the N word. Or like my dog training dinner posse - we are the Winey Bitches, but I would advised against calling me a whiny bitch.

I actually like Canada's use of 'First People' and First Nations much better.

[bjornolf]

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME!

I have to say that I don't think that they are trying to dress up as a race, but as a specific character of history/mythology from our nation, such as a warrior, chief, or princess. A decent percentage of costumes you see could be viewed as turning a race into a costume if desired. At least most of the Native American costumes I see are worn by kids who think they're cool and want to honor it. Every costume I see of an Irishman involves making fun of some poor drunken sot. Now, I agree that most of the adult Native American costumes are pretty tasteless, but most of the adult costumes I see in general are pretty tasteless.

Again, though, it's not my place to tell people what should or should not offend them, but if these costumes are so bad, then why are Native Americans not suing the costume companies? Or the Walmart and Toys R Us of the world that still sell Native American style bow and arrow sets to play games with?

After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!

The really interesting thing is that archeologists have started analyzing evidence that "Native Americans" came over the land bridge and found people of African descent who came over several thousand years before and kicked THEM out. Mind boggling. We'll have to see where that leads.

[bjornolf]

Here is my sister's perspective on the matter. (For the record, we have Cherokee ancestors and she is very active in the Native American community.)

Dana Shelton Gates- I SO don't get peoples' thinking when they think/claim that it is ok to have a mascot such as Cincinnati Reds, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles and of course, Washington Redskins. Is it an inability to open one's mind and ask "If so many are so upset at the continued exploitation maybe there's a reason." As far as the claims that it is a respectful reverence for Native people, how is it respectful to have a mascot with buck teeth and a stupid smile respectful? If it's ok, then it must be Ok to have mascots that are African American and Asian American. Everybody knows how wrong it to dress in blackface, why can't they see that Native Mascots are the same kind of racism?

Tell me how it was OK one of my friends little brother who had always been told he was Cherokee to be referred to as Indian in the first grade and burst into tears respond "I'm not Indian". As I said, he knew he was Cherokee. All he knew about Indian was the often depicted cartoon character of a stupid indian. And thats just one of the damaging things that happens with continued Native Mascots.

While we're at it, what about Halloween? I have been sick of seeing kids and people dressed up as Natives for years. I mean come on! RACE IS NOT A COSTUME! Then there's Thanksgiving. A holiday beloved by many of all races including many Natives. I simply say let's teach the real truth in our schools. Pilgrims were the first welfare recipients. Many Natives view this holiday as a day of mourning. It is a sad reflection on the American education system when so much Native history is swept under the rug. After all.......if you are in the United States, guess what?
YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!

I have to admit my vast confusion by people of Native descent getting so angry about the use of the term "Indian", who then say in all caps things like "YOU'RE IN INDIAN COUNTRY BRO!!!!!!". Seriously, I've seen so many Native American elders and activists referring to themselves as Indians or having organizations with Indian in the title in the last few months, it makes my head spin. I have two friends from a reservation in Arizona, and I have asked them this, and they don't get it either. My wife, who is part Cherokee, doesn't get it either. Can you explain it?

I think it is a matter of context. Or it is like the N word. Or like my dog training dinner posse - we are the Winey Bitches, but I would advised against calling me a whiny bitch.

I actually like Canada's use of 'First People' and First Nations much better.

The problem is that the N word was an accepted term, even used by the people it referred to, for hundreds of years, that was a bastardization of the word "negro", Spanish for black, and is thus, at least, in a messed up way, descriptive. It was gotten rid of because of it's denegrating nature, not its inaccuracy as a descriptor (purely as a word, not the connotations it creates).

Indian was an accident that Columbus made thinking he was in the West Indies. It'd be like calling Mexicans Italian, the Mexicans getting mad about it and railing against it, getting rid of the term, then calling themselves Italians amongst themselves. I just think it is extremely confusing to people trying to understand the whole situation. My friends hate the use of the Cleveland Indians' name because, as they say, "we're not from India." But then why do such offended parties refer to themselves as Indians (my friends don't, by the way, and get mad at their fellow Native Americans who do)?

Believe me, I am not trying to start anything here. I'm trying to understand.

[windsor]

I don't consider "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs" to be offensive terms, they are factual descriptors of where a person comes from. If we are going to go down the road of taking any type of potentially offensive term, like Celtic or Fighting Irish, out of mascot names, where do we draw the line? Are animal rights groups going to start stirring the pot because some animals are mascots, particularly animals that are considered endangered species?

I am not trying to escalate things, just adding to the conversation.

I did not say they were offensive. My point was that I can't imagine 'Africans' etc being considered as a team name.


If the Tampa Bay Rays baseball team were to relocate somewhere else would Redskins or Indians be even considered as a team name?
I believe the answer is 'NO' - primarily because we have evolved in our sensibilities. If it would not be considered OK for a new team to be the Redskins then I can not see how it is ok for an old one. . Even Miss. State got rid of 'Colonel Reb'.

Animal rights groups? Really? So racial slurs are OK because you know, if we don't stop it somewhere it might extend to Gooey Ducks and then evergreen state would be screwed?

Evergreen-State-University-Geoduck-mascot---27156500.jpg (23.52 KiB) Viewed 546 times

[Lavabe]

The really interesting thing is that archeologists have started analyzing evidence that "Native Americans" came over the land bridge and found people of African descent who came over several thousand years before and kicked THEM out. Mind boggling. We'll have to see where that leads.

Umm, no. This is HIGHLY speculative and doesn't jibe with the genetic and archaeological evidence. One anthropologist suggested that an early skull looked like that of Africans or Pacific Islanders. As a physical anthropologist, the problem with that is that you are asssuming a much higher degree of accuracy of being able to judge ancestry based on skull shape than is currently the case. It also tends to assume that there's little within-group variation in human. That puppy just won't fly. And what's even more important, many Palaeoamerican skull shapes differ greatly from what has been described among modern Native Americans!

Technically, there's another set of arguments that Solutrean culture from Europe seems to appear in the Americas before a land bridge crossing would have occurred, but Solutrean archaeologis have thrown cold water on that one. For one thing, there's little evidence of navigation with Solutreans. The counter to that is that an ice sheet connected southwestern Europe to North America. The counter to THAT is that the DNA of individuls recovered from that time period are more consistent with those from a Bering bridge connecting Asia and North America (there was a paper about that in February this year, based on an individual from Montana, dating back some 11-12000 years ago).

Last month, a few folks published on craniofacial and genetic evidence of an early American off Mexico. The suggestion from that team is that although the craniofacial features are consistent with typical Palaeoamericans, the mtDNA is much more like that of Asian populations.

Even more startling is work published this year in January. MtDNA analysis was performed on a south-central Siberian individual dating back 24000 years. Conclusion: that population, which had substantial gene flow with populations in western Eurasia, have a LOT of similarity with early American populations, but seem to have had substantial gene flow with the American populations AFTER those populations came over from East Asia.

[windsor]

The really interesting thing is that archeologists have started analyzing evidence that "Native Americans" came over the land bridge and found people of African descent who came over several thousand years before and kicked THEM out. Mind boggling. We'll have to see where that leads.

Umm, no. This is HIGHLY speculative and doesn't jibe with the genetic and archaeological evidence. One anthropologist suggested that an early skull looked like that of Africans or Pacific Islanders. As a physical anthropologist, the problem with that is that you are asssuming a much higher degree of accuracy of being able to judge ancestry based on skull shape than is currently the case. It also tends to assume that there's little within-group variation in human. That puppy just won't fly. And what's even more important, many Palaeoamerican skull shapes differ greatly from what has been described among modern Native Americans!

Technically, there's another set of arguments that Solutrean culture from Europe seems to appear in the Americas before a land bridge crossing would have occurred, but Solutrean archaeologis have thrown cold water on that one. For one thing, there's little evidence of navigation with Solutreans. The counter to that is that an ice sheet connected southwestern Europe to North America. The counter to THAT is that the DNA of individuls recovered from that time period are more consistent with those from a Bering bridge connecting Asia and North America (there was a paper about that in February this year, based on an individual from Montana, dating back some 11-12000 years ago).

Last month, a few folks published on craniofacial and genetic evidence of an early American off Mexico. The suggestion from that team is that although the craniofacial features are consistent with typical Palaeoamericans, the mtDNA is much more like that of Asian populations.

Even more startling is work published this year in January. MtDNA analysis was performed on a south-central Siberian individual dating back 24000 years. Conclusion: that population, which had substantial gene flow with populations in western Eurasia, have a LOT of similarity with early American populations, but seem to have had substantial gene flow with the American populations AFTER those populations came over from East Asia.

I would find a discussion of the science and theory of Palaeoamerican origins far more interesting than the original topic.

Fascinating stuff Lavabe!

(now...would Palaeoamericans be a suitable mascot... )

[DukePA]

I think that the mascot should be gone. There is one thing to consider when comparing Native American mascots to the Celtics or the Fighting Irish, Native Americans were, and are, oppressed by the majority. Irish descendants are among the white majority of this country. Sure they hard time when they were immigrants, just as other Caucasian groups did, but as time has passed, they have assimilated into the majority culture. I don't believe it's okay to exploit minorities and this is exactly what is happening with the use of Native American mascots. The Redskins and other organizations are raking in the money. If they really care about Native Americans, how about doing something to help the tribes, or at a minimum, treat them with respect and stop exploiting them.

I think okaying the use of one culture's identity, for lack of a better word, as a mascot but not another's is hypocritical. And while the Irish are accepted in society today more so than 100 years ago, we were not able to get jobs a 100 years ago, and the English handling of the potato famine is considered genocide in some circles. Heck, there were laws that Irish could not even own land in Ireland. To swipe it under the rug because we are no longer oppressed is a bit offensive. It's like saying "well, it's not happening today so let's not worry about." And, if you were an Irish Catholic, that was even worse than being just Irish both here and in Ireland. My paternal grandmother did not like my mother because she is Irish and Catholic. But, my grandmother's dead so I guess alls well that ends well.

I don't know if you were referring to my post, but I did not compare Native American mascots to anyones. The point I was trying to make was that Windsor said she does not favor a team name such as "Native Americans," nor would she support team names "Africans," "Asians," or "Arabs." I don't find offensive any of those terms offensive, and we do accept Celtic and Fighting Irish as team names because they are not derogatory they are descriptors. Native American, African, Asian, and Arab are all descriptors as well. If "we" as a society are going to allow Celtic and Irish to be used as team names, then I see nothing wrong with using other ethnic/race descriptors like "Native American," "African," "Asian," or "Arab." I NEVER compared using Native American mascots, just the term "Native American" as a team mascot as per Windsor's post.

Some Native American groups are active with the mascots some schools use, like FSU. I refer to Windsor's post above or on the previous page.

I was not referring to your post, just bringing another another argument into the discussion using examples that were put forth earlier.

[DukePA]

I've made my feelings and opinions clear and considered others'. There is a reason why we don't have a PPB here. I'm out.

[windsor]

I've made my feelings and opinions clear and considered others'. There is a reason why we don't have a PPB here. I'm out.

I hear ya sista! I say we rename the DC Metro area NFL franchise the Washington Clovis Points and be done with it.

[DukePA]

I've made my feelings and opinions clear and considered others'. There is a reason why we don't have a PPB here. I'm out.

I hear ya sista! I say we rename the DC Metro area NFL franchise the Washington Clovis Points and be done with it.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The really interesting thing is that archeologists have started analyzing evidence that "Native Americans" came over the land bridge and found people of African descent who came over several thousand years before and kicked THEM out. Mind boggling. We'll have to see where that leads.

Umm, no. This is HIGHLY speculative and doesn't jibe with the genetic and archaeological evidence. One anthropologist suggested that an early skull looked like that of Africans or Pacific Islanders. As a physical anthropologist, the problem with that is that you are asssuming a much higher degree of accuracy of being able to judge ancestry based on skull shape than is currently the case. It also tends to assume that there's little within-group variation in human. That puppy just won't fly. And what's even more important, many Palaeoamerican skull shapes differ greatly from what has been described among modern Native Americans!

Technically, there's another set of arguments that Solutrean culture from Europe seems to appear in the Americas before a land bridge crossing would have occurred, but Solutrean archaeologis have thrown cold water on that one. For one thing, there's little evidence of navigation with Solutreans. The counter to that is that an ice sheet connected southwestern Europe to North America. The counter to THAT is that the DNA of individuls recovered from that time period are more consistent with those from a Bering bridge connecting Asia and North America (there was a paper about that in February this year, based on an individual from Montana, dating back some 11-12000 years ago).

Last month, a few folks published on craniofacial and genetic evidence of an early American off Mexico. The suggestion from that team is that although the craniofacial features are consistent with typical Palaeoamericans, the mtDNA is much more like that of Asian populations.

Even more startling is work published this year in January. MtDNA analysis was performed on a south-central Siberian individual dating back 24000 years. Conclusion: that population, which had substantial gene flow with populations in western Eurasia, have a LOT of similarity with early American populations, but seem to have had substantial gene flow with the American populations AFTER those populations came over from East Asia.

I would find a discussion of the science and theory of Palaeoamerican origins far more interesting than the original topic.

Fascinating stuff Lavabe!

(now...would Palaeoamericans be a suitable mascot... )

Will he be named "Pal"?

[Miles]

The team name has to go but I'm bothered that only Washington has been called out.

I find everything about Daniel Synder to be offensive. The organization has been in decline since he has taken ownership and I now put my once beloved team on the same level as teams like the Cowboys and Raiders.

[CathyCA]

Wait a minute!



^This thing^ is supposed to be a dUck?

It looks like something else to me.

[windsor]

Wait a minute!



^This thing^ is supposed to be a dUck?

It looks like something else to me.

IT is not a DUCK quack quack quack - feathered water fowl

it is a GEODUCK (pronounced gooey-duck) it is a relative of the clam.

If you think the mascot looks like 'something else'

well...Here is what a real Geoduck looks like...

Bonus: They weigh on average 5 lbs...but can get up to 15lbs.

..and yes, this is on the list of stuff you can NOT get me drunk enough to eat.