• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Washington Commanders (official thread)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
From last year but still an interesting perspective, I believe.

Retired Native American chief would be offended if Redskins did change name - CBS Washington http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013...dskins-did-change-name/#.U6IMYS_o8HQ.facebook

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) - Days ago, ten members of Congress sent letters to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, and the team’s stadium naming rights holder FedEx, along with the league’s 31 other franchises, urging them to have ‘Redskins’ changed due to the name’s offensive nature.

In response, the longtime chief of a major Virginia-based tribe went on the record to say he’d actually be offended if the team DID change the name.

Robert “Two Eagles” Green, who retired from his presiding role over the 1300-member Patawomeck Tribe in March, was a guest on SiriusXM NFL Radio’s “The Opening Drive” on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Redskins' response: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/State...mark-Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf

And the text of the ruling: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/local/redskins-trademark-order/1105/

From the dissent:
Bergsman, Administrative Trademark Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to grant the petition on the claim of disparagement because the dictionary evidence relied upon by the majority is inconclusive and there is no reliable evidence to corroborate the membership of National Council of American Indians.
...
To be clear, this case is not about the controversy, currently playing out in the media, over whether the term “redskins,” as the name of Washington’s professional football team, is disparaging to Native Americans today. The provisions of the statute under which the Board must decide this case ... require us to answer a much narrower, legal question: whether the evidence made of record in this case establishes that the term “redskins” was disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time each of the challenged registrations issued.
...
The new petitioners here have filed a petition to cancel the same registrations on one of the same grounds asserted in the Harjo cancellation proceeding originally filed with the Board. Not only is this claim the same as one in the Harjo cancellation proceeding, but the evidence relating to whether the term “redskins” was disparaging to Native Americans during the relevant time period predominantly is the same as well. As noted by the majority, in this case the new petitioners re-submitted most of the same evidence that the Harjo petitioners submitted—evidence which the district court previously ruled was insufficient to support an order to cancel the challenged registrations as disparaging.
...
The new petitioners in this proceeding made the decision to simply re-use the trial record from the previous Harjo litigation, without substantial augmentation....
The consequence of petitioners’ decision to rely on the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation without substantial augmentation is that the evidence before the Board in this case remains insufficient as well.

By this dissent, I am not suggesting that the term “redskins” was not disparaging in 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990 (the registration dates at issue). Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was. ...
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Tanner said:
I'm not Mr. PC by any means but I think they should change it. It's obviously a slur. Just change the name. What's the big deal.
Click to expand...

That arguement turns on it's own self. If you're in support of changing the name and use the phrase " what's the big deal?" - then obviously, it's nothing . Because those who don't want to change the name aren't making a big deal of it.

Those that want the change are.
 
Upvote 0
I think it's ridiculous and inappropriate for a team to have a slur as its name. So in that sense it is a big deal. Why it's not a big deal is b/c it will have literally zero impact on the franchise if Snyder just changes the name to anything besides a racial slur.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky32 said:
What exactly is the political/electoral motivation behind this?
Click to expand...

Look at who has been publicly shaming the Redskins for the past months and then look at which side has an uphill battle this election season.

And come to think of it - look at what we're discussing here, a silly, meaningless name issue instead of what our government hasn't done in over 6 years, while the world is becoming increasingly hostile and while our economy is again stagnating.

It's pure symbolism and our political whores in DC have their hands all over it.
 
Upvote 0
Just someone's speculation on what Snyder might do in a few years: Pay for a new stadium and I'll change the name.


Daniel Snyder: Redskins have 'started process' of planning new stadium
Dan-Snyder-Redskins-new-stadium.final.jpg


Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has spent most of the offseason defending his team's controverisal name, but that's not all he's done recently. Snyder said on Wednesday that he's also been doing something else: He's been laying the ground work for a possible new stadium.

"Whether it's Washington, D.C., whether it's another stadium in Maryland, whether it's a stadium in Virginia, we've started the process," Snyder told CSN Washington.

Snyder didn't say when he'd like his new stadium to be completed by, but he did say that sooner would definitely be better.

"I'd like to see it sooner than later, but we love FedEx Field," Snyder said. "It's a great place to feature our home games, but it's 17 years old now. I think it's time for us to start looking and we're doing it.
.
.
.
Snyder didn't say how he was going to pay for the stadium, which is interesting, because the public might not be interested in giving him public money if they don't like the team's name.

On the other hand, the team name might not be a problem though. Former Redskins general manager Vinny Cerato said over the summer that he could see Snyder agreeing to change the name under one condition: If he got a new stadium.

Entire article: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...-have-started-process-of-planning-new-stadium

 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top