=VeritasLuxMea;12096942]Kinda feel mixed on this one. Both sides should show a little more sensitivity.** It is certainly a word that could be classified as a racial slur and that’s not cool.** Then again, it’s also got a whole lot of organizational history tied to it. I totally get why they want to keep it, but it gives me the creeps that people so easily dismiss any concerns about its usage. I wonder how this crowd would feel if it the team name was, say, the Tuscaloosa N***ers.
Unless you have evidence of the bolded:
In 1999 the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ordered
the cancellation of the trademarks of the Washington Redskins football
team after finding that the use of the word redskin was “scandalous” and
“may … disparage” Native Americans or “bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia reversed this decision on 30 September 2003, granting
summary judgment for Pro-Football, Inc., against Cheyenne-Creek
Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo and others. The court found that “the
TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence”
and that “the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the
case.”1 One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin
“had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps
as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments” 2 to accept that many find the
word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely
benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians
According to the court in 1999, what you state isn’t the case, and Goddard’s research seems to support the court’s ruling.
Was there a century of genocide against the Dutch in the States? I mean, I understand that the British conquered New Amsterdam, but…
The centuries (plural) of mistreatment of Native Americans is quite beside the point. The real question is at what point does the government, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights have the power to limit free speech in this way, even if the term is Redskin is offensive? It has none!!! And using a government agency as a device to skirt the 1st Amendment is nothing short of tyranny.
As for the Flying Dutchmen, you have made my point. The name is derived from the term “Pennsylvania Dutch”, as Annville is in central Pa. near Pennsylvania Dutch country. The fact is, however, that the Pennsylvania Dutch are not Dutch at all, but German. They were called “Dutch” by English speakers who mispronounced Deutsch [D oi tch].
Of course its silly. If LVC wants to have the nickname “Flying Dutchmen”, or Notre Dame the nickname "Fighting Irish (the Irish were persecuted here, BTW), and the NFL’s Washigton franchise wants the name Redskins, the government has no say in the matter, and using government agencies to bully them is, as I said , tyranny. Let the market forces determine what the name should be.