by InnyaFacce on Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:49 am
The Washington Redskins name controversy involves the name and logo of the Washington Redskins which has been a source of controversy between its owners, certain Native American groups, fans, and the United States government. Some Native American groups insist that the term redskin is a racial epithet, and as such, it perpetuates demeaning stereotypes of Native Americans. Numerous civil rights, educational, athletic, and academic organizations consider any use of native names/symbols by non-native sports teams to be a harmful form of ethnic stereotyping which should be eliminated. Others believe that the name is honoring the achievements and virtues of Native Americans, and that it is not intended in a negative manner. Former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke said "I admire the Redskins name. I think it stands for bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to use it." These differing opinions have led to controversy, protests and legislative action.
The origin of the word "redskin" is debated. Some scholars say that the word was coined by early settlers in reference to the skin tone of Native Americans. Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus Ives Goddard asserts that the actual origin of the word is benign and reflects more positive aspects of early relations between Native Americans and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. That context was the need for a term that all could use in negotiating treaties during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It is later that the term became more pejorative. A linguistic analysis of books published between 1875 and 1930 show an increasingly negative context in the use of redskin, often in association with "dirty", "lying", etc.; while benign or positive usage such as "noble" redskin were used in a condescending manner. The term continued in common use until the 1960s, as evidenced in Western movies, but is now largely considered a pejorative and is seldom used publicly aside from football teams. As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.
Legal Action
In 1992, Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, joined forces with other prominent Native Americans as well as the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis and petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They based their lawsuit on the idea that federal trademark law states that certain trademarks are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable." The legal battle went on for seven years and in 1999 the judges canceled the federal trademarks of the Redskin name "on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute."
Upon the news that the Redskins had been sold, the owners appealed the decision to a district court in the District of Columbia in Pro-Football, Inc. vs. Harjo. The court reversed the decision on the grounds of insufficient evidence of disparagement. Subsequent appeals have been rejected on the basis of laches, which means that the Native Americans had pursued their rights in an untimely and delayed manner. However a second case, Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., with younger plaintiffs whose standing might not be hindered by laches is proceeding in 2013. If the trademark were canceled, the Washington Redskins would be able to keep the name and many of their federally trademarked rights, but they may lose millions of dollars worth of merchandise sales.
DAS SCHLOĆ āŖ DOUBLES āŖ F/S āŖ 222 FROM 225 [99%] BEST WINNING STREAK āŖ 92-0
