Idle thought

I see the U.S. Supreme Court has declined a cert to review the trademark protection for the name of the Washington Redskins. A group of American Indians has challenged the protection because under the law you may not trademark a racially offensive term. The group won 10 years ago before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, but the NFL franchise appealed and won in federal court on the grounds the group had not been timely in their challenge. (The name was taken when the franchise moved from Boston to Washington in 1937.)

Among my Indian acquaintances the name is considered offensive. A boss I had in Washington many years ago, a long-time Redskins fan and season ticket owner, told me he couldn’t understand what was offensive about it. He was African-American. I asked if he would approve of a racially equivalent name.

You know, the Washington Darkies.

On the other hand.

3 thoughts on “Idle thought”

  1. I think that there has been too much sensitivity on this subject. The move to change the University of Illinois from the “Fighting Illini” is an example. The Illini were an Algonquin tribe native to what is now Illinois, and gave their name to the state. Naming an Illinois team “The Fighting Illini” seems to me to be as much an embrace of history as it is anything else.

    That said, if I were in Redskins management, I’d be exploring other branding opportunities, because “Redskins” isn’t going to survive. Your comparison to “darkies” is apt. Though, to be honest, I think there’s be a certain performance art value to renaming the team “The Honkies.”

  2. I think the NCAA has been capricious in its handling of this (as they are with most things). They let William and Mary keep the name Tribe, but ordered the removal of a feather from the logo.

    What’s distasteful to me isn’t Indian names (Seminoles), but racial slurs (which the term redskins was) — and racial characterizations. Why has the Cleveland Indian mascot not disappeared along with the Frito Bandito?

  3. There is an AWFUL lot of room between the names “Fightin’ Illini” and “Redskins.”

    Nobody has a problem with the “Fighting Irish,” but you don’t see any teams named the “Drunken Micks.”

    I can’t understand how anyone could condone a team using the name “Redskins,” particularly if one knows the probable origin of the word – as a term used by trappers to describe how many American Indian scalps they brought to the trading post for payment (along with bear skins, deer skins, buffalo skins, etc.).

Comments are closed.