In The News Today...

Quote: AZDuffman

Denying an application and stealing one back that you already gave 80 years ago are two different things.

What they did to the Redskins is no different than telling the owners of the Empire State Building they no longer own it because today's zoning would not permit it.

Hold on. Yes, your argument might apply to the previous owners, including Jack Kent Cooke. But Dan Snyder is a different story. As I've mentioned, the Redskins lost their trademark on April 2, 1999 and Snyder bought the team on May 25, 1999. Snyder knew he was taking a big gamble on the trademark.

If a liquor store gets robbed on April 2nd, and a new owner buys the store on May 25th, the new owner can't whine & cry about being robbed.

Quote: AZDuffman

First, there is no wrong to right.

Not necessarily. That's why people go to court, and sometimes it is decided differently. I think the wrong is promoting this negative stereotype,

Quote: reno

Hold on. Yes, your argument might apply to the previous owners, including Jack Kent Cooke. But Dan Snyder is a different story. As I've mentioned, the Redskins lost their trademark on April 2, 1999 and Snyder bought the team on May 25, 1999. Snyder knew he was taking a big gamble on the trademark.

NO. It still applies. The team is a corporation (corporations are people) and had its property stolen from it. No matter who owns the stock, theft is theft.

What people do not realize is every time this kind of thing happens it is bad for America. Investors will not put money where it can be stolen just because the government does not like you.

Theft is theft. What the feds did is theft. Pure and simple.

Quote: rxwine

Not necessarily. That's why people go to court, and sometimes it is decided differently. I think the wrong is promoting this negative stereotype,

Anybody who does not like it is free to be a Eagles fan. There is no negative stereotype, teams name after things they wish to honor.

Just because someone is "offended" does not give them the right to be a thief.

Quote: AZDuffman

Without proof I have to call BS on our Constitution being based on systems of Indian tribal government. Please add some detail.

"Based" was improper word usage by me. Perhaps "influenced" would have been more appropriate.

Aren't the meetings between Canasatego and Ben Franklin, and the result, common knowledge?

Or the meaning of the bundle of arrows in the eagle's claws on the one dollar bill?

Or Congressional Resolution 331, passed in October of 1988?

Or the Gayanashagowa, or the Great Law of Peace, conceived by Deganawidah and Hiawatha which began "We, the people, to form a union, to establish peace, equity, and order..."?

A lawyer on Fox just said the owner has no
intention of not using the name and losing
the TM won't hurt him much. 90% of NA's
say they aren't offended by the name.

Quote: Face

"Based" was improper word usage by me. Perhaps "influenced" would have been more appropriate.

Still don't quite see it but will meet you part way. A big issue is "Indians" gets tossed about as if all tribes are the same. Some tribes were very hostile, one eventually flew the stars and stripes. Then everything in between. I do agree with EB that we often give too much an "idealized" version of things. As I have told here, I used to call out my PHS101 prof all the time to the point he all but made me his official adversary. But even he called out some students for how idealized they painted Indian life.

My thought is most Indaian tribes were not great to the envrionment for the simple reason they did not have the technology to be great to the envrionment. The poorer the society the worse they are on the envrionment.

Technology or lack of it did help do them in. Many if not most tribes were traders. But tech doomed them to lose. Take the case of beads. There were tribes that loved them. Same as Europeans liked gold that had no value to Indians. They were at first hard to make. But when the Americans made them in more quantity they got better trade in return. Repeat this for any number of items.

Quote: Evenbob

A lawyer on Fox just said the owner has no
intention of not using the name and losing
the TM won't hurt him much. 90% of NA's
say they aren't offended by the name.

The guy is an inspiration.

WHO IS DANIEL SNYDER? That has a ring to it!

Quote: AZDuffman

There is no negative stereotype, teams name after things they wish to honor.

Just because someone is "offended" does not give them the right to be a thief.

Aren't you from PA? Pittsburgh Pirates. They honor pirates and pirates steal. Perfect.

Quote: rxwine

Aren't you from PA? Pittsburgh Pirates. They honor pirates and pirates steal. Perfect.

It is why the Pirates got their name, they "stole" several players from other teams. A much more manly nickname than say "Magic" or as one liberal group suggested for Green Bay, "Pickers."

Meanwhile the FTC is fine with a trademark called "Uppity Negro."

In other news, we await Harry Reid's condemnation of the Red Mesa High School Redskins football teams' name. With a nearly 100% Navajo population, btw.